Bill C-33 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

This enactment amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to provide for the efficient regulation of fuels.
It also provides for a periodic and comprehensive review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada by a committee of Parliament.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

moved that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is pleasure to lead off the debate on this bill today. It is very apropos.

Before I get into the meat of my speech, I would ask for unanimous consent to split my time with my parliamentary secretary.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Is there unanimous consent for the minister to split his time in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre says that I owe him one and if it is just one, that is not too bad. I know the interest will pile up very quickly. He is a tough guy to deal with, Mr. Speaker, and you know that.

It is very apropos to have this bill before us today. Many of us enjoyed the camaraderie at the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association event last night in room 200, and everyone had a great time. It is a tremendous organization. This bill is the genesis of a lot of work it has done with the government to build the biofuels industry in Canada.

We are playing a bit of catch-up. The Americans and other countries like Brazil and so forth are light years ahead of us in getting this done. We are happy to work with them to make that happen, to get us an industry that will help us to start to meet our greenhouse gas commitments, which we are taking on globally.

This was a joint work piece between Environment Canada, Natural Resources Canada and my department at Agriculture Canada. Farmers will play a huge role in the way we will roll this out.

The amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act are starting a job that will lead our nation and perhaps the world into an era of greater environmental sustainability. Currently the act provides authority for the regulation of sellers, producers and importers of fuel.

The proposed amendments in Bill C-33 will provide the additional authorities needed to make efficient national regulations requiring renewable fuel content in Canadian fuel. The authorities we are seeking include: the authority to regulate at point of fuel blending; authority to track exports; and exemption for small volume producers and importers. This is another example of how our government is taking concrete action to promote biofuels production in Canada, acting as a catalyst to an industry that is going to have wide sweeping benefits.

As the Prime Minister has said, the domestic and global appetite for more environmentally friendly sources of energy is growing by the day. Canada is and will remain an energy superpower. We rank fifth in the world in total energy production, which is amazing. We are America's largest supplier of oil, natural gas, electricity and uranium. With the government's actions today, we are on our way to becoming a clean energy superpower adding biofuels to that list.

In December 2006, the government began to move Canada toward smarter consumption by announcing our intention to require a 5% average renewable content in gasoline by 2010. We also signalled our objective to develop a similar requirement of 2% renewable content in diesel fuel and heating oil by 2012.

Meeting these requirements will make a real difference for the Canadian environment and overall the globe. Reaching these targets will be the equivalent of taking almost one million cars off our highways. That is substantive. Close to three billion litres of renewable fuels will be needed annually to meet the requirements of these new regulations. It is a very substantive start.

Canadian production in 2007 was about one billion litres, so the expansion will represent tremendous economic opportunity for Canada's 61,000 grain and oilseeds producers, and they welcome the challenge.

With the transportation sector accounting for more than one-quarter of Canada's greenhouse gas outputs, increasing the renewable fuel content in gasoline will put a huge dent in emissions.

The health and well-being of Canadians depends on the quality of both our environment and our economy. They do go hand in hand.

The government has announced $200 million in funding for the ecoagricultural biofuels capital initiative designed to encourage agriculture producer investment in biofuels production facilities and that is through my department.

We have recently announced the first two contribution agreements under this program for a new biodiesel plant in Alberta and an ethanol plant in Saskatchewan, which I had the pleasure to attend the opening. It happens to be in my riding. It is at Unity, Saskatchewan. It is a component of the North West Terminal, a privately owned farmer producer owned terminal, which is now expanding into the ethanol industry. I welcome its tremendous input in designing a lot of what we are doing.

The gentlemen on the ground there, chaired by Gerald Rewerts and Merv Slater, Bill Fraser and Jason Skinner, the manager of the facility and his dad, Jim Skinner, the chair of the board, put together a lot of ideas and worked with us to develop a lot of regulatory positions and so on that would help them. I give them a tremendous amount of credit for taking the time to educate us in the real world of ethanol and biofuel capacities. They have done a tremendous job.

We expect to sign several more agreements with other plants, with farmer participation, in the very near future.

As well, we have invested $20 million in the biofuels opportunities for producers initiative, or BOPI as everybody knows it. This initiative provides assistance to biofuels related projects across Canada with farmer representation in it. About 120 have applied for these funds. It helps them design their business plans.

This will help reinvigorate rural Canada, and we know so well that rural communities often find themselves isolated. They have higher transportation costs. Everything costs more to get there. Changing over to biofuels will help our environment. It will also help these people feel like they are tied back into mainstream Canada.

Producers will be able to contract with and ship to a processor in the nearest town rather than halfway around the world. That will save energy as well.

These new plants are great news for our farmers, providing a new market for their wheat, corn, canola and potentially other crops as we start to design high starch products, higher oil commodities to give us a broader range of feed stocks. It is all good news.

All of this presents an exciting new market for Canadian farmers. Biofuels production is helping farmers grow their businesses while creating new jobs, especially in rural communities. Biofuels offer economic benefits to farmers and communities by providing an alternate local market for their production of grains and oilseeds.

We will continue to feed the world and supply energy too. There is a lot of discussion out there that we have to do one or the other, but we cannot do both. We have the capability, with our modern agricultural techniques and our climbing yields per acre. They have been increasing for decades. This is part of the problem that our grains and oilseeds sector faced over the last number of years. They got too darned efficient. They got too good at what they did. They are looking for another stream of production to work their products into. This is the answer to the questions they have asked.

We have no problem keeping up with the demand for our supply of safe, secure quality food we produce on our farms, but we can also supply that energy market and have the expertise to market both commodities as well as supply the domestic demand. I know my producers are up to that job, and I know yours in Manitoba are too, Mr. Speaker. They are looking forward to that challenge. They are that efficient.

Looking beyond grain and oilseed based fuels, the government understands that biofuel technologies are evolving every day, and that is a fact. We have had some great work done at the University of Saskatchewan. We have had other universities and private sector initiatives working on facilities as well, and the sky is the limit. These folks are moving well ahead.

We have invested $500 million in new technology that will take waste products such as wheat straw and wood chips and turn them into valuable commodities to create cleaner burning renewable fuels.

We have also seen a lot of work done on methane recapture. We have seen a tremendous amount of work being done on biodigesters. We are seeing slaughter facilities that are able to take the parts and pieces of cattle, the SRM, specific risk materials, and work them in such a way that they are generating a diesel product out of that type of commodity.

I have had discussions with the McCain folks in Brandon, a large facility. They slaughter some 1,300 hogs an hour. They are taking a lot of the waste products and running them into biodigesters. They have a line that will start to turn biodiesel out of that end of the facility as well. It is all good news.

We are taking that product out of the landfills. We are taking it out of the environmental concerns by turning it into biodiesel and bioethanol products. It is just a tremendous opportunity to move ahead.

In July Prime Minister Harper announced an investment of $1.5 billion over nine years—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the minister, but he knows he is not supposed to refer to the Prime Minister by name, or anybody else for that matter.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I guess he is so well known across Canada, I do not have to do an advertisement for him.

The Prime Minister, whom everybody loves, made an announcement of $1.5 billion over nine years under ecoenergy for biofuels. This is a tremendous incentive program for producers of renewable alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuel. In total, we are investing some $2.2 billion over nine years in biofuel development across our great country.

When it comes to biofuels, the facts are clear. Biofuels will increasingly provide a cleaner burning, renewable energy source for all Canadians. Across the board, biofuels reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, pure ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by about 40% over its entire life cycle. That is tremendous news.

This is why we are looking ahead to the next generation of biofuels development such as wheat straw, corn stover, wood residue and switchgrass.

The government is not just investing in biofuels. We are investing in Canada's future. We are focusing on innovation. We are supporting farmers in their tradition as good stewards of the land. A strong biofuels sector will contribute to a stronger foundation for farmers, communities and all Canadians.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals are supportive of renewable fuels. We put millions of dollars into biodiesel and ethanol in the past, and we are supportive of that direction.

I have a question. Could the member outline for us, because I am sure the department would have done a lot of research on this, the effects of the major ethanol industry in Canada and the United States on our farmers.

Has it caused an increase in the price of corn? If that has occurred, has it therefore been of help to our farmers? I assume it would be. Have other food industries in Canada that use corn as an input been affected? What is the department's analysis on those types of impacts?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Those are quite broad reaching questions, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, there have been studies done. For every gain there is always a cost. We have certainly seen the price of corn skyrocket, go up by tremendous gains. We have seen the price of barley and some of the wheat feedstocks and so on go up. There is some gain to farmers overall. There is a gain there. There is no doubt about that.

The downside at this point is that we do not have enough production, that there is enough distiller's grain, which they can now use as feedstocks with some additives, into the livestock sector to offset the higher cost of corn, barley et cetera. We are in that transition period between the greater good for everyone and everybody getting a fair slice of what will come.

I have no doubt at all that within the next two to three years, as a lot of plants come online, that it will lower the cost of feedstocks to the livestock and hog sectors, and everybody will gain by this.

We will also benefit by having a quality product. One of the highest inputs for the livestock sector and the grain sector is fuel. When we rely on fossil fuels, we do not control the cost to the same extent as we do when it is our canola in our facility in the next little town, which we are able to buy back when it is blended and used. There is a tremendous amount of opportunity out there.

The member started off by talking about the Liberals supporting this initiative. I welcome that. I am hopeful that we can pass this piece of legislation very quickly. I do not want to see games played with these types of initiatives as we are seeing with justice bills and so on. However, I know their hearts are in the right place. I know that no one wants to stand in the way of an increased value at the farm gate, so I welcome the hon. member's intervention.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech outlined some of the conditions within which the government wishes to promote biofuels. Biofuels are a very large component these days in many countries as they attempt to change their energy forums.

I had the opportunity to visit Brazil. I talked to many people there about the efforts they are making on biofuels. I saw the service stations where not only mixed gasoline-ethanol can be bought, but pure ethanol can be bought as well. It is a very large industry there with its own particular issues.

I noted the comment of the member. He said that we are playing catch-up in this world right now with the biofuels industry, and there is no doubt about that.

The question I have is, will we make the same mistakes that other countries have made with the biofuels? Will we make the same mistakes in this country, or will we learn from what the world has experienced with the development of the biofuels industry in order to ensure that our biofuels industry, our attempt, works better and gives a very solid future for Canadians?

The hon. member talked about getting a million cars off the road. He also talked about a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the use of the biofuel. I will not argue with him, but the Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner in a report a year and a half ago talked about a 20% improvement, using ethanol in the mix, that was assigned in terms of the life cycle of that product and the energy used to produce it.

Which is the number the hon. member is using? Does a million cars off the road represent the 20% improvement in CO₂ emissions, the 40% improvement in CO₂ emissions--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

We will have to stop it right there and give the minister an opportunity to respond.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, there are questions that should be asked of the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Natural Resources. Those are outside the purview of my agricultural department.

I am speaking from a farm-based related situation. I did make mention of the million cars off the road. That is statistically correct. There are efficiencies to be gained.

The member talks about the Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner making a statement a year and a half ago. The generation that we are facing now, a year and a half is ancient history. Any computer that is a year and a half old is now junk. Statements that were made a year and a half ago about the validity of this or the change in that are not of the same scope that they are today. That is how I would answer that point.

There is a tremendous opportunity for all Canadians to benefit from this. The biodiesel that we are going to produce is going to have excellent lubricity. It is going to have cold weather starting. It is actually better than fossil fuel diesel. We do have the same capability to use E85. In fact, my car is an E85 and a lot of the half tonne trucks that are running around at home now are E85. They have the capability to burn 85% ethanol.

