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

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Hopefully we can have a little more decorum for the question and comment portion. The hon. member's time has expired for his speech, so I will entertain questions and comments.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for reducing what was a fairly complicated debate down to its core, down to its visceral roots.

I have a quote that I would like him to take note of and comment on. This is by a woman named Vandana Shiva, the director of the Indian-based Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resources. The quote is:

If...more and more land (is) diverted for industrial biofuels to keep cars running, we have two years before a food catastrophe breaks out worldwide...It'll be 20 years before climate catastrophe breaks out, but the false solutions to climate change are creating catastrophes that will be much more rapid than the climate change itself.

If we are triggering a non-virtuous cycle here, is it not that much more critical that we review it on a regular basis so we can nip it in the bud, if in fact we are contributing to the problem instead of the solution?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that statement speaks to the importance of what we are trying to discuss here, and that is the need for scrutiny in terms of where this biofuel plan for Canada goes. The question has to be raised at this point.

We all began at a point of believing that the biofuel so-called solution would help us to deal with global warming and would help us bring new farmland into production. However, the evidence overwhelmingly now suggests that something else much darker and unanticipated has happened. There are numerous signs that we are moving toward a global food catastrophe. This is a very serious issue. We are talking also about the fact that many of the great promises of clean carbon are about as reliable as the whole promise of clean coal, which is not clean at all.

The impacts on global warming and on the third world in terms of a food crisis have to be addressed, yet we have a government that says it does not want to have further scrutiny down the road. It wants to have a blank cheque. It wants to continue to push the biofuels economy, just like it has pushed the Athabasca tar sands. The government believes that a certain segment of this society is worth looking after, pampering and ensuring that every one of their little needs are met. Meanwhile the rest of society is being cut loose, shipped down the river along with the working families, the working poor, our first nations. Now people internationally are looking to Canada for leadership in terms of this global food crisis and they are hearing nothing but radio silence from the Conservative Party.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this debate back a little to the procedure that we have followed so far in the House with the bill. The billions of dollars that the government would spend on this was portrayed as an environmental concern directly related to greenhouse gas emissions, but the bill went to the agricultural committee. It only had that scrutiny.

The scrutiny it had was with the interest groups that were most likely to benefit monetarily from the process that was to be put in place. What the bill needs is the scrutiny of those who are concerned about the environment.

When we have a bill in front of us that could allow corn ethanol imported from the United States with a higher greenhouse gas emission characteristic than if we left the doggone gas in the vehicle, does the government not think this is important enough to have a debate about in the House of Commons?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, as my hon. colleague says, this is a very practical suggestion we have made, to allow this proposal to be scrutinized as it goes forward, but the government is not interested in that.

The government purports to say it is a friend of farmers. We could ask the farmers in southern Ontario what they think about the heavily subsidized corn and grain from the U.S. getting dumped in Canadian markets again and again, upsetting any kind of international standard for food and basic grains.

Why not work with us to ensure that our primary producers will not be overly impacted? Further, why not ensure that at the end of the day, if a biofuels economy happens, that it meets what it was meant to meet, which is to address greenhouse gases, and that it is not simply a make-work project for certain ridings to get large biofuels plants, which rely on subsidized corn that is dumped in from the U.S.?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the government brought the biofuels bill to committee, it received very little to no scrutiny whatsoever. I believe motions were brought forward that the debate should be limited, if at all. For a bill that will impact Canadian farmers and Canadian food prices and now with the increasingly a global concern on what has happened with commodity shares and prices around the world, there is an important element and a lack of transparency in what the government is attempting to do.

We have to understand, and it is fundamental, the government is choosing to use policy and taxpayer dollars to push a certain solution from its perspective. Any solution proposed to the complicated issue of climate change, we all know, needs to be given some thorough scrutiny. It needs to be addressed, analyzed and understood for what it is or is not.

With the bill, the government is essentially asking for a blank cheque from Parliament and Canadians to go forward and spend money on biofuels, be it corn, ethanol or others, without the scrutiny of Parliament and without the scrutiny of the Canadian people. There are many issues to choose from on which Canadians have lost faith with the government, but if any issue represents it best, it is the issue of the environment.

When we ask Canadians do they trust the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister and his so-called Minister of the Environment to deal with the environmental challenges we face, the overall answer is no. Whether it was specific climate change legislation that did little or nothing to affect the tar sands in northern Alberta or whether it was announcements like we heard this weekend, which get at only a small fraction of the problem and the government pretends it has solved the whole thing, Canadians are right and justified in feeling skeptical about the proposals that come forward from the government. It has a track record. In two and a half years, we have had little to no legislation to deal with the environment. I am my party's environment critic and I know. We have waited for legislation to come forward. We have waited and pushed initiatives with the government. We have said that this issue is too important to lay at the feet of the political spin doctors. This has to be dealt with by Parliament in a conscientious and sincere way. Instead, we have seen this thing being used as a ping-pong ball, back and forth.

