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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

There are two motions in amendment on the notice paper relating to the report stage of Bill C-33. Motion No. 1 will not be selected by the Chair, as it could have been presented in committee.

The remaining motion has been examined and the Chair is satisfied that it meets the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76(1)(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage. Motion No. 2 will be debated and voted upon.

I shall now put Motion No. 2 to the House.

Motions in amendment

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 3 with the following:

“Canada, including a review of the progress made in the preparation and implementation of the regulations referred to in subsection 140(1), should be undertaken by such commit-”

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this amendment, although it is not the complete amendment that we were looking for in this bill and certainly not an amendment that would lead us to understand how this bill would impact on Canada.

Bill C-33, as put forward by the agriculture minister and through the agriculture committee, is enabling legislation. It would give the government power to make regulations that would open up the ability for biofuels to be used in the Canadian transportation industry across the country. As such, it really does not have any of the characteristics outlined that may be the most important in dealing with this issue in the future.

Concerns are mounting around the world about the nature of the directions that countries have taken with the development of biofuels and with the promotion of ethanol from corn, sugar cane and soybeans. This movement, albeit having good intent, the process has shown and is showing a very detrimental impact on the food supply across the world. In much of the scientific material, it is not showing much improvement in environmental characteristics regarding greenhouse gas emissions and the use of agricultural land. The deforestation of land for the production of these crops has also added to the environmental concerns that people around the world are starting to recognize and talk about.

With the amendments that I proposed, which have now been reduced to the one amendment, we felt there was a need to have greater understanding of the direction that Canada was going to take with its biofuels policy from the House of Commons, not simply leaving it in the hands of the government to make regulations but to have a fulsome and complete understanding in the House of Commons as to the nature of the kind of businesses that we are entering into with biofuels.

That is the nub of it in terms of the motion that we are putting forward here today. We are down to the single motion and I understand, through the process of Parliament, how this has happened, and I respect that. I trust that other members will respect that we are trying very hard to understand how we can ensure this bill will work for Canadians.

This bill also represents the promise of a $2 billion expenditure by the government over a number of years toward subsidies to those who grow the product and develop the fuel that will be used in a 5% mix in gasoline across the country, as well with a significant percentage of biodiesel that will be produced.

The evidence is coming in quite strong that the greenhouse gas emissions from the development of the industry so far across the world have been less than satisfactory. If one includes the deforestation that has taken place in many countries outside of Canada that have bought into the biofuel idea, we find that greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy consumed in a person's vehicle in this biofuel mix actually turn out to be higher, and that is unfortunate.

As well, there are potentially other ways in which this industry could go where we would see improvements in the greenhouse gas emissions. With the use of corn ethanol, we see about a 20% improvement in CO₂ emissions over conventional gas coming from farm production. However, that creates the problem of using greater quantities of arable land in order to produce corn for ethanol production.

In the United States, through its programs, 16% of its corn production is now turned into ethanol, and it is looking at increasing that to 30%. It has caused an increase in the price of corn around the world. It is not healthy for mankind to be moving in this direction at a time when considerable poverty and malnourishment still exists around the world.

In Canada, the move toward a 5% ethanol content in our gasoline will not be accomplished on our own land. If that is the direction the government takes with regulation and with the investment of subsidies, we will find that much of the corn production will come from other countries, specifically the United States. We will be competing with the U. S. industry for the same product, as well as with people around the world who rely on it as a food stock and in many other ways.

This is a problem that we need to address in Parliament. We need to talk about it, understand it and include it in the bill that is being put forward. Simply allowing this to move to regulation without considering the desirable characteristics and the direction the government will take when it does produce those regulations is not proper governing. It does not represent careful choice.

We saw that in the agricultural committee when it reviewed the bill. My colleague, our agricultural critic, tried unsuccessfully to put forward amendments that would allow more careful consideration of this issue. Many witnesses came before the committee but most of their testimony was in vain. We have come to where this bill is now at report stage.

Most of the political parties in this Parliament at one time or another have supported the concept of biofuels and yet, as we move along in the world, opinion is changing rapidly about the nature of what we are creating.

I had the opportunity earlier this week to have lunch with the minister of energy from Great Britain where biofuels was a topic of discussion. When he was asked what the thinking was of the European Union and his own country with regard to biofuels, he said that we needed to change what we were doing. When asked if this could be done through regulation, he said that we needed to have some policy that outlines the direction that we need to take with biofuels.

There is an emerging consensus around the world that, however well-intentioned the move to biofuels is, the end result is not practically looking to be the way that we wanted it to be. The best laid plans of men and mice sometimes go astray. In the case of biofuels, I think it is quite correct that we need to be very careful. Canada is at an advantage right now. We have not passed any laws. Since we have not entered into the large scale production of biofuels with any particular process, we can make sensible and correct choices that can lead this country in a direction that will work.

It is imperative that we deal with this issue in Parliament. It is imperative that we understand the direction we are going in. It is imperative that the people of Canada understand what we are doing, how we are working toward the future of our country, how we are making correct choices about our energy future.

It is not good enough to simply say, “Here is enabling legislation. Let's just turn it over to the government”. The government has not won that kind of respect yet. The government has not demonstrated that kind of commitment to climate change. It has not demonstrated that kind of commitment to energy security. It is not demonstrated those commitments that would make this kind of choice to simply turn over enabling legislation in the fashion that we are prepared to do in order make the correct choice. We are really caught on the horns of a dilemma.

I will leave my comments there. I am very happy to engage in this debate. It is a debate that needs the attention of Parliament.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's concern, which is out there. There is no question that over maybe even the next decades the linkages and the conflicts between food policy, energy policy and environmental policy will be quite evident. We have a responsibility, globally, to ensure that our environment is protected and that there is a good food supply for the public. I understand his concerns. I do, however, feel we are moving in the right direction with this bill.

The question I have relates to the amendment itself. As I understand the bill, a review process is in place to review the economic environmental impact of developing production and the ethanol policy as we move ahead. The motion really refers to expanding the review into “preparation and implementation of the regulations referred to in subsection 140(1)”.