We have had higher degrees of ethanol and my colleague mentioned that too. We have had 100% ethanol and even 150 proof, but we used to call that moonshine.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, that is a hard act to follow. Our illustrious Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is certainly a good advocate for the farmer. He insists on putting farmers first, as does Bill C-33. I am, like the minister, very honoured to speak to Bill C-33 today.

It was about a year ago that the federal government first announced that it intended to introduce regulations as part of a national renewable strategy.

The regulations would require a 5% renewal content in gasoline by 2010. We also signalled our intention to develop a similar requirement of 2% for diesel fuel and heating oil by 2012.

Bill C-33 will enable the government to work with interested stakeholders as we develop regulations for renewable fuel content.

Approximately one-quarter of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions come from the transportation sector. The introduction of 5% renewable fuel content in gasoline and a further 2% in diesel will help significantly in reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector.

The volume of renewable fuel required under this initiative is expected to contribute to achieving a four megatonnes reduction in greenhouse gas each and every year. That is the greenhouse gas reduction equivalent, as the minister said, of taking approximately one million cars off the highways. It is the same effect.

I believe that the 5% average renewable content in gasoline and the 2% renewable fuel content in diesel fuel and heating oil are ambitious targets. There is no question. Together they equate to almost 3 billion litres of renewable fuels per year.

The government's renewable fuels initiatives are very important, for not only will they have a significant impact in terms of reducing emissions but they will also provide much needed financial support to Canada's farming industry. As we know, this minister and this department are here to put farmers first.

Industry is already moving quickly to ensure that it secures its place in what will become a very lucrative market, but industry cannot do it alone. That is why in the last federal budget the Prime Minister set aside $1.5 billion over seven years for biofuel producers to assist in the development of our government's long term renewable fuels strategy.

On November 2 my two caucus colleagues, the Minister of the Environment and the member of Parliament for Leeds—Grenville, were in Johnstown, just an hour from here, where they announced that the Government of Canada was contributing $15 million to assist GreenField Ethanol with construction of an ethanol plant in Johnstown, Ontario.

According to GreenField Ethanol estimates, this new facility will remove an estimated 370 tonnes of carbon dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere each and every year and it is expected to remove 9.25 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over the life of the plant.

Shortly thereafter, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance was in Aldersyde, Alberta, representing the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, where he announced that the federal government through the federal ecoagriculture biofuels capital initiative would contribute $638,000 to help build a biodiesel plant in that area.

For those who are not familiar with the ecoABC initiative, it is a federal $200 million four year program that provides repayable contributions for the contribution or expansion of transportation biofuel production facilities. It is designed to provide an opportunity for agricultural producers to diversify their economic base and participate in the biofuels industry through equity investment ownership in the biofuels production facilities.

These are but a few examples of the government taking action to reduce our dependence on greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels and promoting a cleaner biofuels industry.

This is an exciting time for the biofuels industry. I expect, as demand for biofuels increases and as Canadians and industry adapt to this new product and technology, we will see a significant rise in the production of biofuels which will mean a huge financial boost to our farming community and, as I mentioned, a significant decrease in our greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada is not alone in turning to renewable fuels as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The United States has regulations requiring 4.7% renewable fuel content in gasoline and is moving to higher levels. The European Union has already set a 5.7% target to be reached by 2010.

This government has never claimed that its biofuel initiative will be the ultimate solution to reducing greenhouse gases linked to climate change. What we have said is that it is an important piece of that puzzle.

In addition to our actions on renewable fuels, these programs include eco-energy initiatives, the eco-transport strategy, the trust fund for clean air and climate change, and support for public transport. Each of these initiatives on its own will not achieve our desired objectives. However, together they will provide Canadians and our international partners with the kind of results that they had demanded and expected from the previous government but never received, which explains why Canada is presently at 33% above Kyoto targets.

In summary, the Minister of the Environment and all members of this government are committed to working on ways to lower carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. This bill is not only good news for our environment, it is also good news for our farmers who will benefit from this new market opportunity.

Farmers around the world are harnessing the potential of biofuel development and our new government is proud to help Canadian farmers lead the way. I am looking forward to having the support of all members opposite.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of the House appreciate the overview that has been given by our colleague from the government.

There has always been a controversy with respect to our strategic plan and positioning between ethanol that is grain based and cellulose based. We should factor in to that particular question a recent comment made with respect to a worldwide projection of a grain shortage. Many countries are re-adapting their agriculturally based output of ethanol to a grain based technology. I wonder if the member would make a comment with respect to that.

We all agree with the objectives that the member has outlined with respect to the environmental implications and so on. Is there any cause for concern with respect to that kind of a strategy when those kinds of concerns in fact are being expressed by, and pardon the pun, seasoned commentators who are quite aware of what the implications could be?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question is a valid one and does not have an easy answer.

This is the beginning. We are starting out in an industry that is very fragile and is in its infant stages. As the minister spoke about a little earlier, already things are moving very rapidly in this industry. With new technology it is improving all the time.

Already cellulose and cornstalks are being used in the production of ethanol and we are moving ahead at a very rapid pace. Undoubtedly, there are some dangers we want to monitor. We want to be on top of our food production. We do not want to sacrifice our food production for fuel necessarily, but there are many experts who will say that this is certainly manageable.

The important thing is that finally our farmers have a chance to open up a whole new market, and what a wonderful market. As the minister said, a lot of these things at one time were considered waste and were a cost to dispose of but now will be able to be used for profit. That has made farmers in this country open their eyes to the opportunity to move ahead in a profitable, sustainable manner.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to have a very active debate in Parliament on this issue because we are speaking not simply of agricultural policy but we are investing $1.7 billion in a greenhouse gas reduction program. Clearly that is the driving force behind this as well and the selling part of what we are doing here today.

Could the parliamentary secretary inform us as to analysis that took place? Perhaps he could comment on the opportunities for the use of biomass in heating and in many other forms and the use of biomass in the production of ethanol. What is the relationship between costs and greenhouse gas reduction and the opportunities that exist in Canada? Was that kind of study a part of the development of this bill?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague seems to have a penchant for knowing the intricacies that I in all honesty am not totally aware of, but I do know that we have some people in the ministry of the environment who would be glad to answer his specific enquiries.

I would like to mention a couple of quotes from some reputable people who seem to indicate that we are on the right path. I would like to quote something from the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association. Its president, Gordon Quaiattini, said:

Oil at $100 makes the case for biofuels crystal clear. The price of oil is simply too high and too unreliable. We must continue to diversify our fuel supply.

He went on to say in the Ontario Farmer--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but he does have one of his own colleagues who is really eager to ask him a question and I am trying to get it in.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Agriculture for bringing forward this bill. This is a great story. It is a win-win-win any way we look at it. It is a win for the environment. It is a win for farmers across this country. It is a win for rural development.

There are two biodiesel plants already operational in my riding. They have just opened their doors and are starting to crush canola and make biodiesel because of these programs. This is creating local jobs. It is creating an opportunity for local supply. This is a great thing for Canada right across the board.

There have been concerns raised about a potential food shortage, grain shortage. We have to understand what is really happening. There have been tremendous crop failures in Australia, South America and parts of Europe. That is why we have a grain shortage. It has nothing to do with biofuels.

What we are trying to do definitely stimulates the marketplace for farmers. We want to make sure that our farmers can make a living off the land and from the marketplace, and not live out of the mailbox. This is what it attempts to do and it really does start to drive the market that way.

Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could comment about the need to have more options in the fuel market. Right now, farmers are at the mercy of a few oil and gas suppliers and this actually provides a more diverse market.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to thank my colleague for his comments. Coming from an established farmer and the chair of the agricultural committee, his words are very wise.

Yes, undoubtedly this would give options to farmers to not only have their fuel supply at a lower cost but to make more money on their farm. This will give them an extra option where to sell their grains. This is what we want to do as a government. We want to put farmers first. We want to give them a chance to have sustainable farms on an ongoing basis. I am so glad to see that there is unanimity about moving this bill forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Bill Blaikie]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Citizenship and Immigration; the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Forest Industry; the hon. member for Davenport, Infrastructure.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-33 sets out to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in an important way.

The bill, for Canadians who are watching or who will read the transcripts of this debate, is really about expanding the scope that the Minister of the Environment has to regulate fuels in Canada. In fact, the brief summary of the bill says that the entire bill is merely to provide for what they say is the efficient regulation of fuels and the new measures that it puts forward are administrative in nature and give the government more control on regulations.

For example, the government enhances its ability to regulate fuel produced in Canada that is to be exported. Regulations can be made regarding the blending of fuels, how we mix them and in what percentages, an obvious nod as we have heard to the expanding biofuel industry. It also expands the basis upon which a government can distinguish between different kinds of fuels. It is fundamentally a housekeeping bill. There is really nothing in the bill that will immediately affect any commercial interest or immediately require any fuel producer or vendor to do anything. It is a very preliminary step that will allow the government to regulate all kinds of fuel within the same regulatory regime.

From that perspective, it is an improvement over the current wording of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The official opposition supports the bill in principle and we look forward to discussing the merits and the parameters of any new regulations that will come from the bill when it gets to committee.

That being said, I would like to continue with my remarks in three separate ways. First, I would like to talk about the government's setting of a 5% ethanol standard in Canada. I would like to talk about the incoherence of that new target that is forthcoming with the changes the government is bringing about to the excise tax exemption. Finally, I would like to talk about how this fits, or does not fit, into a climate change plan which frankly has been completely discredited by all third party observers in Canada.

This morning we saw news reports that four major Canadian provinces, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec, have decided to no longer wait for the federal government in terms of coming up with a coherent climate change plan. They are going to go it alone. They are looking at designing their own cap and trade system. They are looking at the potential of fungible trading, trading that can happen between Canada and Canadian provinces and American states, for example.

This is happening at a time when the government is bringing in a minor technical adjustment bill to allow for the regulation of new fuels, which is only a very small part of what should be a coherent national climate change response.

Let us talk about Bill C-33 and what it actually will do if the government is going to follow through, as the environment minister and the agriculture minister have both said, with a 5% national ethanol mandate by 2010.

First, the official opposition has been calling for a 10% ethanol position since last January when the Leader of the Opposition challenged the government in a speech to Saskatchewan farmers in Regina to increase to 10% what had already been put forward in our election documentation of 2006 calling for a 5% ethanol content.

It is important for Canadians to know that all car manuals, in every car sold in Canada today, tells car owners that today they can in fact use a 10% ethanol content in their engines as they run their cars.

We know that if we had a 10% mandate in Canada as opposed to the weaker 5% put forward by the government, it would double the amount required to some four billion litres a year, a figure already surpassed in terms of those plants that are presently operating, under construction and being financed. When the Minister of Agriculture and his parliamentary secretary speak about supporting our farming community, one has to ask the question, why is the government pursuing such an unambitious target of 5%?

In fact, in late June the former minister of agriculture labelled the official opposition leader's call for 10% as “overly aggressive”, which the Canadian Report on Ruel Ethanol says is in itself an excessive term given that Ontario, the country's largest gasoline market, is already moving from an existing annual average E5 requirement to 10% starting in 2010. Why is the federal government lagging behind the province that consumes the largest amount of gasoline in the country? There is no explanation so far.

It is interesting to note as well that the Renewable Fuels Association that was quoted just moments ago by the parliamentary secretary is in fact driving for a 10% ethanol content. It says that since today all car manuals allow for 10% ethanol, this means that the government's legislation will allow for two years of the use of sub-environmental quality gasoline, that is, 5% ethanol, but two years later such blends have to be increased to at least match the level allowed for in 100% of all car manuals.

Thus, even the Renewable Fuels Association and its president Gord Quaiattini, who was just quoted by the parliamentary secretary, are opposed to the government's standard. Some consultation. Some leadership. All of this, of course, is in the context of the climate change plan.

