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

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the New Democrats. I absolutely disagree with his speech, however, and his approach to the legislation, which is much needed. I am the member for the riding of Burlington, a completely urban area, and I am very much in support of what we are doing, for a couple of reasons.

This program will be part of the whole process that is required for our country to meet its obligations to reduce greenhouse gases. As a member of the auto caucus, over and over again, companies that produce vehicles in our country tell us there needs to be a mix, alternative fuel vehicles, hybrids, bio-diesel, to make it happen.

Ford, for example, in St. Thomas makes a vehicle that is E85 compatible, and there is a number of vehicles around the Hill that are E85, and 85% ethanol is coming to town. In Woodstock in the next week an E85 pump at an independent gas station will bring that to the marketplace. It is going to happen in Burlington. It is going to happen in all urban areas across the country. We need to be on board to be able to produce ethanol domestically to meet the demand of consumers who will want to be more environmentally sensitive in their automobile choices.

Does the member not think the NDP's approach on this bill is like putting its head in the sand and not dealing with the issue? The use of biofuels is coming. We can either be a part of it and make a difference and take advantage of it as a Canadian economy, or we can let some other country get ahead of us and do it. Why are the NDP members not embracing the biofuel approach, which the bill would enhance?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the question really fits very well with what I have been proposing. I wanted to see conditions that would have linked themselves to greenhouse gas emissions for the development of the biofuels industry.

In other words, we would have some condition that would give a priority to those biofuel production lines, those uses of biological energy, to produce fuel so that the incentives would be tailored to the greenhouse gas reductions.

To move to 5% ethanol in our gasoline we are going to have to grow about 4.5 million tonnes of corn or else we are going to buy it from the United States. The studies that are done by BIOCAP Canada, a very respectable study, suggest that corn ethanol from the United States or corn products from the United States actually have a negative greenhouse gas life cycle production. In Canada it is slightly better at 21%.

Biodiesel on the other hand from canola is probably the most attractive option when we are talking about the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through the use of a particular product. So when we talk about canola, we are talking about a product that actually does have some of the characteristics that we are looking for in a product. We can see a net offset of CO₂ of 57%. That is reasonable but it is still not as good as perhaps using bioenergy simply as a heating product where we are going to get a greenhouse gas reduction closer to 90% to 95%. Those are good numbers. Those are really solid numbers.

Therefore, when we think of the bioenergy industry, yes, we should think of it in terms of greenhouse gas reductions and we should be very careful about what we are doing with it so that we do achieve the goals that we have, and we do move ourselves toward Kyoto compliance.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that a point of order was raised just a few minutes ago by the government House leader. You said that you would take it under consideration and make a ruling. So before you do, I would like to make a comment on that same point of order.

I think if you look at the amendment that has been proposed, the motion that is before us, it is quite clear that what is being instructed here from the House is not mandatory. It is a permissive motion for the purpose of reconsidering one clause of the bill, clause 2. It quite clearly says in our motion “with a view”. It is something that would be considered and reviewed by the committee. It is permissive; it is not mandatory. Therefore, I believe that this amendment is in order and would urge you to take that into consideration before you make a ruling.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for her point of order.

Is the hon. government House leader rising again on the same point?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to add a little to that because of course I only received this at 12:24 p.m. by email which would have been just a moment or two before the motion was made, so I did not obviously have time to prepare a response.

However, in that short time I have been able to avail myself of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms which at section 733 states that on amendments at third reading there are limitations on the type of amendments that can be moved and one of those limitations is that they should not seek to give a mandatory instruction to a committee. Similarly, Marleau and Montpetit at page 673 indicates the same. It states:

--an amendment to recommit a bill should not seek to give a mandatory instruction to a committee.

This amendment does have such an instruction to a committee. It instructs it to amend it with regard to certain substantive questions. In that regard, it is absolutely an amendment that is beyond the scope permitted at this stage.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I do not wish to entertain a debate, but I will hear the hon. member for Vancouver East one more time.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, maybe the government House leader has not had an opportunity to read the amendment carefully, but it is quite clear that it is not mandatory. The wording clearly says “for the purpose of reconsidering clause 2 with a view”. This is not something that is mandatory. It leaves it open to the committee. I think it is well within the rules of the House to allow this amendment to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It appears to me that the hon. member for Vancouver East is repeating a point that she has already made. I am afraid that if I recognize the hon. government House leader, he is also going to repeat something he has already said. Therefore, I will hear him one more time but I am looking forward to new information.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver East said “with a view to” and then she did not bother to read the next words, which are, “making sure that”, and then there are the instructions on what the committee is supposed to substantively achieve. That is a mandatory instruction. The phrase “a view to” is optional but “making sure” is quite mandatory in anybody's understanding of the English language.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I now thank both hon. members for their points of order. All hon. members have heard me before commend them for their courtesy to each other. I would hope that this kind of commendation will inspire more courtesy, including advance notice of motions. As a chair occupant, I certainly do not like to be ambushed. I would like to make sure that all members are aware of what is to be expected before it happens.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Ottawa South.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left in this 10 minute session?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The clock did stop while we were dealing with this issue and there is now five minutes remaining.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the member and thank him for his remarks, but I want to respond directly to this issue of basically delaying the empowering of the Minister of the Environment and any subsequent minister of the environment to be able to regulate fuel content.

I want to point out to Canadians that, yes, it is true that the member has raised some important points. I would say, however, that he is overstating the analysis. He certainly is overstating the evidentiary analysis he is putting forward. I am glad to see that he was quoting from a research program that the previous government set up, but I do not think it is as conclusive as he put it and that troubles me.

Second, I want to understand whether he intends to continue to drive the NDP view that we should be prohibiting the use of genetically modified organisms for biofuel production and also whether he intends to lobby for the establishment of restrictions on the use of arable land. I guess flowing from that, is he now telling us that the NDP is moving toward the notion of perhaps even fettering the rights of farmers or maybe, even worse, nationalizing their lands? I do not quite understand what kind of conditionality the NDP wants to oppose because it is not authorized to do so on farm growers.

Finally, I do not understand his position because the urgency of climate change compels us to act and the onus is on the government within a year, and we will hold it to account, to tell us exactly what is the state of the industry.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member over there and the Liberal Party for doing the work with BIOCAP because it is a very respected organization. Unfortunately, its funding is not going to continue.

Having said that, the numbers are far apart. If the numbers were closer together, if there was some kind of fudge factor in the numbers, we could say they were at least close, but these numbers put the greenhouse gas emission reductions way different. They put the cost per kilogram of CO₂ reduction to the government at very different levels. Some of them are at factors of 10.

When I talk about scientific studies that show factors of 10 on the scale and when we are talking about what is logically good for the economy, I do not think I have to worry so much about the veracity of the precise numbers. These are very large differences.

When we talk about agricultural issues, I defer to the agricultural committee. These were raised in the agricultural committee. They were raised on very important issues that talk about what kind of land is used. Are we going to deforest land to increase the yield of agricultural production in order to make this change?

We see what has happened in the United States where the increased corn production has led to less soy bean production which has led to increased soy bean production in third world countries where the environmental conditions are not very good, where there is a lot of displacement of people off the land. We see the interconnection between land and the resources as the changes are made.

I am not an agricultural specialist. I come from a place in this country where there is not much agricultural activity. My grandfather was a farmer but I do not have that practical experience on the land. I defer to, in terms of what should happen with land, to the agricultural committee. I would expect that the committee members have reams of studies that suggest what should be done with land in Canada. If they do not, if they are just making this up as they go along, that is wrong.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre will want to have a very short question. There is one minute left. That will include both the question and the answer.