Could the member explain to me what is specifically meant by that amendment? Does it go beyond ethanol? Does it go to other energy areas? Could he give us an explanation on that amendment so we know specifically what the intent of it really is?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, subparagraph 140(1)(g)(iii) is the determining clause, “the adverse effects from the use of the fuel...on the environment, on human life or health, on combustion technology and on emission control equipment...”. We have a process that would expand the review to ensure it encompasses all the details within the bill and would help out with that.

The amendment is taken in the absence of the other amendments that were declared out of order, and I recognize that. I will attempt in all ways to ensure that we proceed correctly with the amendment. The member can take it that the amendment will, in fulsome detail, help with the review process as outlined in the bill.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will talk a little about the legislation and put a question forward for the hon. member about his speech.

There are different aspects of this legislation. It is very important that we recognize the diversity of this. We have to ensure we take steps forward on the environment and we have to ensure we concentrate on it. However, this is also about agriculture. This is also about ensuring that we can increase the farm gate prices for our farmers by giving them more options.

I am really tired of seeing the NDP members consistently standing up for their cheap food policy in Canada. An amendment was put forward in committee. We worked with the NDP member of the committee to ensure a review process was put in place with which the NDP was happy and that everyone around the table could accept. Then we come to this place today and the NDP members are trying to put restrictions on it. They are trying to stand in the way of enhancing agriculture for our farmers once again.

When is the member going to finally stand up and support our farmers and support putting good prices and rising commodity prices in place for them rather than a cheap food policy?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in the world speaks for itself on food prices right now. That is probably what we are having trouble with in response to the legislation. The situation in the world is changing. What may have been appropriate two years ago is changing rapidly.

We want to ensure that we make legislation that is good for the future, not good for yesterday or even today, but that works as we move along in the future. I am sure that is the ultimate goal of everyone in the House of Commons.

I do not particularly think this is a partisan issue to deal with the changing situation in the world as we speak. It is incumbent on all members to view very carefully what we are attempting to accomplish with the bill and put it into a perspective that will work. When we say that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I think we will have to leave it at that.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about the biofuels policy, one that we promised in the last election and are delivering upon now. I think all parties can support this issue. I think everybody believes that biofuels are not only good for our environment, but also good for our agricultural industry.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we had a good discussion when we reviewed the bill. We heard from witnesses and we covered all aspects of this issue, from the ones who were pro-biofuel to those who were con. At the end of the day, the members around our committee table, from all parties, agreed that this policy needed to move forward.

We made some minor amendments to the bill. The main purpose of doing that was to ensure a review process would be in place. This way, as we move forward, as manufacturing comes online in our country in the production of biofuel, we can look at all the downstream impacts and ensure that not only are our farmers benefiting, but our environment is benefiting as well. We also want to ensure that the industry can supply the domestic market, especially as we see more vehicles on the road that are ethanol based or flex-fuel based and can use both biodiesel and ethanol as well as traditional gasolines and diesels.

We brought the policy recommendations to committee and they were agreed upon by all parties. I am disappointed this motion would come forward as an amendment to the bill today. Essentially it would obscure what we have already been able to accomplish.

We have to remember that we are talking about the entire Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which regulates all aspects of fuel production. By going ahead with this review, it is opening this up beyond biofuels. Right now we are only reviewing biofuels under Bill C-33 with the amendments we brought forward.

In the proposal, in clause 140(1), the whole review process will be opened up to all fuels and that is not the intent of Bill C-33. Bill C-33 is about the biofuel policy and how it will be implemented and carried forward.

One of the concerns of my NDP friend, which was also brought forward by a number of people opposed to this policy, is that grain prices are getting out of control and that is affecting the price of food. They are blaming biofuels in the world for creating this price increase.

The reason the price of grain is going up so fast is because we have the lowest carryover stock in the last 50 years. Coarse grain stocks around the world are at all time lows, but that is not because of biofuels. That is because we have a growing population. It is also because countries like India and China have a growing and blooming middle class who are buying up higher quality food products and are consuming not only Canadian grains, but grains around the world.

We have also had some very difficult growing conditions. The prairie region last year only brought in a 78% crop. There was some drought in certain areas and difficult harvesting conditions in others. The same is true in Australia, a major grain producing area. It has had three successive droughts and last year brought in less than 50% of its normal production. The U.S. mid-west and western Europe have also had extremely difficult situations and came in with less than a bumper crop.

As long as these major areas, which produce the bulk of the food grains in the world, are having difficulty, we are not going to have the carryover stocks that we need to feed our growing population, especially certain areas of the world that now find themselves with better wealth and ability to buy higher quality food stocks.

We have to look at the whole gamut of the biofuel policy and how that impacts grain production around the world. We have to remember that biofuel production in Canada is really at its infant stage. We are only starting to move forward now. Some minor production has happened historically.

We are only now starting to see spades in the ground and new plants actually being built. That will start to produce the biofuels to hit our target of 5% ethanol in all fuel content and 2% on biodiesel. If we look at the total acreage in this country and the amount of grain it takes to produce either ethanol or biodiesel, it will only take about 2% of our land base.

There are also other opportunities. We already have a couple of biodiesel plants in this country that are making use of feedstocks from abattoirs and rendering plants. They are using excess brown oils, old greases from the cooking industry and those left over from the rendering industry to make biodiesel. A waste product can be used for some good to produce a biodiesel product that is still very clean for the environment.

There is a great deal of research in the cellulosic ethanol industry that our government as well as other governments around the globe have been supporting. Cellulosic ethanol can be manufactured from products such as switchgrass, wood shavings and wood chips, byproducts left over from our forestry industry. That is starting to come into production as well.

When we look at the overall aspect, a number of different feed stocks can be used to generate the biofuels that we want to see accomplished through Bill C-33.

It is unfortunate that this amendment is coming forward. It is muddying the waters. It is not looking at what we have already accomplished at committee, in consultation with the various players around the table. I am concerned that this has greater implications than just in the biofuels industry and could impact upon the entire fuel industry.

Finally, one of the concerns of Canadians is the rising prices of gasoline and diesel. I am really supportive of the biofuel policy not just because it is good for the environment, good for the farmers and will create jobs and rural development in the rural towns I represent, but because it provides another competitor in the marketplace.