Let us talk for a few minutes about the science behind ethanol and greenhouse gas reductions. Three or four colleagues have raised questions about the merits of one form of ethanol derived from one plant substance over another form of ethanol derived from yet another plant substance. Let us talk a bit about that.

I was quite astounded, in fact, to hear the Minister of Agriculture tell the House that this is his bill but he is unable to speak about the environmental considerations that ought to be paramount with respect to what he is trying to accomplish here.

We know that the environmental impact of ethanol depends very much on the raw materials and the production process used to make it. Studies of corn based ethanol, which is the most common form in North America, vary in how much greenhouse gases can actually be reduced. Some studies say there can be a net positive effect, while other studies say there can be a net negative effect. It depends on how it is measured.

Berkeley University found that corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by about 13%, whereas another form of ethanol called cellulosic ethanol would produce about 85% fewer greenhouse gases than gasoline. That is 13% for corn and 85% for cellulosic ethanol. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions per mile driven, gas with 10% ethanol lowers emissions by 2% and E85 lowers emissions by 23% for corn based ethanol and 64% for cellulosic.

There are major concerns, realistic concerns, that heretofore we have not seen even mentioned by the government and we hope to see these debated in committee.

As we heard from the minister recently, the new demand for corn to produce ethanol is inflating corn prices, raising the price of both corn based products and other commodities that use corn as feed, such as beef, pork, and milk, for example. It raises the price of substitute crops, particularly as farmers switch to corn and produce less of the other crops. Some argue it could harm our exports of corn based or corn fed products. The proponents, those who favour corn based ethanol, say there is still a crop surplus carried over each year and that yields are growing.

Here is something else. We know that even small increases in grain costs harm poor people the most and could exacerbate world hunger. The often cited example is the price of tortillas in Mexico, which doubled in 2006, a year of record United States corn prices. Mexico gets 80% of its imported corn from the United States.

Here is another factor. Corn is energy and water intensive and is a highly polluting crop to grow. We have to be honest about this. It requires large amounts of fertilizer, pesticides and fuel to grow, harvest and dry, not to mention transport. It contributes to soil erosion and water pollution. It is a major cause of nitrogen runoff, which can create oxygen-starved dead zones in our water bodies, an extremely important issue for Canada.

Some people are concerned that the increased use of E85 as a motor fuel may lead to increased smog and health effects, but there I do not think the research is conclusive.

Sometimes when farmers rush to convert to or increase the production of corn or sugar cane or other crops for ethanol, there is a fear that the conversion of forests or wilderness to farmland will not only harm biodiversity but may negatively affect the net greenhouse gas reductions of ethanol use.

Even with major increases in ethanol production, ethanol is an expensive drop in the bucket in terms of reducing overall emissions. It is an expensive per tonne process to reduce our greenhouse gases. That is why cellulosic ethanol, which is often called second generation technology ethanol and uses waste material and switchgrass, et cetera, offers the real hope for significant reductions in GHG emissions.

Corn based ethanol has a net positive effect, I believe, but is not holding out the same promise. I think the government ought to be putting forward a policy where everything possible that can be done to direct the industry toward the next generation of ethanol development should happen if we really want the environmental benefits without as many drawbacks.

Yet there is another angle that deserves to be raised, and that is the incoherence between the government's purported 5% ethanol content regulation and what it is actually doing when it comes to taxation policy for these very fuels.

On April 1, just two months from now, the government will repeal the excise tax exemption for biodiesel and ethanol fuels. We know the effect of the repeal on low level blends is small, and maybe even minimal, but we know the additional taxes are substantial for higher blends. The price of what they call B50, for example, will increase by 2¢ a litre. The price of E85 will increase dramatically, by 8.5¢ a litre, hardly making the fuel competitive.

The tax increases come at a time when this early stage industry needs traction to establish a foothold in Canada's refueling market. There are 31 vehicle models today on the road in the Canadian market, 31 different kinds of vehicles that can use E85, but there are only two full-fledged E85 retail stations in the country compared to 1,200 in the United States.

Higher level blends are better for the environment than lower level blends. So what does the government do? It removes the tax subsidy, thereby driving up the cost of the substitute so that it is not competitive in the market at the retail stations and in fact pricing it over the $120 oil, as we have seen through analysis.

On this side of the House, we are really having a hard time reconciling how these two actually connect. In fact, we do not think they do at all. We think that the Minister of Finance took a decision on this particular excise tax exemption without talking to his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, who obviously did not talk to his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, all of this in a government that purports to have a special cabinet committee where energy, environment and the economy come together. We are trying to figure out how they do come together.

My colleague, the member for Newton—North Delta, who is the official opposition critic for competitiveness and the new economy, has been raising this issue now for some months. It is falling on deaf ears with the government. He is trying to reconcile, for example, how a major company in his own riding or close to it, Cascadia Biofuels, has cancelled its plans to become the first retailer of E85 ethanol in B.C. because it is now going to be unaffordable to sell. What kind of market incentive are we creating?

In my own riding of Ottawa South, the largest single manufacturer of enzymes to produce cellulosic ethanol, Iogen Corporation, located just 30 or 40 blocks from here, is now getting very worried about the production processes and the ultimate costing of ethanol in Canada, more particularly in my home province of Ontario, where the provincial government in its wisdom set a 10% standard there as opposed to a meeker and less ambitious 5%.

For Canadians, all of this has to be seen in the context of climate change policy. Let us take a look, as the parliamentary secretary suggested, at the climate change policy of the government. Let us see where it is actually at today.

First of all, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told the government, all parliamentarians and all Canadians that we need to contain temperature increases to between 2° and 2.4° if possible. We will only be able to do that, it says, if we stabilize emissions within 15 years and cut them in half by 2050. We have to stabilize in 15 years and cut emissions in half by 2050 or we play Russian roulette with the atmosphere. That is the choice. The IPCC has told us.

It reminds me of the old advertisement on television for FRAM oil filters. The first shot was of a mechanic standing at the window who was saying “you can pay me now for your oil filter”, while the next shot was the car being wheeled in, obviously broken down, with the mechanic saying “or you can pay me later”. This is what we are talking about when we talk about a functioning atmosphere: pay now or pay later.

The Stern review, conducted by the former chief economist at the World Bank on the economics of climate change, said that the costs of ignoring climate change would be 5% to 20% of GDP, more than the cost of two world wars and the Great Depression combined. In contrast, the cost of tackling the problem now can be limited to 1% of global GDP, if we act now.

The IPCC report also says there are already many effective low-cost options available to developed countries like Canada to reduce greenhouse gases: financial incentives, and we have just talked about one, the excise fuel tax; deploying existing technologies; tradeable permits and carbon credits, something missing from the government's climate change plan; renewable power investments, cut since the government came to power; and voluntary programs.

Here is another study. Just four months ago, McKinsey & Company, the largest and most respected management consulting firm in the world, showed that a great deal could be achieved in the fight against climate change without placing an undue burden on the economy if governments were to provide incentives for the development and deployment of green technologies. The study concludes that the annual worldwide costs for making the needed emissions reductions to avoid worse climate change is only 0.6% of that year's projected GDP in 2030.

I could go on. The litany of failure on the government's climate change plan has now been well detailed by the C.D. Howe Institute, Deutsche Bank, the Pembina Institute and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the Conservative government's own board, have told the government its plan is baseless and will not achieve their targets in any way. In fact, not a single third party observer has put forward a shred of evidence to substantiate that its plan will work.

Once again, we see the government's incoherence. The Environment Minister , the Finance Minister and the Agriculture Minister do not speak to each other because they could not even get a basic policy straight as a subset of the climate change plan, a plan which has now been widely discredited throughout Canadian society.

Those are my remarks. I welcome any questions and comments from my colleagues.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-33 is one of those bills which, for some of us members of Parliament who have sat in opposition in the past for far too long, we are now very happy to be on the government side to see brought forward. This is one of those bills about which I, together with other rural caucus members, talked to the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister , the Environment Minister and the Agriculture Minister.

I know that all members of the government, including the Prime Minister and the cabinet, are committed to working on ways to lower carbon dioxide emissions, but also to give a new market to our agricultural producers in this country. Certainly, Bill C-33 would do that. The bill would take some massive steps in reducing carbon emissions.

I listened to my Liberal colleague across the way. He actually started out pretty good. He recognized some of the positive things that the bill would do. I hope that he will support the bill. Then he started talking about the negative. He spoke about what they should have done and what we should have done. It just comes back to, why did the Liberals not move in this direction when they were on this side of the House?

The hon. member has been all over the map. First, he said that we have said we will regulate 5% biodiesel or 5% renewable fuel by 2010. However, he challenged us to accept the Liberals' benchmark of 10%. Then he said that this regulatory decision to make it 5% has caused other crops to skyrocket in price. He then said that the increased cost in food is a huge cost to the poorest in the world, but he wanted to go to 10%.

It is not just that the Liberals did nothing when they were on this side, even in the member's speech the member said that we went to 5%, but we should have gone to 10%. However, going to 5% will raise the cost of the other crops.

I am from a rural constituency and I am very pleased to see that other crops are starting to have more value. I am pleased to see that canola is now $12 or $13 a bushel and that wheat is finally taking off again.

I have a question for the hon. member. Is he opposed to the increase in commodity prices for the other grains?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose all I can say to begin is that the member was not listening. I tried to set out for Canadians the merits of some of the tough choices we will have to make as a country: choosing one form of ethanol over another form of ethanol.

I said that this government is meek in its understanding of making intelligent choices for the 21st century to drive our investments into the field of cellulosic ethanol as opposed to corn ethanol. I said to the member that this is an incoherent announcement that does not connect to the climate change plan, which has been widely discredited. I am waiting for a shred of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Let us talk a little bit about what we did and what we did not do. While the Prime Minister was denying even the existence of climate change for nine years, on record, four increasingly aggressive climate change plans were brought into place by two governments on this side of the House, culminating in project green launched in 2005 less than eight months after our leader became the environment minister.

The Pembina Institute has said that project green was over six times more effective than what the government has so far offered to date. We put in large scale funding for alternative energy. We invested in biofuels. We conducted a highly successful public awareness campaign to teach Canadians about the dangers of global warming while our Prime Minister was fundraising to block the ratification of the Kyoto protocol, describing it as a socialist, money-sucking scheme.

It is very rich for a government member to stand here and defend a climate change plan which so far meets with no success, none whatsoever, so I am finding it a little bit difficult to rise to the question.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to some of the comments that the hon. made about cellulosic ethanol and it being the panacea. Do we not really need to have some principles attached to these very large subsidy programs that may allow development of one or the other technology that focuses the subsidy in a direction that would lead people in the future to produce cellulosic ethanol or grain that can be used for protein as well?

There are a variety of better options within the biofuel industry that should be promoted. When we have a subsidy that is set out for simply the production of ethanol, we need to have these kinds of differentiations within the programs that we support to make people move in the right directions. Is this what the hon. member across the way is getting at?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what I am getting at and precisely what I think we need to do. What we need from the government is a proper evaluation of what choices we are making and why. Let me illustrate in practical terms for Canadians.

The government brought in a tax deductible transit pass. Here is what we know about a tax deductible transit pass. We know that the Minister of Finance was told by his own officials not to do it. We know that the economic analysis backstopping the measure said the cost was too expensive per tonne of greenhouse gases reduced. It was about $1,800 per tonne of greenhouse gases reduced using the tax deductible transit pass.

That is not intelligent hockey. That is not a proper allocation of scarce public resources. That is not good economic policy and it is not good environmental policy, but we see it right through this whole announcement in choices that are being made. Where was the evidence to support investing $1 billion-plus in this, over $1 billion-plus in that? It is not put forward. I am not even sure if the numbers have been crunched.