I can remember the environment minister saying that all he had to do was be a bit better than the former environment minister, now leader of the Liberal Party, or to perhaps inoculate the debate politically. These are not exactly high aspirations for a government when dealing with one of the most important issues to Canadians. All considerations are political. All considerations are partisan. This has to stop. We have to find ways that Parliament can work together, and the NDP has proposed, on several occasions and on several different issues, ways to do that.

The process was used for the bill is important. Clearly, it is identified as climate change legislation. It is identified as a potential solution to the debate, and biofuels have a role in the debate on climate change. Biofuels are evolving and changing as we speak. The information we are learning about them and the global awareness of the issue is increasing. I believe Canadians are onside and want to encourage governments to join with them in partnership, to join with them to find these solutions.

Let us look at the way the government has handled the bill. First, it takes an environment bill and moves it over to the agriculture committee, similar to its immigration bill that was shuffled to the finance committee. At some point, people have to ask what exactly is the government trying to hide when it does not use the obvious and logical choice for sending these bills to the places that matter, where the groups that are involved, the advocates and the members of Parliament who are most familiar with the issue can deal with it instead of this shell game that goes on back and forth.

The connection between using certain food products in fuel is one that needs to be debated and discussed. That is obvious. The analysis has to be done. We need to have a full and proper understanding of what it means. In that connection, it is important for us to establish what the actual assessment is by government, what the effect will be on our economy and what the effect will be on the producers who raise food for our tables, on both sides, not just the grain producers but, on the other side of the equation, those who purchase grain to raise livestock.

When we ask the government to do simple greenhouse gas assessments, if this is supposed to be some sort of panacea or big part solution, we will spend a lot of money on this.

The government is proposing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on this, billions in fact. That is no small thing. That is money collected from hard-working Canadians and given to the government in some form of trust, although it is a trust that is being eroded, to get to the solutions that are necessary.

One would think that a government, a party like the Conservatives that pretended to run on accountability and transparency, particularly when it comes to tax dollars, would welcome the open invitation from New Democrats to have a fiscal analysis, to have a greenhouse gas analysis of what their bill actually proposes.

Instead, the government has said absolutely not. It will not analyze this thing on environmental terms, on financial terms, or on the impact to the market. It will throw this in and see what happens later. That just seems irresponsible at a fundamental level.

Take this in comparison to the bill that we finally got out of the environment committee, a climate change bill proposed by the leader of the New Democrats, which was filibustered for six weeks by the government: day in and day out, hour after hour of talking out the clock just to avoid the bill having a free and fair democratic vote.

At the end of the day, the piece in the bill the Conservatives filibustered, which is interesting, the piece they delayed, was the piece on transparency and accountability. It was a clause written into the bill to say that the government must come forward to Canadians, present its plans in an open and transparent way, and also be held accountable for any of the actions in spending that it did over the previous five years, going back on a forward looking plan.

This is something that has been lacking, whether it was Liberal administrations or this Conservative one. Canadians are lacking and losing faith in their government's ability to deal with the environment. They simply want us to find the solutions, use common sense and not pick political favourites on our path to those solutions but to use what every Canadian household does when spending a dollar. It is one choice or another. Do we get the kids a new soccer ball or do we put more money on the mortgage? Do we buy a little bit more expensive food or do we use something else? Those are assessments Canadians make every day. It is a natural thing. Every business makes those assessments, understanding the risk versus the benefit.

Yet, an enormous expenditure of Canadian tax dollars on this issue is changing week by week. This issue, eight, nine, ten months ago, was in a very different place as we have seen the market start to respond to the huge subsidies, particularly coming from the U.S., but also being modified in Europe. It is becoming one of the contributing factors to what is happening on the global food shortage.

Clearly, with strong condemnation from leaders and advocates of the international community for the government, one would think that it would welcome the opportunity that the New Democrats are offering, which is to say: “Give this a better look”. Maybe, when the bill was drafted, there were different circumstances. Maybe markets were responding in a different way.

However, let us get this right because if we get it wrong, if we continue to get it wrong, if the Conservatives and Liberals continue to vote for things that do not pan out in the end, Canadians are throwing up their hands in a more consistent basis and saying, “Maybe there is not a role for government in this”, and that is a true shame.

Industry has said to us time and again, even the oil and gas sector, the highest polluting sector of the country, “Just give us the fair and competent rules by which we can live by, address and to which we can adapt”, as opposed to this wavering target, this moving target of an ambition.