We will have players in an industry that are community owned, owned by farmer groups or smaller businesses who will go out there and sell ethanol and biodiesel against the other refineries out there that are controlled by the major oil companies. This is an opportunity to have true competition in the marketplace with some new products.

Right now the price of ethanol in the North American marketplace is less than gasoline and it has the ability to keep the price of gasoline below what it would be if it was 100% petroleum.

It is important that we bring this biofuel policy into play as quickly as we can so that we can actually have that increased competition, hopefully bring down prices or at least have another source of product that can not only increase supply, but also undercut the other petroleum products that are being offered as normal gas and diesel.

Overall it is a win, win, win. It is a win for consumers, a win for the environment and a win for our farmers.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite unusual to be able to agree with the government on something.

The bill moving forward and bringing in the regulations to make it possible to have the ethanol and biodiesel blends, we believe, is very important.

We have had a number of discussions about this at committee. The member has been to the U.S. and elsewhere. I ask the member, where is the government intending to go in terms of research and development into other products?

There are discussions in the United States that they will move toward production of cellulosic ethanol in the not too distant future, in five or six years. I am wondering if the member can give us some estimation of what will happen in terms of research and development in this country. That is important as well.

Could he explain a little further what this is doing for the hopes and aspirations of the farm community in terms of grains and oilseeds? It is the first time in quite a while that I have seen a sparkle in the eyes of some of the grains and oilseeds producers and I think that is a good thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Malpeque for his great work on this policy, something that both of us agree we need to go forward on.

There is no doubt that the grains and oilseeds industry across this country has had some incredibly difficult times. It does not matter if the grains and oilseeds producers were dealing with drought, depressed world markets, or increased subsidization from Europe, Japan and the United States, it always seemed that they were against the wall and there was just no long term outlook that proved to be favourable.

Now the circumstances have suddenly changed. There is a biofuel industry that has essentially created a marketplace for grains and oilseeds producers that is equal to the market of Japan, just right here in Canada. We also know that world prices are going very high and that is good news for our farmers. It means that they can make some long term plans on reinvesting in their operations and on making sure that they invest in the proper technology, and continue to be at the leading edge of new production and management techniques.

The member asked me about other sources in research and development. We do need to be doing a lot of work in this area. That is why we have invested dollars in research and development and through our community futures development groups to ensure that local organizations, as they move forward with developing their own plans for ethanol and biodiesel plants, have the resources for business and environmental planning and are able to get their companies off the ground. We have also supported companies like Iogen, which is doing a lot of great work in cellulose and making the sugars in cellulose available for ethanol production.

We are going to continue to move ahead and work along with our partners around the world to ensure we produce a better product, and a product that is going to be definitely good for the environment and make use of more of these waste products that right now we are just throwing into landfills.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, in some ways, my colleague's speech and the questions that followed are making my point in saying that there is very much a need to set standards and understand where those standards are going to go before we pass enabling legislation for this particular industry. We have an industry that we can influence, that we can put in the right direction, that we can give those qualifications to that will drive it toward being greenhouse gas compliant and that will drive it toward investors investing in land that will be used strictly for the production of biofuels. Those sorts of things are available to us right now. They should be considered.

The member has made the point quite clearly that he wants these things, so why would we not include these in a bill in a very careful fashion?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about standards and those types of guidelines. Those are things that are put into regulations, not in the act. The member for Western Arctic is trying to muddy the waters and tie the hands not only of government but of industry. We want to make sure that we provide the proper regulations so there are quality standards when it comes to fuel.

As a farmer, I do not think I am really that interested in having somebody dictate that only a certain amount of my land base is going to be used for biofuels when there is a biodiesel plant sitting across the road. If that operation wants to make sure it is getting the best for its operation, it should be allowed to sell to whoever will pay the most money. I do not think we should be regulating that.

We know we need to have a lot more research done, and this is again something that we do not need to do through regulation, but in new variety research. Especially as we look to western Canada, we want to do more in ethanol. That is going to require a wheat based ethanol industry, and new varieties that produce more and produce the type of ethanol we want. Those types of varieties need to be bred and registered. We need to move forward on that as quickly as possible. The same can be said for canola, soybeans and corn. We want to make sure farmers have the ability to make the decision that is right for their own operations, so they can get the most out of the marketplace.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate this afternoon on Bill C-33. For Canadians who are watching or who might read Hansard at some point in the future, this bill is a technical amendment to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to simply allow a government, the present government or any subsequent government, to regulate, for example, the ethanol content in our fuels, to help in setting standards for the export of Canadian fuels that are blended, and so on and so forth. At first blush, it is a technical amendment.

I would like to respond to the member for Western Arctic's proposed amendment and pick up on some of the comments he made in his speech. He said that the testimony at committee was, in his own words, in vain, that many experts had testified in vain. I disagree. I disagree because the text of the bill already embraces the need for a review of the language of the bill every two years, a “comprehensive review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada” that would be undertaken by the Senate, the House or a combination thereof.

What he is now calling for is something entirely different, but it appears as if the review that is already going to be performed under this act, once it becomes law, would embrace much of what he is seeking to get in, to a certain extent, through the back door today, that which was not presented at committee some time ago. I would say it is a moot point. I would say that the amendment he put forward today is not necessary because I believe the regulatory standards will be reviewed as a function of the comprehensive review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production at some later date.

That is my opening statement on the merits of this particular amendment put forward by the NDP and the member who is speaking on the NDP's behalf.

I would like to now make a couple of more generalized remarks about the bill, which is about expanding the scope of the Minister of the Environment, not the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food but the Minister of the Environment, to regulate fuels in Canada.

I would like to talk about the government's 5% ethanol standard. I would like to talk about the government's excise tax exemption changes brought in on April 1, which have a direct bearing on this question, and about how this does not quite fit in to the government's climate change plan, a plan which is supported by no third party in Canada today.

First, the official opposition leader has been calling for a 10% ethanol position since last January. In a speech to Saskatchewan farmers in Regina, he asked for an increase to 10%, but it had already been put forward in our own election documentation of 2006 calling for a 5% ethanol content. There is a significant difference here between 5% and 10%. The government is proposing 5%, but we are still supportive of 10%. Why is that?