The member is precisely right and I would like to thank him for raising it. Those are the questions that I think have to be raised in committee.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member's comment about cellulosic ethanol and it is my recollection in last year's budget that $180 million was targeted for the cellulosic ethanol operation that he mentioned in his riding, Iogen, to build the first commercial plant in Canada, fortunately in Saskatchewan, my home province.

However, the member referred to it as being an incoherent policy, that we are just emphasizing grain-based ethanol. Is the member suggesting today that the $180 million funding for the Iogen project to move ahead is a one-sided, incoherent strategy?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely not. I fought hard and supported the request for support for Iogen Corporation to pilot, to groundtruth, and to set up exactly the kind of plant that we should be setting up. What is incoherent is how any of these connect.

What about the plant in the riding of the member from Cornwall? How does that connect with this one? What about the actual removal of the excise fuel tax, the exemption, the exception? How is that going to have a bearing on pricing in the marketplace? These things are all connected, but unfortunately, I am still looking to see how it is coherent.

It certainly is not coherent, if I may share with the hon. member, with the climate change plan that absolutely no one believes. It was not believed domestically and it was completely rejected internationally.

In fact, it was so bad internationally, the Minister of the Environment, who was scheduled to give a speech to 100 international dignitaries and the media, skipped out three minutes before it was to take place. He did not come and present it at all. We do not know where he was. If he is that proud of it, maybe he should come to the House and defend it more regularly.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening to Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to provide for the efficient regulation of fuels. It allows the minister to regulate the content of fuels. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the principle of this bill. We obviously want to examine it in more detail in committee.

I am nonetheless surprised to hear the government this evening. It is as though it were presenting the seventh wonder of the world. This Conservative government thinks this bill represents a shiny new energy policy, agriculture policy, and greenhouse gas reduction policy, but it is nothing more than an administrative measure that addresses some of our concerns. That is why, as I was saying, we support the principle.

We want—and everyone agrees on this—to increasingly reduce our dependence on oil. Maybe some people do not want that, but we certainly do. We also want an effort to be made in the transportation sector in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote the use of agricultural and wood waste products. Some hon. members have mentioned certain pilot plants as far as cellulose ethanol is concerned. An increasing number of projects are being implemented. During this speech I will take the opportunity to talk about what is going on in my region in particular. You will understand why when I do.

The government has already announced that it will implement a regulation requiring fuel to contain an average of 5% renewable fuels by 2010. Regulations will also require diesel and fuel-oil to contain an average of 2% renewable fuels by 2012. We know that the Government of Quebec intends to have gasoline contain 5% ethanol by 2012. It has invested $6.5 million in building two demonstration plants for cellulose ethanol production in the Eastern Townships, not far from my riding.

The cellulose ethanol process promotes the use of agricultural residues, such as straw, and forestry residues, such as wood chips, trees and fast growing grasses. This could be an excellent opportunity for the agricultural and forestry sectors, which desperately need additional sources of revenue.

Such a project is underway in the Bromptonville area, in Sherbrooke. I know the area well. Indeed, during my first election campaign, the former municipality of Bromptonville, which amalgamated with Sherbrooke, was in the Richmond—Arthabaska riding. The pilot plant or pilot project involved the Kruger forestry company, located in the area. The second project is still in the Eastern Townships, in Westbury, where the residues from table making are turned into ethanol. It is still in the early stages, but it is a path worth exploring further in terms of these kinds of projects.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food also had the opportunity to meet with the managers of an Ottawa-based business, Iogen Corporation. Some members have mentioned other plants elsewhere in Canada. These people built a pilot plant that has been producing cellulosic ethanol for a few years now. The process is not yet “profitable”, although I think it is a profitable venture anytime we do something to reduce our oil dependency. For now, this is very much still in the experimental stage, but this is a very promising new form of energy.

The biofuel industry is also becoming increasingly important. Moreover, under new regulations, some cattle farmers are left with specified risk materials, or SRMs, that are worth nothing at this time and they must pay to dispose of them. It would be beneficial for these farmers to be able to send these materials to biodiesel plants so they could be turned into fuel.

I know that the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec is already asking the federal government for assistance to conduct a market study, at the very least, to determine whether constructing a biodiesel plant would be feasible. It would be a very good idea for the federal government to listen to the representations of the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec regarding this issue. Indeed, a very profitable market could be developed. Of course, all animal oils, all animal product residues, could eventually be turned into biofuel.

Earlier I said that I would provide examples from my riding. My hometown is known as the cradle of sustainable development. This is even written on the signs. In my area, the late Normand Maurice was known as the father of recycling. Recycling started in Victoriaville, in central Quebec. We are very proud of that. The city is the cradle of sustainable development. We fulfilled our desire to take sustainable development even further by converting the city's 35 trucks to run on biodiesel. In Victoriaville, the foremen are already driving around in hybrids. This example gives an idea of the philosophy of my region. All the other vehicles run on ethanol fuel. Biodiesel comes from vegetable oils, animal fats and used frying oils.

In Victoriaville, the Centre de formation en entreprise et récupération, or CFER, was responsible for an interesting partnership. Normand Maurice, whom I mentioned earlier, created the CFERs in Quebec. In the beginning, there was only the one centre in Victoriaville. There are now 17 throughout Quebec. Young people with learning difficulties learn to work as part of a team in a plant. Now, CFERs are specialized in recycling all kinds of materials, including cellular phones or anything Hydro-Québec no longer uses, from wires to lamp posts. A recycled paint plant was even opened in Victoriaville. It belonged to the CFER, but is now independent. They are still together, but thanks to them, a whole new industry was developed. The CFER is what started all of this. Pioneers like Normand Maurice and Yves Couture, the current director of the CFER in Victoriaville, have made it possible for these young people to learn job skills, and most of them to find jobs. Of course, all the projects aim to promote public awareness about the importance of recycling.

In addition to the CFER, this project accommodates the Centre de formation Vision 20-20, which is a school, and Peinture récupérée du Québec, about which I have already spoken. Together, they decided to set up a used vegetable oil recovery and treatment project to produce biodiesel. At present, about ten Victoriaville restaurants provide the vegetable oil. We already have a pharmacy delivery vehicle that uses the biodiesel. The vehicle was modified and has a biodiesel reservoir. This entire project is branching out.

That is not all. Victoriaville is also home to the Institut national de la recherche scientifique, INRS, which is interested in the sludge from Victoriaville's water treatment plant. Apparently we have good sludge. I do not know much about the different qualities of sludge but one thing is for sure: the INRS believes that Victoriaville's sludge could be useful in the future. One day, it could be processed into biofuel. That is a scientific possibility. It could also be turned into biopesticides, detergent for the agriculture sector or paper mills, and microbial additives for treating wastewater from the agri-food sector, among others.

To close, I would like to point out that the INRS plans to open in Quebec City, in the near future, an agricultural, industrial and urban waste bioconversion laboratory that will be a pilot project. A small idea has taken off and I have only talked about what is happening in my riding. Every MP who has spoken has been able to give a few interesting examples of the strides taken in developing alternatives to traditional fuels. Everything I have spoken about can be found in Victoriaville's newspapers. The local media have kept the citizens informed. In my opinion, these are projects that could be replicated in other regions.

There are some very interesting possibilities with regard to the production of biofuels, but we still do not have large-scale production. As I mentioned, in many cases, things are still at the experimental stage. Unfortunately, we are still dependent on oil.

The Bloc Québécois put forward a plan to reduce our oil dependency. The government would do well to go along with our plan rather than believe that introducing an administrative bill will fix everything. The government should go along with this plan instead of giving mind-boggling tax cuts to big oil companies. If I am not mistaken, this year alone, the government gave $922 million to big oil companies that certainly do not need the money. Everyone knows this, so I will leave it at that.

I want to emphasize that Quebec could reduce its dependency on oil by half within 10 years. One way to reach that goal is to reduce the amount of oil used in gasoline. That is one way to reduce our oil dependency. However, we will not be able to reach that goal if the Conservative government continues to shoot down Quebec's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

As we all know, not long ago this government thought that the whole climate change issue was a socialist plot and that global warming was not really happening. Representatives of this government have been hard at work on the international scene sabotaging the efforts of countries that want to do what has to be done to reduce greenhouse gases.

Contrary to what we heard earlier, this bill will not solve the problem. We agree that we need much stricter solutions. For example, we could demand absolute targets, particularly for big oil companies. We could do the same for transportation. We could also set up a carbon exchange. There has been enough talk here and in the public arena to realize that while some countries are taking action, our government is, unfortunately, asleep at the wheel when it comes to environmental issues.

Among other things, the federal government should take action within its jurisdiction to table a bill requiring auto manufacturers to improve the fuel consumption of all road vehicles sold in Quebec by 20% within 10 years. That kind of bill would be interesting.

Unfortunately, Bill C-33, which is currently before us, does not go that far. All it does is allow the minister to regulate the content of fuels.

The committee will have to look at this very closely to figure out exactly what the government is trying to accomplish with this bill. For example, we want to know if the government intends to copy our American neighbours' energy system development strategy.

It is important to understand that Canada will never be able to copy the United States, which heavily subsidizes its grain producers through the Farm Bill. The U.S. also heavily subsidizes ethanol plants. The American government pays 50¢ of the cost of producing a gallon of ethanol. If we do the math, we see that the U.S. is currently producing 12 billion gallons of ethanol, which means $6 billion in subsidies. The Americans' goal is to produce 36 billion gallons of ethanol in the relatively short term. Subsidies in the U.S. are staggering.

Clearly, Canada will not be able to go that route. We would like to know what the Conservative government's policy is on this. The minister did not make any mention of it in his speech this evening.

We need to know the federal government's real strategy for developing the energy system, if it has a policy. That remains to be seen.

To date, the government has talked a good game. Some steps are being taken—and we agree with them, of course—to promote certain biofuel plants. But as I said earlier, we will not give this government a blank cheque based on its environmental record. That is out of the question. This government's responsibility for the sustainability of agriculture in Canada will not disappear with this bill, even though it does promote the use of biofuels.

As I said, we need to be increasingly aware of new fuels. It is important to study all the environmental impacts of introducing and using biofuels. That is why it will be very interesting to hear the explanations and testimony in committee about the actions the government wants to take.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's speech. I have two questions for him.

At the end of his speech, he talked about the subsidies given to the agricultural industry in the United States and how they hurt Canadian farmers. Would the member comment on how effective the government has been in trying to convince the United States and Europe to stop harmful subsidies, which are hurting our farmers so much?

The second question I have is related to the types of ethanol and from what they are produced. At a Canadian Renewable Fuels Association reception last night, I talked to some of its major officials, and they are always very helpful. I commend that organization for the lobbying it has done over the years for renewable fuels. The officials explained how ethanol production was moving more and more away from using the actual food part of the corn and using only the rest of the product. The Liberals have made a great deal of mention today to the use of cellulose.

If the emphasis, motivation and incentive is toward producing a type of ethanol from fuels that will not hurt fuel production, how is this incorporated in the bill?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not see that in the bill. However, the reason we are insisting on hearing about it in committee and inviting more and more witnesses is precisely in order to fully explore the matter, to determine the government's direction in terms of its policies concerning energy and the use of renewable fuels. As I was saying, we hear the government saying that this bill will revolutionize the planet, but, in reality, it is a much more administrative measure. There are some promising features, however. Of course, we must shed full light on the matter, as we do for each and every bill that comes before us.

As for subsidies, it must be understood that Canada, which is supposed to be a major player on the world stage when it comes to agriculture and agrifood, has been described—and I am not the one who said it—by many associations, federations and farmers' unions as a boy scout compared to other countries that constantly give huge subsidies to their farmers. This is definitely the case in the European Union and the Unites States.