At one point the Conservatives talked about ambitious targets that meant nothing. They have to realize that at the end of the day, there are so many millions and millions at play. I see the environment minister encouraging me to send this to the environment committee. I think that is a wonderful idea. I would encourage him to join me in this. After six weeks of his filibustering of a real climate change piece of legislation, one would think that he would not come into the House with the hubris to say that New Democrats are doing anything but advocating for real and serious environmental change.

When it comes to the end of the game, the minister will be remembered as somebody who either did something or delayed and played games. It is coming to the end of the day when Canadians are counting on the government and Parliament and will be asking, “Did we do the right thing? Are we getting the right thing done?”

We must use our collective intelligence to promote solutions in which we can be confident. The amendment speaks to that. It should be encouraged by all parties. The bill should be given further consideration and understanding to know its true implications.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

We have time for one question or comment before statements by members. The hon. Minister of the Environment.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member from British Columbia who just spoke, thank goodness the bill is out of committee. I know the Conservative members were frustrated that it could not come out sooner.

I wonder if he would respond to the interesting suggestion levied by the Leader of the Opposition just yesterday. Apparently, gas taxes are not high enough for the Leader of the Opposition. He wants to raise gas taxes. Would the NDP member respond to that new Liberal proposal?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I would even attempt to understand the Liberal position when it comes to the environment.

I do not claim to understand the strategy or base tactics that are used when approaching this issue. I think it has been a problematic issue but that is not what I am here for. I am not here to point out the faults of the Liberals. I am sure my hon. colleague, the minister, can do that well enough on his own. Sometimes Liberals do that well enough on their own, as well.

My job is to promote the solutions in which we believe, solutions that we have verified with Canadians using the best research and intelligence that we can. We do not believe in slamming forward ideas not taking account of the shifting debate that goes on with something as sensitive as this issue and that the biofuels issue is part of the solution.

The government's prescription for this, to send it through a purely agricultural lens and not take a look at it through the environmental lens and not assess the greenhouse gas impacts of what is going on, we believe is irresponsible governance. We think there is an opportunity here to do the right thing, for Parliament to work together and find a solution with which all four corners can agree.

That is what Canadians expect of us. I believe it is what Canadians expect of us and I believe it is what Canadians hope from us.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

We will move on to statements by members. The hon. member will have three minutes remaining after question period to conclude the questions and comments portion of his speech.

We will now move to statements by members, the hon. member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park.

The House resumed from April 28 consideration of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of Motion No. 2.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-33, a bill that gets to the heart of environmental issues in Canada and to the heart of how we will regulate contents in gas.

I would like to broach out to a subject that is related to this and one that has received a lot of attention recently, and that is the food security issue which has a connection in terms of the biofuel industry.

Before I get into that I will give a slight overview of what is taking place in the world today. On the front pages of newspapers around the world are articles about the food crisis that is affecting virtually every country. Thankfully, our country has been somewhat immune from the situation because of our various efficiencies.

However, this does not belie the fact that one billion people around the world are living on less than $1 a day. These people are living in extreme conditions. They are being forced to sell the roof over their head. They are pulling their children from school and they are depriving themselves of the basic nutrients they need to survive.

What are the implications, particularly on children, if they do not get these basic nutrients? If a malnourished child does not get the micro-nutrients and the caloric requirements they need, they will suffer lifelong cognitive, intellectual and physical disabilities. They will not be able to do the things that we take for granted. What happens to them in their early years will affect their learning ability, their working ability and their ability to function in society. That is why this food crisis has implications well beyond what we are seeing today.

What has caused that? The reality is that in our world today we have more than enough land to produce the food we need. However, price distorting subsidies, export tariffs, export quotas, mal-distribution problems and disturbing distribution mechanisms have all caused a problem that is part of a perfect storm.

The biofuel subsidies are part of the problem. The distribution mechanisms, the export quotas, the increased demand from India and China and weather patterns that are affected by virtue of climate change all make up this perfect storm that has created today's food crisis. No one solution will enable us to address this problem. A collection of solutions are required.

I put part of this problem on the shoulders of IFAD and the FAO. Those two UN organizations have the mandate to deal with world food security but they have failed miserably, in part because their executive is dysfunctional. Our government should be playing a leadership role in pursuing the changes that are required in those two organizations when it comes to world food security.

The government made a partially good decision on the food aid required by the World Food Programme, which is an excellent organization. I have to compliment the government on untying its aid 100%. However, I also need to criticize the government for only putting in the amount of moneys required to enable the World Food Programme to maintain the work it has been doing over the last year.

Yes, it is true that the government did put in more money.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

More than what it asked for.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

It put in $50 million, but $62 million was required in order to meet the difference in demand.

While the absolute amount was increased, which is good, prices have gone up so much that the amount put in by the government only enables the World Food Programme to basically do what it was already doing.