First of all, for every car on the road today, car owners can use a 10% ethanol content in the engines of their vehicles. There is no need to retrofit the engine as it is presently built. 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. That is a figure that is already surpassed in terms of those plants that are presently operating, under construction and even those being financed.

When the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his parliamentary secretary or members of the government talk about supporting our farming community, one has to ask the question, why is the government pursuing such an unambitious target of 5%?

In late June, in fact, the former minister of agriculture labelled the official opposition leader's call for 10% as overly aggressive, which the Canadian Report on Fuel Ethanol described as an excessive term in itself. Ontario, the largest provincial gasoline market in the country, is already moving from an existing annual average, E5, 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 which is a question that I have raised before.

Speaking now quickly to some of the environmental implications and considerations that ought to be paramount with what we are trying to accomplish here, there are all kinds of important questions around the environmental impact, for that matter even social justice questions, when it comes to the expanded use of ethanol in Canadian and worldwide markets.

In this, I think, the member from the NDP is quite correct. Those are precisely the questions that we see and envisage being treated and dealt with by the Senate committee and/or the House of Commons committee that will review the performance of the country every two years as the bill contemplates.

However, here is another angle and I would like to conclude on this. That is the incoherence between the government's purported 5% ethanol content regulation and what it is actually doing when it comes to the taxation policy for these very fuels.

On April 1 the government repealed the excise tax exemption for biodiesel and ethanol fuels. We know the effect of the repeal on low level blends is small, maybe even minimal, but we know the additional taxes are substantial for higher blends. The price of what they call E50 for example will increase by 2¢, for E85 it will increase dramatically to 8.5¢ a litre higher than it is, hardly making the fuel competitive.

This is at a time when we are trying to kickstart the fuel market and lend the added hand to our farming community if it is done in an environmental and responsible way. We only have 31 vehicle models today on the road in the Canadian market that can use E85 as we speak, but there are only 2 E85 retail fuel stations in this country compared to 1,250 in the United States.

Therefore, we have incoherence here between the government's purported claim to support our agricultural farming communities, which is a very important initiative, with its own fiscal and tax policies. They are leading to higher costs for this fuel and do not necessarily reflect, as we heard in the original speeches here in the House and at committee from the government members, the profound environmental considerations that are inherent in making a shift to a wider use of a specific fuel.

I go back to where I began on why it is so important that we have built into the bill a two year review of the economic and environmental performance across the country as to how we are doing as a country.

We are not Brazil. We are not transforming vast amounts of tropical forests into for example eucalyptus plantations or sugar cane plantations where it is obviously having profound environmental impacts on ecological integrity of those regions and of course ultimately the lungs of the planet. We are not in that kind of situation. Our concerns are different, yet just as important.

As we go forward with this bill, I find it hard to understand why the NDP would at the very last moment seek to bring through I guess the back door of the House that which it did not bring to the committee. I also cannot reconcile at all the amendment put forward by the member with the call already inherent in the bill to have this two year review on the economic and environmental implications, not that his concerns are not important, not that they are not valid, not that they should not be treated and dealt with but I think they will be dealt with precisely at that period of time, 24 months after the bill becomes law.

Twenty-four months later we will have a much better idea of where we stand and I think that will allow us to make mid-course corrections as a country as we go forward and deal with this particular fuel source.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member across the way for his comments. I want to touch back on this review. A review of policy is fine when we are dealing with things that we can change easily.

What is going to happen here with the industry is that it will move ahead in a certain fashion. The industry will make investments. Farmers are going to line up land and change their agricultural practices. There will be many things that go ahead once we put this bill in place, once the regulations are in place, and once the subsidies go on.

A review two years from now may be at the start of an industry. It may be when industry has just made major investments and it is not going to be a great time to decide that we have made the wrong decision here, made the wrong choices or moved in the wrong direction. The time to decide what the right direction is, is before we start.

That is why quite clearly my colleague on the agriculture committee brought forward many recommendations. I spoke to this issue when it was in Parliament before. We are saying it again to the hon. member across the way, do you really think that a review two years from now is going to--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Western Arctic should ask questions of the hon. member and not of the Speaker. He should be saying “does he think” rather than “do you think”.

The hon. member for Ottawa South.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about a review, I do not see any material difference between what we are contemplating here and, for example, the five-year mandatory review that is built into the Canadian Environmental Protection Act as a whole. That is something that was just completed at committee, which delivered up I think profound recommendations for change and improvements and enhancements to improve CEPA and how it is, for example, operationalized in the Canadian context. That is my first response.

Second, it is true that choices will be made. Investment decisions will be made. I have every confidence in the free market in Canada. I have every confidence in farmers. I have every confidence in investors and in companies that are going to be following this emerging market very carefully.

They know that investing in cellulosic ethanol, for example, and making a quantum leap into those kinds of feedstocks to generate the cellulosic ethanol is probably going to be a wiser and more intelligent investment than not.

It may take some transition time in some parts of the country. We know that cellulosic ethanol has much less impact in terms of GHGs and on the atmosphere as a whole.

I do have confidence that people will begin by beginning. They will start by starting and they will invest and they will build this sector. In 24 months, I think, we will be able to make a mid-course correction shot. We will examine it and we will make improvements.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member. I have worked with the member on the committee before, so I understand his passion for the environment, much like my own and much like this government's. Indeed, I know he is happy that this government has moved forward with the estimated 5% renewable fuel standard in Canada because it would obviously equal somewhere in the neighbourhood of a four megatonne reduction in net GHG emissions which is great news for Canadians. That is actually equivalent to 1 million cars taken off the road.

The member mentioned that we are not aggressive enough on this side of the House. I would argue that point. I would ask him specifically this. The fuel industry has indicated that indeed these are aggressive targets and they can be met by the dates that we have set, but there is an issue of capacity in the distribution of infrastructure for this upgraded capacity. How does he see that we would meet these additional requirements, if indeed as his leader has suggested we have this additional target of an increased percentage in the fuels themselves even though we do not have the distribution capacity at this stage to do so?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that it is a distribution problem. I do not believe that it is strictly a distribution problem. I think there are a few things that the government should keep in mind.