WTO negotiations are currently underway in Geneva and it seems that none of those countries wants to make any concessions. Canada, on the other hand, must put its foot down and assert its rights.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for giving us his point of view, especially when he spoke to the larger issues of energy policy, where much of this has to fit into the design of a green energy future for Canada and for Quebec.

One of the largest debates in Quebec right now is about the importation liquefied natural gas to the province. It is my understanding the Bloc has not taken the position of opposing this. Natural gas is used for space heating. Biomass energy and biological fuels can be used as well for the same purpose.

Is there not a higher quality in developing green energy in Canada for the use by Quebeckers over the importation of a potentially very expensive form of energy from places like Russia and Qatar?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was rather clear in my speech that promoting the use of renewable energy is completely consistent with sustainable development. This is what Quebec has been wanting for a long time.

Earlier, I heard one of my colleagues give some examples of what Manitoba and other provinces with rather interesting renewable energy policies are doing.

It is always very important to keep developing these types of products instead of importing gas or other energies. That is obvious. However, as I said earlier, we must understand that biofuels and all the new technologies are still in the experimental stage. We cannot wake up one day and say that we are changing our production and that we are using only such-and-such a product to fulfill or meet our needs, in the industries, in the transportation sector, or elsewhere. If we do nothing, we will certainly remain dependent on oil and other expensive energies. However, if we are smart and keep investing the necessary money and implementing the necessary policies, while still respecting the importance of sustainable development, we will clearly be able to wean ourselves off these very expensive energies at some point.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague from the Bloc is the vice-chair of the agriculture committee and is very learned on this topic. We enjoy a great relationship while working on issues that are important to farmers across the country.

He talked about other types of biofuels and biomass. Outside of Montreal, Rothsay has a biodiesel plant that is based upon using animal byproducts, the fats from rendered product, to make biodiesel. It has proven to be extremely successful. I can see that business expanding across the country thanks to the good work at its plant outside of Montreal.

Iogen, just outside of Ottawa, has been working on developing cellulose ethanol and is getting further down the line to seeing that technology commercialized. This will also provide another marketplace for our agriculture producers, whether it is waste coming out of livestock yards, or the straw left out in the fields after harvest, or making use of things like wood chips from the pulp and paper industry or the lumber industry. There is an opportunity to take waste material and turn it into a valuable product.

I am glad my esteemed colleague has made the intervention outlining the fact that those benefits are there for agriculture as well, on top of this great new story for all farmers across the country.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not really a question but rather a compliment for my speech. Many thanks to my colleague, whom I hold in high regard as well.

He is quite right. As the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, he is passionate about the evolution of agriculture; however, we do not always agree on everything. He feels the same way and therefore it is mutual.

There are definitely very interesting prospects for cellulose ethanol—as he just said—and all types of residue. This would benefit not only the agricultural sector but the forestry sector as well. What do we currently do with residue and animal waste? We throw them out. Often we even have to pay to dispose of them.

At some point, if it becomes possible to recycle this type of waste into biofuel, everyone will win.

The House resumed from January 30 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-33. It is important that we look at the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act dealing with fuels as part of a long range study on the impact of biofuels, not only in Canada but also throughout the world.

We support the bill in principle because of its potential benefits to farmers who finally, thanks to the surge in the biofuel industry, have at least a better chance to make a profit from going green.

My party and I also support increased funding and an expanded mandate for the Canadian Co-operative Association, specifically renewed funding for the cooperative development initiative, beginning as of April. Cooperatives, as we know, can be a very important part of this whole biofuel initiative.

When dealing with growing crops for fuel, however, we must look at it under the umbrella of food production. Does the cultivation of corn, for example, or wheat for fuel take away land which has been used to grow food. That is a fundamental question not only in our country, but throughout the world. This is an important question in light of the dwindling stocks of food supply in the world. I will try to come back to this later.

In Canada, Manitoba has attempted to reach what I call a healthy compromise in the food versus fuel debate. It has taken a three point approach to biofuels, which include agriculture, the greenhouse gas effect and the economy. It is using local grain and also some from Saskatchewan.

The federal program proposed by Bill C-33, however, opens the door to the import of sugar and palm oil, which are potential food stocks, and in many instances the cultivation of these commodities in the southern hemisphere has proven to be devastating for the environment as well as for local farmers. We have to be careful. We need a planned, balanced, moderate approach.

The province of Manitoba has determined that 10% of its grain and oilseed stock is not food grade and can thus be used for the value added industry. For example, wheat can be broken down to sugar for ethanol and protein for animal feed. We see in Manitoba a concrete result for farmers. There is now a market for B grade crops and winter wheat, and winter wheat is still being grown.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Order, please. It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill C-33, there will be 17 minutes left for the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

The House resumed from January 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

When the House last debated the bill now before us, the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior had the floor and there are 17 minutes remaining in the time allotted for his remarks.

I therefore call on the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was at the point where I was discussing the biofuel example in Manitoba. Manitoba wants to get concrete results for farmers. The introduction of co-ops is also being considered, which is the way to go. If farmers can somehow get involved in the whole aspect of the industry, not just as suppliers, that is the way to go.

Both the federal and Manitoba governments have a subsidy for blenders. Federally, it is 10¢ per litre for ethanol and 20¢ per litre for biodiesel, guaranteed for three years. A $20 million biofuels opportunities for the producers initiative program runs from April 1 of this year until the March 31, 2017. In Manitoba, subsidies to the blenders will start at 20¢ a litre but will decrease by 5¢ every two years so that by 2016 there will be no subsidy to the industry.

This seems a more reasonable approach. In other words, by this time if this industry is not making a profit and there is a downturn in biofuels consumption, then government should not be injecting new funds into this enterprise.

It is important to look at the politics of the whole biofuel industry, not only in North America but in the world. While we were in Washington, the agriculture committee was told that the U.S. government's ethanol corn initiative was there to fulfill its need for increased consumption of fuel. In other words, the U.S. does not want to import any more oil as its consumption goes up. This increase is to be met by the production of corn and other commodities to make ethanol.

What we are seeing is a dangerous precedent. Instead of encouraging a decrease in oil consumption on fossil fuels, the U.S. government is encouraging an increase by growing corn. As we have seen from the research, corn is not an efficient energy input-output commodity. For every one unit of energy of corn, we may get 1.5 units of fuel, if that.

If we look at all of the input from fertilizer for fuel for machinery and transportation, we need to question the efficiency of corn ethanol production. This is why I advocate and my party is saying that we must discuss this bill in committee as part of an overall discussion in our country on the whole aspect of biofuels.

Today the reality is that big agriculture, big oil and big biotech are in the biofuels driver's seat. It is Husky Oil that has opened the ethanol refineries in Manitoba, which is a good idea and it is helping farmers, but it is the big corporations that are in the driver's seat. Our challenge and the challenge of governments is to work with them and ensure the benefits of this industry go to the producers and Canadians who always strive to meet their obligation to reduce greenhouse gases.

For example, of the 119 ethanol plants in the U.S., currently 49 are still owned by farmers. However, of the 90 plants currently under construction in the U.S., about 90% are corporate owned. By having the biofuel industry firmly in control by the major multinationals, the role of the farmer is reduced solely to that of supplier. If refineries then are allowed to import feedstock from underdeveloped countries or even from heavily subsidized U.S. farmers, our primary producers will once again be left out in the cold and at the mercy of these multinationals.

There is also the question of genetically modified foods. When major corporations step up biological research, we will be faced with the issue of GMOs. For example, there is the contamination of other crops, the debate in Europe about Monsanto corn, and so on.

Biofuels have a role to play in a comprehensive renewable energy strategy, but we have to continue to keep a close eye on them to avoid problems like the ones that have occurred in the south.

If taxpayers are to assume the burden of funding this industry, then we must make sure that our ability to ensure food safety is not threatened or diminished. We also have to make sure our policies do not threaten another country's food safety, that we get real results when we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that the industry is not subsidized once it is established, as is the case in Manitoba.

Finally, we must continue to encourage a decrease in fuel consumption. In the long term, this is the most important factor in a fuel-based economy.

As we begin debating the idea of biofuels as a possible solution to part of our energy needs, we must not forget food.

For the first time we are seeing the emergence of a truly global agricultural market driven by the underlying force of all economic activity. The scarcity of goods, wheat supplies for example, have reached a 30 year low. In only one year, inventories in the European Union have dropped from 14 million tonnes to only 1 million tonnes.

We need to ask ourselves how humankind will be able to feed itself in the future and at what price. How can agriculture feed the world that grows by 80 million people each year? When we take land out of food production to produce fuel, we obviously complicate this matter and we need to find a balance.

If we come back to our local agricultural industry, we have seen that the demand for biofuels has driven up the price for corn, which is good if one is a corn producer but not so good if one is raising cattle and already competing with the high Canadian dollar, the rising cost of inputs and other factors that are driving the cost production up.

Only yesterday we heard once again from representatives of the pork and cattle industry saying that their industry was in crisis. Some producers in Ontario are saying that they are losing at least $300 for every steer sold. We are seeing that they are not getting any immediate assistance from the loan program that they asked for. Small communities are going under. Part of this is because of the rise in prices of corn that they must use in that industry.

Somehow we must get a balance and also assist those in parts of the agriculture industry who are suffering because of this demand for biofuels. The government still has not been able to address the fundamental needs of these producers who are struggling to survive.

We are seeing more critics in the world speaking out against the biofuels industry and we need to take that into account. For example, the verdict of the OECD, consumer organizations like FoodWatch and even major food corporations like Nestlé, is devastating.

According to the OECD, expanded biofuels production will lead to untenable strains on the commodities markets without yielding significant benefits for the environment. FoodWatch is convinced that the strategy, while benefiting farmers, will do nothing to protect the climate. Germany's environmental expert counsel says that the industry raises expectations that fly in the face of acceptable science. Nestlé's CEO bluntly characterized biofuels production as environmental lunacy.

That does not mean we need to stop the whole aspect of moving forward in this industry. What this means is that we must undertake a very logical approach. We must see that as this industry moves forward we help the primary producer. We have seen that this has given the primary producer a stimulus to at least start making some money but at the same time we have a responsibility to feed not only ourselves but the world.

We must ensure that we do not get on the band wagon that we see happening south of the border where the American ethanol industry is creating what I would say in many respects havoc in other parts of the world where countries are scrambling to supply this growing demand for fuels.

As I said before, instead of the growing demand for fuels, we should be concentrating on decreasing our demand for fuels and fossil fuels in particular.

Much of what the energy farmers produce is offset by the amount of energy that goes into producing the plants in the first place. They consume fossil fuels to harvest plants, for shipping, for storage and for drying, not to mention the energy required to produce pesticides and fertilizers. The economic possibilities are also limited.

Even in the U.S., if the entire corn crop were converted into fuel, it would satisfy only about 12% of the demand for gasoline. For example, to fill a 100 litre tank of an SUV, an ethanol producer has to process about one-quarter tonne of wheat. This is enough wheat for a baker to bake about 460 kilograms of bread which has a total nutritional value of about one million kilo-calories, enough to feed one person for a year.

I would like us to take this debate forward and to look at biofuels from the aspects of the environment, of food security and from our ability as a nation to assist our primary producers, who are basically the best in the world, to continue producing food with help from us here in Parliament and, at the same time, not to make life more difficult for people in countries like Malaysia, Brazil and other places where family farmers are being forced from their farm to finance the big plantations for palm oil and ethanol from sugar.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member and I believe he had a number of good points in his remarks on Bill C-33 and its positive implications on some sectors of agriculture and negative implications on others.

