Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak once again to this bill. I just want to say that the amendment that we are proposing, that this bill goes to a special committee to ensure that any regulations or any rules that affect biofuels undergo careful scrutiny, is very important.
This would provide the precautionary approach. It is another safeguard. I did table an amendment in committee that was adopted, which basically stated that within six months after this bill comes into force and every two years after that, there would be a comprehensive review of environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production.
This amendment puts that kind of precautionary approach ahead of this taking place, and my amendment ensures that we really scrutinize the whole use of biofuels in Canada.
I do have a concern that the other amendments that I did propose in committee did not go through, and that is one of the reasons why we are here today debating this bill. I would just like to mention some of the amendments that were rejected.
Had they been accepted, this bill would have prohibited the use of genetically-modified grains, oilseeds or trees for biofuel production, except for those genetically-modified grains, oilseeds or trees that were used for biofuel production in Canada before 2008.
It would have prohibited the use of lands protected by federal legislation and other sensitive biodiverse lands for biofuel production. It would also have preserved the biodiversity of lands used in biofuel production and prohibited the importation of grains or oils for use in biofuel production.
Those were some of the amendments that I had proposed that were rejected. If we look today, we see that apparently Husky Oil, which has a plant in Lloydminster and Minnedosa, is thinking of relying entirely on corn for its ethanol production, thereby not really giving any benefit to the farmers in Manitoba, and opening up the possibility of using corn imported from the United States to fuel these two plants, completely bypassing the primary producer in Canada. I think this is wrong.
If we look at the chain reaction of what is happening, maybe it is oversimplified but this gives us an idea of what is happening in biofuel production in the world, we see that, for example, there is more crop land being turned over to produce corn for biofuels in the United States, at the same time displacing land that has been used traditionally for soybean production, which then increases the acreage for soybean production, for example, in Brazil, which displaces cattle ranching, which then forces the ranchers to cut down the precious rainforest to have grazing land for cattle.
In all of this whole cycle, I cannot see a positive effect on greenhouse gas emissions. That is just one example of what is happening.
We are not opposed to biofuels in general because the concept can be a good one. For example, in my province of British Columbia, there is a company that is now in production utilizing waste from restaurants to produce biodiesel, which is certainly a way of using the oil that normally would be thrown out. So there are ways of harnessing the energy for positive purposes.
What this bill does without any amendments is it gives our Prime Minister and this government basically a blank cheque to implement their proposals for biofuels, which do not take into consideration the negative effects on the environment or the increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
What I would like to do is just focus on a couple of articles that have come across my desk in the last couple of days. One is from the Malaysia Sun, March 23, 2008, and it basically stated that the head of Nestlé, the world's biggest food and beverage company, has sent out a warning against biofuels. The chairman and chief executive of the company said that the growing use of crops such as wheat and corn to make biofuels was putting world food supply in jeopardy. He said that the current subsidies being handed out to biofuel makers were unacceptable while the price of maize, soya and wheat was being driven higher. He also said that land for cultivation and water sources were under threat.
An article in Friday's Ottawa Citizen stated:
It is increasingly difficult to mesh the happy talk about biofuel production in Canada with what is going on in the rest of the world.
The article goes on to state:
Now, food supply is a complex thing. But it's becoming clear biofuel production is playing a role in shrinking that supply.
While the biofuel industry is not the main reason for food prices going up, it is one of the contributing factors, which is all the more reason for us to look at the bill and look at the policy. As we present a policy for the future, we should be looking at the long range effects and not at the immediate short term gains that may or may not be there.
If we look at what has been happening in the United States, we see that something like 58 proposed ethanol plants are on hold now because the Americans are questioning where the industry is leading them. I think we have a golden opportunity in Canada to do this right and if we look at the amendment, and if it is accepted, that will be a positive step in that direction.
Numerous statements have been made by civil societies and others that are questioning the whole direction of biofuel production. I would like to quote from a joint statement by the Tamil Nadu Environment Council and Equations, India, which states:
Demand for water is growing along with the economy. Agrofuel plantations will only increase competition for water, and ultimately impact food resources.
We seek a ban on any scale of monocultures and plantations for the sake of agrofuel production.
That is from an organization in India which emphasizes, from what it says, that maybe we are not going in the right direction.
Another headline from a November 2007 article reads, “An African Call for a Moratorium on Agrofuel Developments”. The article states:
We, the undersigned members of African civil society organisations, as well as organisations from other parts of the world, do urgently call for a moratorium on new agrofuel developments on our continent. We need to protect our food security, forests, water, land rights, farmers and indigenous peoples from the aggressive march of agrofuel developments, which are devouring our land and resources at an unbelievable scale and speed.
We should be looking at that statement as a warning that if we proceed down the road, which our neighbours to the south have in utilizing corn, for example, in the production of ethanol, we can see the tremendous impact that it has on our resources, the environment and on water in particular.
It is not only articles written by civil societies. Scientists and science institutes are questioning this from the scientific point of view. For example, Mr. Robert Watson, scientific advisor to DEFRA and former chair of the IPCC in the United Kingdom, states:
It would obviously be totally insane if we had a policy to try and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions through the use of biofuels that’s actually leading to an increase in the greenhouse gases from biofuels.
Research shows that when we take into account all of the input costs and the transportation, there is actually an increase in greenhouse gases from biofuel production.
I would like to close by quoting from the recommendations of REAP Canada. It is a study called, “Analyzing BioFuel Options: Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Efficiency and Costs”.
The organization made the following recommendations to our committee about Bill C-33:
This bill should be withdrawn for 3 reasons:
1. It won’t appreciably reduce GHG emissions.
2. It is not a “Made in Canada” solution.
3. The legislation does not demonstrate fiscal responsibility.
This is a scientific institute that has studied the whole question of biofuels and it is saying that we should look at this from a precautionary point of view.
I would hope that my colleagues in the House will support--