First, why is it that Ontario, that represents 47% of the Canadian economy, has made the quantum leap to 10% by 2010? Why is it that Ontario can do it but the federal government cannot?

Perhaps the government could bring in a coherent policy that did not, on the one hand, remove the excise tax exemptions to actually help kickstart the sector while bringing in an inferior standard of 5%. Perhaps we could actually have more coherence between fiscal, agricultural and environmental policy. After all, it is the government that has, I am told, some kind of cabinet committee that is trying to reconcile energy, environmental and financial considerations.

Clearly, I do not think that this policy has been put through that gauntlet. I do not think that we have seen, here, this kind of baby given birth to really reflect the need, in the way that our leader of the opposition speaks about all the time, to really integrate environmental, social and economic considerations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, to address the amendment proposed by the NDP. First of all, it is an amendment to Bill C-33, a bill intended to provide for the efficient regulation of fuels. This bill would amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

The amendment reads as follows:

That Bill C-33, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 3 with the following: “Canada, including a review of the progress made in the preparation and implementation of the regulations referred to in subsection 140(1), should be undertaken by such commit-”.

This amendment is meant to improve a clause added by the committee. This addition specifies that a thorough analysis of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada should include an analysis of any progress made regarding the regulations developed and enacted by the governor in council. This will allow for a more thorough assessment of the impact of biofuel production and the enforcement of the related regulations.

Today we had a fine example of that in this House. The leader of the Bloc Québécois opened question period with a question on the famine that is occurring throughout the world because grains, a basic food source, are becoming increasingly less available to certain people. This is connected to the current production of corn and other grains in the world that are not being used for human consumption. We are using the soil and cultivation to produce ethanol.

We can, and rightfully so, ask the government to increase its humanitarian aid to 0.7% of its gross domestic product. However, it is still illogical for the government to be presenting programs to convert cereal crops to ethanol, when people around the world are dying of hunger because they do not have enough grains. I was listening to the Liberals earlier. They want ethanol production to increase.

One of the advantages of this amendment is that it will have us look at other existing technologies. We have cellulosic ethanol, for which we can use fibre, agricultural and wood waste to produce ethanol. There has not been enough research yet to release this product on the market, but the product exists.

We need to find ways to solve the problems we are causing by producing ethanol from grains. We have to find a way of doing this. I understand that, because it promotes producing oil from the oil sands, the Conservative government is trying to ease its conscience by producing ethanol, but if ethanol production is creating a world famine, then it is not a better option. Parties have to stop setting short-term political goals in order to get elected. We have to try to save the planet and, above all, protect the peoples living on the planet.

One way to do this would be to make an amendment that would provide for a review of the environmental and economic aspects of production. That would enable us to examine all the new technologies and change direction while there is still time. While we are setting ethanol production targets to gradually reduce our dependence on oil, we could choose the right type of ethanol to produce, cellulosic ethanol, which would come from agricultural and wood waste, instead of ethanol from grains. We saw this today. Around the world, the media are reporting a grain famine. Grains often form the basis for people's diets. They are the basic foods for survival.

That is why members will not be surprised that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this motion. This is the direction the Bloc Québécois wants to take in committee.

When discussions on the production of ethanol are held, we must focus on cellulosic ethanol, increase budgets for research and development, and think more about stopping the use of ethanol made from grain crops. Instead of using crop land, we should use forestry and agricultural waste. These fibres could be used to produce ethanol in a way that does not harm the production of grain, which often forms the basis for feeding humanity.

We will be in favour of this amendment. In committee, the Bloc Québécois will defend the interests of Quebeckers. We are the only party in this House that defends the interests of Quebeckers. At the same time, it is clear that Quebeckers do not want anyone to go hungry, but do not want to sacrifice energy production. This needs to be done using waste instead of crops.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague. I would like to ask him a very simple question. He says that he is in favour of the motion by the member for Western Arctic that refers to a review of the progress made in the preparation and implementation of the regulations referred to in subsection 140(1). I do not understand his reasoning. I do not understand the difference between what is proposed here in the motion and what is already provided for in the bill, which says:

—every two years thereafter, a comprehensive review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada should be undertaken by such committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established by the Senate or the House of Commons, or by both Houses of Parliament, as the case may be, for that purpose.

I do not understand exactly how this motion would change what is already provided for in clause 8 on page 3 of the bill. In my opinion, it is clear that this is already covered. Every two years, there will be a review of exactly what should be reviewed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which he answered himself. The amendment proposes that the review take place immediately, rather than after two years. I have been trying for some time to explain that we are helping to create a world famine with the way we produce ethanol. We must therefore not wait two years before looking at the economic and environmental impacts of what we are doing now. We must conduct a review immediately.

It is simple. We will maintain that position. You will understand that the Bloc Québécois, in committee, will want to refocus ethanol production immediately on cellulosic ethanol rather than grain ethanol, which uses a portion of the world's food supply to produce energy. We need to conduct a review right away, not after two years.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and on the amendment put forward by the NDP.

As I said earlier, I do not see why the amendment is necessary. There is already a review in the act and I think the amendment is redundant. Many of the aspects of what the NDP is trying to do through the amendment are already covered by the review process established in the bill.

The bill gives the authority to allow for the efficient regulation of fuels. In so doing, it does open up opportunities for the biofuel industries in quite a number of areas, especially for ethanol and biodiesel.

With the bill in place it should give some confidence to investors to put up the kind of capital required to build plant capacity for the refining of those fuels. As we all know, without that assurance in terms of industry being willing to invest, there will not be a market for the products coming from the farms, be it corn for ethanol or, in my neighbourhood, new varieties of canola for biodiesel.

This is also a benefit to our environment by utilizing these fuels and therefore producing fewer greenhouse gases. The evidence is certainly in on that area.

I realize, though, that there is some controversy. As I said earlier, I do not think there is any question that in the next decade for sure, and probably beyond, there is going to be a constant debate between the linkages and the conflicts between food policy, energy policy and environmental policy. We need to be at the forefront of that debate.