Given that the ethanol and biodiesel industry is subsidized, which naturally forces greater demands for some of the crops that go into ethanol and biodiesel and, as a result, does inflate the cost of feed for the beef and hog sectors which are suffering substantially right now, does the member believe that the government's policy is forcing prices up? Does he believe that the Government of Canada has an obligation to support the livestock industry in some fashion because it is partly responsible for the high cost of feed?

We certainly believe that the grain and oilseeds sector needs to receive good and profitable returns, but it is in part because of the inflationary impact, the push up in prices as a result of government policy, that is forcing prices up even more for the hog and beef sector. Is there an obligation on the part of government to bring some balance to the livestock sector by supporting that sector which it absolutely has not done?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his insight and knowledge into what is happening in the industry. As I mentioned earlier, we see that the push in biofuels is helping our grain and oilseeds sector, and that is good, but at the same time we see that this is one reason that the pork and cattle industry is going through such hard times. I must reiterate that some in that industry are calling today “black Friday”. They are saying that there has not been any help. They came before committee before Christmas and we made recommendations. However, nothing has happened. There has been no immediate aid to offset all of the factors that are contributing to their downward slide.

I agree with the fact that the government has the responsibility to assist the pork and cattle industry to get through these hard times, which in part has been caused by biofuels. We can do it. Why can we not do it? Other countries do this. Why can we not be good to our farmers and why can we not help all sectors of the agriculture industry?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior has been a tireless advocate for farmers. In British Columbia food security has become a pressing issue where we are seeing the loss of some of our very precious agricultural land.

I paid very close attention to the member's speech and I wonder if he could comment on some of the concerns that have been raised around biofuels and genetically modified organisms. It is very disappointing that Canada has not taken a lead on putting a moratorium on GMOs, nor has it taken a lead on mandatory labelling of genetically modified food products.

One of the concerns that has been raised with this increasing push around biofuels is that it will encourage and support further growth in an industry that, in many of our views, is poorly regulated. We are certainly seeing some concerns raised under the security and prosperity partnership talks going on with this increasing look at harmonization. Many of us in Canada are very concerned around the fact that our food supplies do not have the protection that is required.

Could the member comment specifically on GMOs and what he sees needs to be done in order to prevent the creep into biofuels?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her comments and the concern of many in our country in regard to food security and GMOs.

One of the problems in having the big biotech industries involved in the push for biofuels is that there is more pressure to produce crops, to produce strains of weeds and corn that are genetically modified, in order to increase the harvest. But at the same time, if we introduce this into our environment, there is a very strong probability of contamination.

This is one of the reasons why we do not have genetically modified wheat in Canada. There was a very strong push to say no to this. Genetically modified crops can and do contaminate fields in their vicinity. As we have seen, there is the whole case of Mr. Schmeiser, who has been fighting against Monsanto and is still continuing to fight against this.

Also on the point of GMOs, research has been done. I met personally with Dr. Seralini from France, who has been doing extensive research on the negative aspects of GMO crops in regard to human health. The president of France has been very supportive and has put a stop to one type of Monsanto 810 corn, because studies have proven its negative aspects in regard to human health.

Therefore, as we start the debate on biofuels and GMOs, and I must emphasize that we are just starting, we have to take that into consideration. One of my tasks in Parliament at this time is to continue to push to eventually convince Parliament and the Government of Canada to put a moratorium on genetically modified food and seeds in Canada.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for British Columbia Southern Interior. I am one of those who was here last night and heard the first part of his speech, and I made sure that I was here this morning to hear the conclusion. I certainly found it very stimulating and informative.

I know that he comes from the southern interior of British Columbia, a very environmentally pristine part of Canada with the Kootenays and the beautiful mountains and rivers. I know that it is a very environmentally conscious area.

One of the issues that I suspect is not in this bill because it is a bigger issue, and this is more of a housekeeping type of bill, and one of the things that troubles me, is about the Environmental Protection Act and the way it is applied with respect to the oil sands, for example.

Under the act and under the mandate of the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency, the agency is meant to look at projects incrementally, but the way I see it, many projects are coming on stream and I am not sure that the agency is actually looking at the cumulative impacts of these particular projects. I am not sure that the agency is actually looking at their impacts on the water resources and the Athabasca River basin, at the cumulative impact of CO₂ emissions, which will grow and grow over the next little while, and at the impacts of the use, or the misuse, if I might put it that way, of natural gas to bring up the bitumen that has to be upgraded considerably to feed into the U.S. market.

While I understand the need for our U.S. colleagues and neighbours to the south to try to diversify their energy sources, it seems to me they need to understand that there are some environmental issues here, which we need to deal with.

There was an interesting announcement the other day, I thought, with the industry or some agency recommending the need for carbon capture and sequestration. Of course that is what we need to be doing, but it needs to be accelerated. I think there is a role for the federal government, but as for the industry saying that the federal government should bankroll $2 billion to accelerate the development and deployment of carbon sequestration technologies, first of all it is obviously an opening gambit, but I think we should be putting some of these projects on hold until we have solved, at least significantly, the problems of carbon capture and sequestration and also the impact on water resources.

I wonder if the member could comment on that.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

He will do so ever so briefly. There are about 30 seconds left in the time for questions and comments, but we will hear from the hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, energy policy in Canada has to be good for Canadians. We have to look at our needs first. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. We know that with the whole locking in of energy and what we have to export to the Americans, we have locked ourselves in under NAFTA.

Clearly the federal government does have a role. It does have a role in looking very closely at the cumulative impacts on water resources and the misuse of natural gas. We can do it. We are a nation of innovators. We can have a balanced approach whereby we support business and we support development for Canadians first, and at the same time we can look at the environment, shift over to a greener energy and look at, for example, carbon sequestration. We have the ability to do it, but the government must have a role in this.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be following my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior, our agriculture critic, who has spoken on Bill C-33, which is being directed through the agriculture committee. It is being run under the auspices of an being an agricultural bill, and in reality it is that, because it is a bill that directs $2 billion of the government's future spending toward the interests of farmers, not particularly toward the interest of the environment or the interests of Canada in how we are dealing with energy.

It is a response to a perceived need to support farmers. In the United States, it was perceived in that fashion. I think cooler heads are prevailing across the world, but biofuels will be a large part of the energy structure across the world.

Recently I had the opportunity to visit Brazil, where I talked with experts in the biofuels industry there. Brazil's biofuels industry is ramping up quickly. It has signed major contracts with Japan. The pressure on the biofuels industry is going to drive up the price of biofuels. There is no question about it. It is going to make a big difference across the world in what happens with this.

Some of the concerns expressed by my colleague about the degradation of farmland, pristine rainforest and jungle in Brazil are apt. That has taken place. Brazilians recognize that, but they have yet to deal with it.

One of the issues the Brazilians talked about was the opportunity to spread the development of biofuel technology into third world countries in marginal agricultural areas to promote the developing world. In some respects, we can see that it would be a very useful endeavour, whereby marginal land would be taken up in the proper fashion, with proper environmental concerns attached to it. But in most cases as we ramp up the price of biological products for energy, this will go to the best land.

If a farmer can produce corn and sell it for ethanol at a higher price than he can get when he produces corn for food, that is where he is going to go. If a farmer or an agricultural operation in Brazil or west Africa produces sugar cane, they are going to take the best land they can to produce the most sugar cane and to produce the biggest amount of ethanol.

Therefore, we are moving ourselves in a direction that really does not have a lot of hope for the world in the long term. In the short term, Canada needs to establish clear guidelines on how to deal with this industry. Problems are going to be created all over the world, but our country can be a leader in dealing with them correctly here.

I am the party's energy critic and tend to speak to these issues in a holistic sense. I try to look at how every energy transfer affects other things. Let us talk about biomass. When we put the expansion of energy into the biomass area, the pulp and paper industry gets quite concerned about it, because of course its product is now being valued more for energy than it is for pulp and paper.

Once again, when we look at energy in every form, we have to look at how it impacts everything else. It is not simply about establishing a special interest in the country. It is not simply about establishing a need in one sector and saying that this is the direction we should go in. We are investing $2 billion in this endeavour. That is more than we are putting into any other part of our greenhouse gas strategy at this time.

What are we going to do? We are going to require a 5% average renewable content in gasoline by 2010. Other regulations will require a 2% average renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012, once we show successfully that we can use this in diesel in Canadian environmental conditions. What does this actually mean?

When the minister spoke on this issue the other day, he said this would take the equivalent of one million cars off the road. I looked at those numbers and asked him what the percentage would be. He replied that it would be a 40% reduction in CO₂ emissions. Therefore, if 5% is put into gasoline, we are going to get a 2% reduction in CO₂ emissions.

Canadian vehicles produce about 100 million tonnes of CO₂ every year. Two per cent of that is two million tonnes. The minister said four million tonnes. He is inflating those figures. Literature indicates that a 40% reduction in CO₂ emissions is about the best we can get. Many people say it would only be 20%. Also, if every one of the 26 million drivers in this country has a car, only 500,000 cars would be reduced by this measure, not one million.

Therefore, we have a bit of rhetoric going on around this subject. I think this should be clarified. I hope that this subject and the issues around it will be discussed fully in committee.

What I really want to talk about here today is the need to put this in terms of a national energy strategy. Where does it fit? How does it work?

Interestingly, Saturday is the national day of action on energy, sponsored by the Council of Canadians. The council is joining with many groups, chief executive officers and people all over the country who are crying out for direction on the overall energy strategy of this country.

Are we getting good leadership from the government on this issue? No, we are not. We are getting the opposite. We are getting the kind of leadership that says “here is a special interest and let us push this one forward” in the absence of a debate that would cover all the issues around energy. This is a failure of leadership on the part of the government. People are crying out to the government to correct this problem.

Why is that? Why have the Liberals and now the Conservatives not provided us with leadership on energy issues or energy security issues? The answer is that over the past number of years both governments have entered into arrangements through NAFTA, through the North American energy working group and through the security and prosperity partnership to link us directly with American energy security and American energy plans.

The Alberta government does not send an ambassador on energy to Washington without a reason. There is no Alberta government ambassador here in Ottawa to lobby us on energy concerns. The Alberta ambassador is down in Washington where the action is. This is a clear indication of where our energy policy is being made. This is a clear indication of where the key decisions around energy are being made right now for Canada.

This energy situation needs to be returned to Parliament, where we can take hold of it ourselves. We need to put Canada first in energy policy and energy security. Within that perspective, we should be looking at all the things that we are doing, whether it is biofuels, whether it is the importation of liquefied natural gas, or whether it is the export of bitumen. Whatever we are doing in energy needs to have a “Canada first” label attached to it.

Without a clear and defined direction, with this ad hoc approach, the Prime Minister is not only supporting the American energy plan but is also helping big American agribusiness and the massive American biotech industry.

However, when it comes to the needs of Canadians, energy is very important, of course. We live in a cold climate. Everybody today understands the need for heating oil or natural gas in their homes. They do not question this today, because these things are fundamental requirements for Canadians. We have a fundamental need for a supply of energy that is available when we need it. Our energy supply should not be impacted by world crises of the kind that are going to be created as the energy situation in the world becomes even more dire.

The U.S. has a policy that new energy supplies will be handled internally. That is not simply about economics. That is about security. The United States has a strategic petroleum reserve, a quite large one. That is used to ensure that American citizens are protected at all times.

The Canadian model is to take convention oil, export it into the United States, and import into eastern Canada an equivalent amount. We have really moved away from any semblance of energy security.

Right now in Quebec we are arguing over liquefied natural gas terminals in Rabaska where we will be replacing natural gas that is flowing now from western Canada into the Montreal area with a foreign source of liquefied natural gas. It is coming in tankers from such stable areas as Russia, Qatar and Iran. How is this energy security in this country? How is this working for people in that regard?