On the other hand, I have to compliment the government for untying the aid 100%, which was a good thing. I hope that pattern of practice will continue. We can only encourage the government to put in the extra money that is required to meet the acute demand of today.

We also need to have a more coherent approach to dealing with the international food security challenge and this must be done through CIDA. We would like to see an integrated approach across agriculture, across development, across environment and across industry to address this problem. We have not seen or heard anything like that from the government, and that is irresponsible.

We are one of the world's largest food producers. Canada can and should take a leadership role in enabling the world to have the food it requires. We can do that by working with other organizations and other countries. Canada's agricultural scientists are some of the top scientists in the world. They are developing remarkable seeds that enable higher productivity, more disease resistance and a higher quality of food and nutrition.

Some are criticizing this by presenting bills to prevent that from happening, but the reality is that if we did not have this, we would not have the output, the potential output and the quality of foods that we do have. We also would not have the resistance that those seeds require in order for us to see improved output.

For the small farmer, those 750 million small landholders in the world who live on a very small amount of money, there is a need to improve their productivity, but export quotas and trade-distorting patterns prevent them from being able to do so. That is absolutely criminal. While we enjoy the fruits of our labour here and are all well nourished, those people do not and are living hand to mouth.

The profound tragedy we see is this chasm between available resources and knowledge and the application of that knowledge and those resources for those who need it most. Many of us have been in those parts of the world where people eke out an existence. We have seen people who are living on foodstuffs that are far less than what is required for basic physical integrity. The tragedy is that while a lot of money is spent on the front end in terms of international development, only a trickle gets down to those who need it most.

The current government has not been responsible in trying to grasp this issue. The food crisis did not happen overnight. It was predicted more than a year and a half ago by the UN World Food Programme, which was raising the red flag and saying that we should beware, that a food crisis was coming down the pike. It said that it was our responsibility to work together to offset it.

The tragedy of this is that despite all the dire warnings of the World Food Programme, we never see the action that is required to prevent these problems from occurring. The sad thing is that these problems are eminently preventable. They are entirely preventable and it is immoral that we are not preventing them.

This “silent tsunami” that has been spoken about will waft through the world. Unless we deal with this crisis today, it is not going to get better. It is only going to get worse.

Therefore, let me ask the following questions. Why does the government not take the initiative in trying to liberalize markets? Why does it not deal with the issue of a food system that is riddled with state intervention?

Why not deal with the quotas, subsidies and controls that dump all the imbalances on the international market? The victims who are subject to and do not have any control over this system are some of the poorest farmers in the world.

This is what we need to be doing. As one of the great nations of the world and one of the G-8 nations, we can do it. I have to say that we have seen this happen time and time again. The reality is that this situation of food insecurity will continue to happen over and over again.

As the international development critic for the opposition, let me say that what we are trying to do through the CIDA component is to convince the government to focus CIDA on one issue like this. CIDA can utilize and integrate the incredible resources in some of our universities and other post-secondary institutions in Canada. It can tap into those capabilities and share that expertise with those countries that are the least well off in the world.

If we enable those countries to have the food security they require, and indeed demand, we are also enhancing their security as well as global security. Not doing so will create insecurity. Insecurity breeds conflict. Conflict is something that affects all of us.

In closing, on behalf of the Liberal Party let me say that we are offering solutions. Many of the critics in our party have offered many good solutions to the government to deal with this crisis as it is happening and to prevent further food crises in the future.

We certainly hope that the government listens to and adopts the constructive solutions coming from our side of the House. To not do so is to be completely immoral and will ensure that the poorest people in the world will continue to be absent one of the basic needs of life: food.

[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, I thank the hon. member for his comments and also for his compliments to the government for the $50 million. We have a very responsible government and certainly want to do our part on the world stage. We have been doing very well in that respect.

I have a few comments to which I would like the member opposite to respond. One of the quotes I want to talk about is by Dan Gustafson. When we are talking about the high prices for food, he is quoted as saying that “the high prices also provide an incentive for governments, hopefully in sub-Saharan Africa, to re-invest in agricultural production”. He said that “farming is now seen as a business opportunity, not simply an issue of food security”.

The article I am quoting from states:

For the first time in 25 years the World Bank is focusing on agriculture. Its 2008 World Development Report is subtitled Agriculture for Development. The report states that farming has been ignored for too long as a pathway to global development.

I have one other comment I would like to make that comes from this article:

A dynamic 'agriculture for development' agenda can benefit the estimated 900 million rural people in the developing world who live on less than $1 a day, most of whom are engaged in agriculture.

Robert Zoellick, World Bank President, said in a news release, “We need to give agriculture more prominence across the board”.

Being the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, I think that agriculture can help a heck of a lot of these countries. I would like to hear the comments of the member opposite.