We hear it and I am sure you hear it, Mr. Speaker. There is the whole debate about whether we should be using what could be called a food product to fuel SUVs. There have to be other policies in concert with this one to try to limit the wasteful use of fuels that is adding to greenhouse gases. There has to be a lot done in that area as well.

One such area is the whole area of transportation policy. I raised a question with the Minister of Transport the other day, who basically ignored my question. My question was on the government doing a costing review following the study by the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that showed the railways are gouging primary producers in this country by $175 million. That cannot be allowed.

I would suggest that the government needs to act in that area, because we know that rail transportation is a lot more efficient than road transportation in its use of energy. What we have seen taking place with the railways, beyond their excessive profits, is a major thrust over the last several years in terms of tearing up branch lines. I certainly remember, and I know you will, Mr. Speaker, that just 15 years ago Canada had about the best rail infrastructure in the world in terms of branch lines moving out into communities.

However, the railways in their wisdom decided they would go to two major lines and tear up those branch lines. As a result, there is damage being done to rural communities, to the availability of farmers to ship on those lines. Now there is much trucking on highways, which uses more fuel down those highways. It is really a transfer of the infrastructure cost back to the provinces and to producers.

Although this is a debate on ethanol, it all ties together. We need to be reducing greenhouse gases and the government of the day needs to be challenging the railways on their excess profits and doing a costing review of what they are doing by tearing up railways and reducing infrastructure for the use of communities and producers in our country.

The government should go beyond this bill in providing regulatory authority to allow biofuels and ethanol and go to other areas as well. It should show some concern about the environment by taking other means to reduce greenhouse gases. One of those is to challenge the railways on their destruction of infrastructure to gain more profits for themselves and to heck with the rest of the country.

The bill and the regulatory authority changes would open up some opportunities for the agricultural community. There is no question that is direly needed. As the minister himself has said, close to three billion litres of renewable fuels will be needed annually to meet the requirements of these regulations.

That kind of expansion will represent an economic opportunity, we hope, for grains and oilseeds producers. It will be a new market for Canadian producers. We in fact are seeing that in my province of Prince Edward Island, not so much in the ethanol area but in the biodiesel area. A cold pressed canola operation is now in place with quite a number of canola acres that will go in this spring. This will help the environment in a number of ways. It will give us an alternative crop with which to rotate other crops. It will move us away from our dependence on the potato crop as the major economic generator and therefore we would have less erosion, less use of nitrogen fertilizers and less silting of rivers as a result of growing that alternative crop.

As we go down this road, although it is not all tied into this bill, it is important for the government to also expand funds in R and D and look at cellulosic ethanol and the use of wood byproducts and waste. They might even be able to use it out west for the damage done by the pine beetles. There are many other areas with regard to the whole idea of producing biofuels where we can take what is now seen as waste in many areas, or excess production, and use it in a positive way.

I am nearing the end of my time, but I understand where the NDP are trying to go with the proposed amendment. However, I firmly believe the review aspects already in the bill will cover those members' desire. The review of the economic aspects and the environmental impact will take place as already designed in the bill. Yes, we need to do that. We need to understand what is happening.

We also need to ensure the bill does not just set up a situation where cheap ethanol is floated up the St. Lawrence River and into Canada and also that cheap corn from the United States does not come into this country, undermining our pricing structure and being produced through Canadian plants.

We have to ensure this remains an opportunity for Canadians, especially Canadian farmers, in a way to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada as a whole.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Before I proceed to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Gatineau, Official Languages.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my learned colleague has demonstrated his expertise in the area of agriculture and today gave us an indication of his insights into developing economic innovations.

Could I get his comments, especially from an agriculture perspective, with respect to what is happening in the biofuel industry and the implications for agriculture, international affairs and the automobile industry?

My colleague is aware of the numbers the government side tried to put forward and that every time there is a 10% increase in the number of automobile owners in India and in China alone, there will be an additional 200 million cars on the roads requiring some kind of fuel. I know he is aware of those figures. He is aware as well that the international demand for energy consumption is flowing into what we are talking about today, and that is biofuel, biomass and the demand on agriculture production worldwide.

My colleague talked about the production of cheap corn in the United States and what happens not only in the United States, but everywhere else. For example, Nebraska is dedicating an additional one million acres for the production of corn dedicated to ethanol production. It is already producing some one billion gallons of ethanol on an annual basis. Four hundred and fifty plants are scheduled to go into production this year in the United States alone.

With these kinds of pressures, does he not believe that the price on agricultural products, specifically food products, will continually escalate upward and that farmers will be protected by the increased demand that takes place not only in North America, but worldwide and has already hit critical and urgent proportions in Europe today?

I ask him to think about that for a moment while he reflects on the fact that South Africa is already considered the Middle East of the biofuel industry. It has already dedicated over one billion acres of land to the production of biomass for biofuel production. Brazil, India and Indonesia are dedicating literally tens of millions of acres of land that would normally go to feeding the world's hungry, and we are all going to be hungry. There is greater demand in those parts of the world, a demand that reflects back on our obligations for food aid and world commitments that we have already made.

My colleague knows—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I am sorry, but I have to give the member for Malpeque some time to answer.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we have had a cheap food policy in our country and in North America for much too long. It is one of the things that has led us here. There certainly is a huge desire by the farm community to see these new markets open up.

The hon. member makes a valid point in terms of some of the cautions of which we have to be aware. I said in my opening remarks that three policies are going to collide, food policy, energy policy and environmental policy. We have to be aware of those. We have to be conscious of them. That is part of the reason for the review as well.

In the agricultural sector, I point out that the upward pressure and the price of grains and oilseeds is also causing tremendous problems in the agricultural community itself, especially with our rising dollar and other factors. These very same products that are going into ethanol are the feed stream for hogs, beef, poultry, chicken, dairy and so on. It is causing a cost price squeeze on farmers who are producing these commodities.

As China and India come on stream, beyond the energy use of increasing automobiles on the road, there will be the increasing demand for meat and other protein foods. This is the reality of the world that—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. One very brief comment and response, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite comes from Prince Edward Island. Not a lot of wheat, barley or such things are grown there.

Would he be advocating that wheat and barley straw, for purposes of the bill before us, be put under the Canadian Wheat Board, yes or no?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

I know the member for Malpeque is anxious to answer the question, but he could at least allow the Chair to recognize him first.

The hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is we grow the best potatoes in the country in Prince Edward Island, that is for sure.

I have always advocated a national grains board. The Wheat Board is even more important with the ethanol production now because it maximizes returns back to primary producers. It is so sad the government is only interested in the profits of the multinationals rather than defending the rights of producers.

In terms of straw, we would like to see it used as biomass production for ethanol, not just allow it to go to waste. Yes, it is needed sometimes for organic matter, but it could also be used for the production of ethanol itself.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say at the outset that I did enjoy the speech by the member for Malpeque. He made some valid points and certainly laid out in a fairly clear fashion the complications that exist in this bill and this initiative going forward.

It is not a simple piece of public business. It is very complicated. We really do need to pay close attention to it and make sure we put in place all the necessary checks and balances so that we monitor and assess as we go forward and minimize the negative impact of this seemingly very positive initiative by government and industry.

I want to say right off the bat that I am certainly standing in support of, and am going to actually speak to, the amendment put forward by my colleague from Western Arctic. Earlier I was pleased to hear the Bloc also joining us in putting in place this further check and balance on this rather large and, I would guess as it rolls out, very impactful piece of business that will take us in a new direction and open up some avenues and opportunities, but which on the other hand will create some real difficulties for some folks.

I do not think we really know what all those difficulties will be yet. I do not think we have been able to quantify the impact. As was said by the member for Malpeque and the member for Western Arctic, who spoke earlier, we have not been able to quantify the impact on our food policy: security of food for all people, the cost of food, and the sustainability of our farm and agricultural industries.

I also do not think we understand the impact it is going to have on both energy and the environment. When the whole concept and idea of biofuel was first put out there, everybody was gangbusters to come on board to support it, but in some jurisdictions, particularly across the border, we are seeing that it in fact is not the elixir that everybody thought it was perhaps going to be.

I think it is really important to have this in the bill. My colleagues participated in the evaluation and the process of amendment in looking at this bill when it came before the committee after second reading. They made a number of amendments that were not accepted, so I think it was only the rightful duty of the member for Western Arctic to take this opportunity yet again.

This amendment was found to be in order and it is an amendment that will give us an earlier opportunity to see what is going on. If it is not in the best interest of the public out there, which is what we are about here, protecting the interest of the public and putting forward good public policy that benefits the most people, we need to have the opportunity to actually take a look at it.

I have served in public office for 18 years now, first at the provincial level and now at the federal level, and there are many people in this House who have been around for a long time. We understand that oftentimes the devil is the in the details. When moving large pieces of legislation that have widespread impact out there, we really need to pay attention to the regulations. It is in the regulations where we find the real meat in these kinds of bills and initiatives.

We have to be concerned when, holus-bolus, the development of regulations is turned over to the government, a government, I have to say, that is lobbied and that speaks regularly with the large corporations and multinationals out there. It runs up some red flags for a lot of people. Somebody has to be there to speak out loudly and clearly on behalf of the smaller entities that can get caught in the crunch or be bulldozed or rolled over in these instances.

What we are asking for is really not a big deal. As the government rolls out its regulations, which will be the highway down which the new initiative will go, we are asking that this be brought back to the committee to be reviewed so we can see that it turns out to be all that it was hoped to be in the first place. I think this is a good move. It is a smart move. It is in the public interest to do it. I commend the member for Western Arctic for doing the work necessary to bring it forward and have it accepted.

In the last number of years, particularly when I was in the provincial realm, we looked at biofuels, but we were looking at products that were not in the food stream and could be grown on farmers' fields, or at waste that could be gathered in forests and in the varied territory that exists across the country. That could be gathered and used. Perhaps it could be turned into oil, chips or different types of fuel sources and used to provide energy that would heat our homes. Wood pellets are used in some parts of Canada to heat homes and buildings in a very progressive and environmentally friendly way.

In my area, a very important and good debate was initiated by a local maker of particleboard when he said we should just hang on for a second. He said we would be taking his raw material, for which he pays good money and which he uses to make products. That creates jobs in the area and contributes to the local economy. He said we would be taking it to start making energy out of it. He asked what he would do then and said we were robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak.

This is the kind of impact that a good idea can have sometimes when we do not look at all of the ramifications. If we simply allow this kind of public policy to roll out without an opportunity to look at it as it develops through regulation, we may end up at the end of the day missing somebody, not hearing from somebody, or witnessing an outcome that we did not expect to happen in the first place.

Everything in this new venture that we are into now, where energy, fuel, new fuels, biofuels and the environment are concerned, is very interconnected and complicated. It requires the close attention of all of us in this place, who have been elected to give leadership and to be responsible for what will happen in those realms, particularly where energy and food are concerned.

Yes, I am concerned that this will drive up the price of food. We hear from across the way, particularly from the Liberals, that they want to move away from a cheap food policy. I do not know exactly where the line is there and who we are talking about when we talk about cheap food. Anybody who knows of the work I do around here knows that I have a great passion on the poverty front in regard to trying to make sure that all people who live in Canada and in fact around the world are able to feed themselves and their families.

What we may see as cheap food and cheap food policy may be quite different from what the people in a neighbourhood in downtown Toronto, let us say, might consider cheap food or expensive food. I am not arguing for one or the other. I am just saying that we really need to be careful about how we do this, because it is already having and will continue to have a huge impact on the whole food supply system.

We have heard from across the way that the Americans are moving lock, stock, and barrel with great energy, investment and enthusiasm in this direction. The facts actually tell a different story, certainly in some sectors of the U.S. I have a press release that came out on February 28,2008, not all that long ago. It states, “The ethanol boom is running out of gas as corn prices spike”.

The article states:

Cargill announces it's scrapping plans for a $200 million ethanol plant near Topeka, Kan. A judge approves the bankruptcy sale of an unfinished ethanol plant in Canton, Ill. And that was just Tuesday. Indeed, plans for as many as 50 new ethanol plants have been shelved in recent months, as Wall Street pulls back from this sector, says Paul Ho, a Credit Suisse investment banker specializing in alternative energy. Financing for new ethanol plants, Ho says,“ has been shut down”.