When we say we need energy security, it applies to biofuels, it applies to natural gas, it applies to oil, and it means that we have to come together on those issues in this Parliament. It is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that speaks to every Canadian. It speaks to our industry. It speaks to our consumers. We should wake up and deal with it in that fashion.

Biofuels could be a boon to farmers and could help Canada tremendously if they are done well. However, what exactly are we trying to do with biofuels? We are trying to create ethanol. One of the more simpler ways to use biofuels is simply to use them in space heating right across this country.

When I go to Yellowknife, I see that the new correctional facility, a very large correctional facility, is now run on biomass energy at half the cost of the fuel oil it was replacing. This is a simple and direct way to use biomass energy. There is no conversion required into ethanol. The greenhouse gas reductions that are achieved through this process are far superior to that of ethanol in fuel for cars. Why are we not putting some effort into that area?

As well, what are we doing with the bill that will support the development of biological material on marginal lands, whether it is in northern Ontario, New Brunswick or wherever it is in this country where we have farmland that is not useful and is not competitive with agri-businesses in producing food? Those are the areas where we can enhance the use of biological energy, where we can make a big difference to Canadians right now in a variety of industries and which would make a tremendous amount of sense if it is handled in this program.

Many problems with biofuels have been presented, but the core of these problems is caused by lack of leadership that will look at the larger picture and quantify what we are doing rather than insisting that we put forward programs of this magnitude that simply deal with special interests.

The fact that the bill comes through the agricultural committee speaks to that in spades. This is an environmental energy issue. This is an issue that fits much stronger in the natural resources and the environment committees, but it is not there.

If the Prime Minister and the government wanted to show leadership by first thinking how to meet the energy needs of working Canadians, we would be supporting more small scale initiatives around biofuels. The large scale initiatives will help the large scale industry. We can do much better right across this country with biomass energy in so many ways with proper incentives. Where in this program is that available?

We need all areas in this country to be producing correctly for the future following principles that are outlined very carefully. The Dutch buy biomass products from Canada to run in coal plants in Holland. They are one of the biggest purchasers of wood pellets from Canada. The pellets are shipped to Holland and used in coal plants. It is sold as clean energy to customers.

Holland follows a 100-point program of environmental care for that product. It follows it right from where the product is harvested in the forest through the whole process the product follows to the market to ensure it meets the green standards that it has set.

This is the kind of approach that would be very valuable to a biofuels industry right now. It would bring surety to everyone in the industry and in the country that what we are doing is correct. This bill does not list the regulations. It gives the government the opportunity to put in place regulations. That is the heart of the matter for the success of this bill.

This is a very important piece of legislation. This is a very important industry. It needs the utmost attention. We need to do this right. We do not need to do it wrong by following a model that does not work in this world. We can be smarter than that. Let us make sure that when this bill leaves Parliament, it is the finest product we can deliver for Canadians and their future.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Western Arctic has been very instrumental in many of the energy policies in the part of the world he comes from. Having worked with him on the natural resources committee, I know he is very qualified in matters of energy and energy policy.

One of the aspects he talked about was marginal farmland. I know that our government undertook measures with respect to marginal farmland. Working with organizations like Ducks Unlimited, we wanted to promote the idea that transfers of marginal farmland to trusts or conservation agencies could be done without triggering a capital gains tax, which was inhibiting some of the breakup of farmland into more manageable pieces, so that good farmland could be managed appropriately and marginal farmland could be offloaded to other uses.

The constraint at the time was that this would trigger a capital gain and farmers did not want to face that, so measures were introduced that brought down the capital gains inclusion rate.

The member makes an excellent point with respect to biofuels and their application to marginal farmland. I hope the government is listening to that. The point the member raises with respect to the unintended consequences of promoting biofuels is very valid. We have seen the impact on the pricing of corn and products like that.

When we look at biofuels and the different sources of the materials, one could make an argument that when converting corn to biofuels or other sources like that, it is perhaps not the most energy efficient or environmentally appropriate way to proceed because on a net energy basis it takes a lot of energy to convert corn into biofuel.

While it may be good agricultural policy in a sense for the farmers, it may not be good for consumers when the price of corn rises to a certain point. The idea of moving that to marginal farmland makes some sense.

I would like the member to comment, if he could. He made a point with respect to biofuels and the forestry industry. I know the forestry industry has been promoting very heavily the need for government policies at the federal level to encourage the use of biofuels in its operations because it faces enormous energy costs. Energy used to be a comparative advantage for the forestry industry in Canada and now it is a comparative disadvantage. It would like to use these biofuels.

Are we then faced with a situation that we will support, let us say, the sawmilling sector of the forestry industry at the risk of creating problems for the pulping industry, because that is the source of a lot of their raw material? Or, do we have to make those choices? Can we deal with the question of the better use of biofuels in the forestry industry without necessarily causing problems to the pulp and paper sector?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the use of biological product for energy. It is there in this country. Within the forestry industry we still have large amounts of biomass that is being simply wasted.

We have not got to the point where the industry is completely converting all of its waste into viable energy product. I think incentives could help a lot. We need also to look at some of the opportunities that are presenting themselves for the use of bioenergy in the forests of British Columbia with the incredible damage that has been caused there by the pine beetle kill.

As I pointed out in my speech, right now wood pellet energy is replacing fuel oil at about 50% of the cost in northern Canada and that is also trucking the pellets a very long way.

When we look at northern Ontario and New Brunswick, we can see multitudes of opportunities for the conversion of buildings and homes to a cheaper source of energy that is readily available there.

It will impact on the forestry industry as the price of oil rises and we can be sure this is going to happen. The major multinationals are not buying back their shares in a record fashion because they feel that the value of oil is going to go down.

Therefore, we are going to see marked increases in the price of oil. Biomass energy will be productive here. If we compare the competitive advantage for a reduction of CO₂ emissions between ethanol and the use of biomass energy in heating and we look at the cost effectiveness of those two products, biomass energy would win hands down right now.

A unidirectional approach with a $2 billion subsidy program to simply biofuels for ethanol and liquid fuels is not the way to go.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Western Arctic is very knowledgeable on energy policy. I would like him to elaborate on a couple of points that he mentioned.

One of the things that we have seen from the Conservative government is a piecemeal, fragmented and often incoherent strategy when it deals with climate change and certainly energy policy.

Many of the communities on Vancouver Island are rural and very small urban communities. For example, when we look at the government's transit strategies, it simply does not recognize some of the challenges. We have our rail line on Vancouver Island that we have been asking the federal government to invest in as a viable alternative to trucking and other transportation. Yet, we simply cannot get the government's attention on it.

One of the elements that the member for Western Arctic touched on was the fact that an energy policy in Canada should talk about putting Canada first. I wonder if he could elaborate on the deficiencies in the bill and generally on the strategy that the Conservatives have put forward in terms of an energy strategy which puts Canadians first.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, the situation in the world with biofuels is expanding rapidly. There is a rapidly expanding market for biofuels. Major countries like Japan are making huge investments in cornering the market.

Therefore, we have to be careful about what we do with this subsidy incentive. Will it actually help Canadians? Will it put Canadians' needs first? Or will we end up finding ourselves simply supporting the large scale development of a biofuel industry in the world which may or may not have the environmental characteristics, and may or may not have the socio-economic characteristics that we are looking for in Canada?

We have lived in what ideologically everyone calls a market driven economy for quite a while and it is not working any more. We need to have a directed economy, not a managed economy, which says that these are the directions that businesses should go in to ensure that our future is maintained.

Until many of my colleagues here can understand that and come to that realization which may be difficult for them, as they have grown up with this particular ideology, I think we will be stuck with it. Perhaps the Canadian population will have to work through attrition to change the ideology in that regard.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Western Arctic raised some legitimate concerns.

We see Bill C-33 as being important in terms of CEPA and in a way of assisting the farm community. We also recognize there needs to be some complimentary action on the part of the government relative to protecting the environment.

I was in Saskatchewan and Manitoba two or three weeks ago. We are seeing pressure on the marginal lands. I know it is a provincial responsibility to a great extent, but there is pressure on the marginal lands. People are looking at taking out hedgerows and plowing up marginal lands to plant more high value crops. This will create problems in the future.

Does the member have any suggestions on what can be done from the federal side to wage against that happening?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, we should follow the model that was established by the Dutch industry in using biomass products. We should establish an environmental life cycle analysis that would allow us to subsidize those products which through their life cycle meet the environmental characteristics that we consider important in this country.

Without that kind of attitude, we will not go where we want to go.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-33, which, in short, would regulate fuels. The Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of having the standing committee study this bill. In fact, passing the bill at second reading, the motion which we will vote on, enables the committee to directly examine this bill. The bill will not have an immediate effect on the content of fuels, but it will simply enable the minister to regulate the content.

The bill reflects some of the Bloc's concerns—and I say some—that we should wean ourselves off our dependence on oil. The Bloc Québécois, like all Quebeckers, believes our policy should be to increasingly reduce our dependence on oil. The bill also calls for an effort to be made in the transportation sector in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote the use of agricultural and wood waste products.

Before the regulations are implemented, our party would like to see some thoughtful deliberation concerning the environmental record of the alternative fuels the federal government will propose. If the Conservative government really wanted to make a difference in this area, it would choose the path proposed by the Bloc Québécois, which calls specifically for legislative action to force automakers to substantially reduce the fuel consumption of all road vehicles sold in Quebec and Canada. The regulation would be very similar to the reduction proposed by California, which has been adopted by 19 other American states and the Government of Quebec.

We know the Conservative government's stance on this, however. It has chosen to ignore the reform supported by those who are showing leadership in the fight against greenhouse gases. In his statement, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities instead endorsed the Bush administration's declaration, which is much less demanding and seems as though it was designed specifically to spare American car manufacturers. Once again, the Minister of Transport showed his loyalty to the Prime Minister's approach and the Conservative Party line, which lean towards the Bush administration rather than California standards.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to provide for the efficient regulation of fuels. It would allow the federal government to regulate renewable content in fuels in order to require, for example, a certain percentage of biofuel in gasoline. The proposed measures, except for a few key details, were included in Bill C-30 of the previous session. I would remind the House that the bill called the “clean air act” was amended by the opposition parties in committee and that the measures concerning biofuels still appear in the amended version of the bill.

The government already announced the following:

An amended Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 would allow the government to implement regulations which will require five per cent average renewable content in gasoline by 2010. Subsequent regulations will also require two per cent average renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012 upon successful demonstration of renewable diesel fuel use under the range of Canadian environmental conditions.

Clearly, we believe that cellulosic ethanol is the way of the future. In terms of a biofuel substitute for oil, the most interesting prospect at present is ethanol made from cellulose. This process, still in the experimental stage and deserving of more support for research, uses a plentiful and inexpensive raw material and, more importantly, would recycle vegetable matter that is currently unusable. It would also provide new markets for the forestry and agriculture industries.

Given the environmental and economic problems posed by the production of ethanol from certain crops, support for raw materials that could be produced more readily is gaining ground. Thus, research is being increasingly focused on the production of ethanol from non-food crops and materials rich in cellulose and fibres. The development of an efficient process for converting cellulose to ethanol could promote the use of raw materials such as agricultural residues and straw as well as forestry residues, primarily wood chips, and even trees and fast-growing grasses. However, it is a more complex process requiring specific enzymes and it is not cost-effective at present.

Iogen, an Ottawa company, has built a pilot plant and has been producing ethanol from cellulosic materials for a few years. The pilot plant in Sweden produces ethanol from wood chips. The production process combines acid and enzyme hydrolysis. The products obtained are lignin, which can be burned directly or dried and sold as fuel, carbon dioxide, which is recovered, and ethanol, which is used to produce a biofuel.

Still in the experimental stage, ethanol made from cellulosic materials such as agricultural and wood waste cannot yet compete with traditional products. However, it does represent an interesting possibility. In addition, the Government of Quebec has announced that it will not promote corn ethanol further because of the environmental impact of intensive corn production. It seems that the Varennes corn-based ethanol plant will be the only such plant in Quebec.

It is important for all parties, and all the men and women listening, to understand the Bloc Québécois's policy and program to reduce our dependency on oil.

Quebec can cut its oil dependency in half within 10 years. By oil dependency, we mean oil's percentage of our energy consumption. Since global consumption of energy—be it electricity, energy from biomass or less conventional energy—will continue to grow in parallel with economic growth, reducing oil dependency by 50% means reducing oil consumption by a third in absolute numbers. This is quite a challenge, but it is not impossible.

The Bloc Québécois estimates that this huge shift requires that six objectives be met: one, quickly help Hydro-Québec regain a margin of flexibility; two, continue encouraging individuals, businesses and industries to give up using oil; three, reduce fuel consumption in passenger transportation; four, stop the increase in consumption in goods transportation; five, reduce consumption of petroleum products as fuel; and six, make Quebec a centre for clean energy and clean transportation.

When we say that we need to focus on energy efficiency to restore a margin of flexibility to Hydro-Québec, which can no longer count on surplus electricity as it did in the past, the goal is to increase residential efficiency by 18% and reduce consumption by 15% in 10 years.

To recoup energy, we need to start by looking at the energy we waste. The best way to create some flexibility is to improve energy efficiency, especially in buildings. Older homes are must less efficient than new homes. Homes of equal size built between 1981 and 1996 lose 14% more heat than new homes built after 1996. The difference climbs to 27% for homes built between 1971 and 1981 and 43% for even older homes. Using fairly simple methods to improve thermal efficiency, we can reduce the difference between older homes and newer homes by 65%, according to the federal Department of Natural Resources.

Given the real potential to save energy, we need to look at introducing measures such as programs to encourage people to use alternative energy, including geothermal, wind, passive solar or photovoltaic energy; mandatory but free energy audits when homeowners apply for a permit for a significant renovation; and amendments to the building code to set thermal efficiency standards for older homes and require that homes be brought up to standard before any permit is issued for major renovations.

Our second proposal is to eliminate the use of fuel oil in homes, businesses and industry. The 10-year goal would be to reduce by half the number of homes that heat with fuel oil, to reduce their consumption by 60% through energy efficiency measures, and to reduce by 45% the use of oil as a source of energy in industry.

In 25 years, the number of homes heated by fuel oil in Quebec has been cut in half. In the past few years, the trend has slowed considerably, in part because there are no longer any incentives for converting heating systems, but also because the price of oil has been relatively low for the past decade. The price of oil has gone up considerably in the past two years and that in itself provides an incentive.

To accelerate the conversion rate, the incentives for converting heating systems that were successful in the past could be reinstated.

Third, we recommend curbing fuel consumption for the intercity transport of goods. Trucks consume far too much fuel and alternatives to trucking are not flexible enough.

The goal is to put a freeze on truck traffic at its current level and to focus on technological advances and on changing the standards and regulations, in order to achieve a 9% reduction in fuel consumption for the intercity transport of goods. This increased fuel consumption is directly related to the increased quantity of goods being transported by truck.

While the quantity of goods transported grows along with the economy, rail transport is not growing as quickly as production, and transport by truck is practically absorbing the entire increase. To reduce truck traffic in the intercity transport of goods, in addition to increasing the energy efficiency of trucks, the relative advantages of other modes of transport need to be greater and efficient infrastructure needs to be developed to encourage the use of more than one mode of transportation.

Creating programs to rebuild the rail system, immediately removing all federal obstacles to implementing a Quebec marine policy, building an efficient transshipment infrastructure to facilitate the use of more than one mode of transport—intermodal transport—and limiting the predominance of trucking are some avenues to explore to achieve this goal.

There is a second point to the third suggestion, which is to curb fuel consumption for the intra-city transport of goods, since nearly all oversized vehicles run on oil products. The goal would be to reduce the amount of fuel used for the intra-city transport of goods by 25%. Unlike intercity transport, for which it is possible to develop alternatives to trucking—since it is over a long distance, it is always possible to consider transport by rail or by water—trucks will always be difficult to replace in an urban environment. However, in many cases, the vehicles used for this type of transport are unnecessarily large.

According to a 2001 study by the Office of Energy Efficiency, delivery trucks in urban areas in Canada were on average driving with a load that was at 20.5% of their capacity. The Bloc Québécois thinks we should put an end to that.

Measures specially designed for this sector can be implemented, for example, developing plans to reduce the size of vehicles, in cooperation with the government, for transport and delivery companies. For companies to which this measure could apply, such as messenger companies, there should be incentives to encourage them to introduce as many electric or hybrid vehicles into their transport fleet as possible. This idea has already made some progress, since in a brief presented to the House Standing Committee on Finance on October 17, 2006, the association representing messenger companies indicated that its members were interested in introducing electric-dominant hybrid vehicles into their fleets, provided they would receive a federal tax credit to help them make up for the price difference between hybrids and gasoline-powered vehicles.

The Bloc Québécois' fourth suggestion is to reduce the amount of fuel used to transport people, which makes up two thirds of the total amount of oil consumed in Quebec's transport sector and of which a large portion, 83%, is used in urban settings almost exclusively by cars. Our goal is to halt the increase in the number of automobiles on our roads by promoting a 40% increase in public transit ridership, and to reduce the fuel consumption of privately owned vehicles by 17% and that of industrial and commercial vehicles by 30%. Automobiles are responsible for nearly all oil consumption used in passenger transportation. Reducing our oil dependency and contributing to the fight against greenhouse gases necessarily requires us to reduce the use of cars and reduce fuel consumption.

There are two paths to achieving our objectives. On one hand, we must come up with an efficient alternative to the use of personal cars in urban settings and, on the other hand, we must reduce the amount of fuel consumed by cars. This will obviously require considerable investment in public transit infrastructure, particularly, to establish transit-only roads, develop new lines for commuter trains, street cars and trolley buses, establish designated lanes for public transit and car pooling, all properly monitored, as well as car sharing and other initiatives. For the Montreal, Quebec City and Gatineau areas alone, these developments would require considerable investment.

It would also require regulatory changes in order to force automakers to substantially reduce the fuel consumption of automobiles. Such a measure would target a 20% reduction in the fuel consumption of all road vehicles sold in Quebec within10 years. In order to ensure that the reduced fuel consumption of new vehicles is not offset by an increase in consumption by older vehicles, this measure would have to be coupled with mandatory annual inspections of all vehicles more than five years old or having been driven more than 100,000 km.

Once again, our regulations should follow the California model rather than what is being proposed by the Bush administration in the United States or the Conservative administration in Canada.

Fifth, we recommend that the amount of oil be reduced in fuels where biofuels, despite their interesting potential, are almost non-existent. The objective of our fifth suggestion is to reduce by 5% the amount of oil consumed throughout Quebec. The Bloc Québécois, like the federal government, is recommending that current oil-based fuels have a 5% biofuel content—biodiesel and ethanol, preferably cellulosic ethanol.

Sixth, we recommend that Quebec—a leader in some areas of transportation and clean energy—become a transportation and clean energy pole primarily by increasing investment in research and development and promoting the creation of technology poles. The objective is to gain the advantage on our neighbours and to be on the cutting edge of technology when this sector really takes off.

By further consolidating our assets in such sectors as public transportation, hydroelectricity and wind power, as well as substantially increasing support for research and development in niches related to clean technologies—in which Quebec has comparative advantages—Quebec could have an enviable position in the post-petroleum era because it would be less vulnerable to oil crises and it could export leading edge technology.

Over the next 10 years, achieving the objectives and recommendations that we have just listed would benefit Quebec in many ways. Quebeckers could benefit from a 32.8% reduction in oil consumption in Quebec and a reduction of close to 50% in oil used for power generation in Quebec, which would drop from 38% to 20%. They would also benefit from a 21.5% reduction in Quebec's greenhouse gas emissions, and a savings of $3.2 million on the cost of importing oil into Quebec. These measures would also make Quebec more competitive and stimulate growth, which would, in turn, increase employment and outside investment. Quebeckers would also benefit from increased wealth and an improved balance of trade.

Let us not forget that achieving these goals would effectively reduce Quebec's greenhouse gas emissions by 7% by 2012 and by 21.5% by 2020.

Within a few years, these investments would produce significant results, particularly in terms of Quebec's balance of trade, the competitiveness of businesses here, household disposable income in Quebec, Hydro-Quebec's revenues, and employment in construction and businesses in the transportation and clean energy sectors. In short, investing to reduce our oil dependency will make Quebec richer and will generate revenue that will enable the state to cover the full cost of these investments, perhaps within as little as seven years.

It is important to understand that so far, Quebec has developed its hydroelectric generating capacity by itself with no funding from the federal government, which has contributed barely 8% to the development of wind energy. It is high time the government came up with programs that will enable us to invest in reducing our oil dependency, in helping people and in imposing the strictest possible standards for automobile manufacturing, rather than offering tax credits to help rich oil companies.

All the measures proposed by the Bloc Québécois are achievable in the short, medium and long term. Just as it is already a leader in hydroelectricity and wind energy, Quebec could be a world leader in the fight against greenhouse gases, but especially in our desire to reduce our oil dependency. Clearly, this will require an effort by the federal government.

Quebeckers can cut their oil dependency in half within 10 years, but only if the federal government does not work against us and scupper Quebec's efforts by doing nothing, as it has done in the fight against greenhouse gases.

Moreover, in accordance with the constitutional division of powers, the federal government has responsibility for taking some steps to help achieve these objectives. Consequently, the government must correct the fiscal imbalance once and for all, mainly in the form of independent revenue, which grows with the economy and inflation. It must also continue investing in transportation, in particular by rebuilding rail lines and port facilities, building transshipment facilities to support the development of intermodal transport and improving transportation networks.

In short, with federal involvement, Quebeckers could avoid once again having to foot the bill themselves for developing new energy sources.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation on this very good issue here today, the renewable fuels issue, but I was very interested in his discussion about Quebec and its plans and directions. I think it is important that the discussion take place on a larger front than the provincial one. We need federal-provincial agreements to drive the kind of energy planning we need in this country.

Having said that, I note that he did say one thing that I found a bit contradictory in terms of his party's position. He said that his members want to work toward eliminating the use of fossil fuels in Quebec, yet his party has not opposed the development of the liquefied natural gas terminals at Rabaska, near Quebec City. These terminals will bring non-renewable fossil fuels from other countries to Canada largely for the use of industry or residents and commercial buildings and heating. Much of this energy could be replaced by the use of bioenergy from Quebec forests or from farmland in Quebec.

Why does the Bloc support such a development when there are greener alternatives within Quebec?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to tell my NDP colleague that he has it all wrong. What the Bloc Québécois said about liquefied natural gas terminals is that the Government of Quebec should do an energy analysis. This has not been done. So, the Bloc said that it would not support the bill before the Government of Quebec does a full analysis of our energy needs. This was the position of the Bloc Québécois, and it was criticized by those who supported the liquefied natural gas terminal in Rabaska. The people in favour of it slammed us because we did not want to support them.

As always, the Bloc Québécois is very responsible. We want the Government of Quebec to analyze Quebec's energy capacities. Do we need one or two liquefied natural gas terminals? No analysis has been done, and until one has, the Bloc Québécois will not support the development of the liquefied natural gas terminal at Rabaska, on the south shore.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)