So is the government going to get into the financing of some of these things in a big way? Are we going to find out, if we do not have access to some of what is going on, that in two years, when we actually get to this review, the government has spent a ton of money and is now in a place where some of these plants are not economically viable any more because of the impact they are having in other ways?

I also want to share with members the fact that there is another article, this one in the Edmonton Journal, entitled “Green gold or fool's gold”. I think we have to be really careful about this. We are not saying that we should not move forward. Biofuel makes a lot of sense in many ways, but it is fraught with landmines.

That is why I stand shoulder to shoulder with the Bloc to support the amendment by my colleague from Western Arctic. I am supporting him and inviting the Liberals in particular to join us in making sure that we put yet another other check and balance in place so that we do not end up in the same place as some of these American firms.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend speaking about how some of the laws passed by this Parliament should be reviewed, or at least that is what this amendment says. If we kept doing that, we would never get anything done, because we would just be revisiting things we have passed already. That is why ministers are given powers to pass regulations pursuant to certain acts. This just lays down the parameters under which the regulations can be made.

The member made reference to the United States and some of the problems with regard to ethanol. That is why the states are going to cellulosic, or cellulose based, ethanol and that is exactly some of what this government is investing in. It is cellulosic ethanol. That is what is happening in northern Ontario.

He mentioned particleboard using chips and said that somehow we may be diverting wood products from the forest industry because that is what particleboard is made from. That is what oriented strand board is made from. However, we know that our forestry industry is in trouble, and one of the things celluosic ethanol will do is add another value added product to our forestry industry. Instead of being a negative for people who work in the forestry industry, it is going to be a positive.

I heard mention of Brazil. I was reading an article recently with regard to Brazil's economic situation. One thing bringing it out of some economic hardship is that it is not relying on very expensive hydrocarbons, very expensive petroleum products. That is the very reason it is coming out of that economic hardship. A few years ago Brazil was having difficulty making enough vehicles to run on ethanol, but it made an economic decision to move away from petroleum to ethanol, which is bringing up that country's standard of living. It is not a negative but a positive.

Europe is moving to biodiesel. It is not concentrating on ethanol necessarily and there is a good reason for that. It does not have the kind of agricultural base that we in North America have in order to support it, but what it does is buy a heck of a lot of canola oil from Canada. Canola is driving some of the economy in the west.

I just cannot understand this. There is everything positive about the bill. I suspect there is something sinister about the amendment that the NDP members want to bring in. They probably know they are never going to form government so this is--

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. The member has used up half the time for questions and comments so maybe we could give the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie some time to respond.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am told that cellulosic ethanol has not been proven to be economically viable yet. It will be like the road that the folks who got into ethanol in the first place have found, in that it is fraught with difficulties that they are now trying to chase. This speaks to the issue in front of us here today, which is that we have to be really careful and cautious.

The member spoke of Brazil. I am told as well that Brazil is into ethanol fuel, but at the expense of the rainforests. Is that what we want?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on my colleague's speech because he touched on the issue that there are many uses for biomass product. In fact, a paper that was presented to the agricultural committee showed that if one wanted to get a better greenhouse gas reduction at a lower cost, it would be much simpler to make up straw pellets or wood pellets and put them into existing thermal situations than it is to create either cellulosic ethanol or just corn ethanol. The return is much greater.

There are a lot of unanswered questions even about the nature of biomass energy within this country. I would recommend that hon. members take a look at the study that was done by a Canadian company. Samson was the primary researcher on it from Quebec. It lays out very clearly what the issues are around the use of wood products or any other organic product in reducing CO₂ emissions.

When you talk about the nature of the interaction between wood pellet development in northern Ontario and the use of pulp in the industry, could you elaborate on that issue a bit more?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order, please. I asked the member for Western Arctic earlier not to put questions directly to members but to do it in the third person and he is doing it again.

The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, very briefly.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely correct. That is why, in our areas, we are trying to pull the various interests together to not only look at both the benefits and the opportunities but also the impacts. Some of them are very negative.

We are taking ourselves--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to engage in this debate because we are beginning to give some scrutiny to an emerging industry. I say “emerging industry” because it has developed over the course of the last decade in a fashion that seems to be changing the world literally overnight.

We have been dealing with legislation such as this for quite some time. I can say that in principle we need to support a bill such as this, although I do not know that we would be as supportive of the amendment.

In the debate today, we have seen that people are looking at the dynamics of this industry. The dynamics, as my colleague from Malpeque has said, go through agriculture, industry, energy and the environment.

I know my colleague from Malpeque can speak for himself, as he always does and does so forcefully, but I know what he means when he talks about cheap food prices, et cetera. He is talking about the prices paid at the farm gate. He is not talking about, at least in the way I interpret it, in terms of the amount of money that a consumer must pay for products at the point of purchase. He is looking at a situation that sees equitable return on an investment made and contribution given.

I know there are agricultural groups around the country that are calling for the government to get its hands off and to allow market forces to drive the new economy. Everyone in this place is in favour of rewarding initiative and rewarding enterprise but we need to keep in mind the impact this kind of development will have on the structure around the world, the usual economic dynamics.

For example, my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake said earlier that this would only have an impact on 2% of the land mass of Canada. It is nice to throw out a figure like that, but 48% of the land mass in Canada is covered by forest and about another 46% is covered by ice. When we are talking about the rest that is arable, if we are looking at a 2% mass, are we not talking about the overall mass and, in which case, it would be an enormous amount of land dedicated to biomass and biofuel production, or are we talking only about 2% of the arable land already available in Canada?

I think that is significant because we are talking about food policies and their impact worldwide. I will reflect for a moment in a moment on energy and biomass and biofuel.

If we think for a moment about what has been happening around the world where, as I said in the previous question, South Africa is already being considered the Middle East of the biofuel production business, it has in excess of one billion acres already dedicated toward the production of biomass for biofuel. In a part of the world that is constantly looking for food aid, we can imagine what is happening to the food sources.

In fact, in countries around the world where the agricultural production is dependent upon rainfall for its water sources, production costs and food costs have now gone up by 50% over last year, and that rise is escalating. It is escalating at such a rate that UN agencies are already concerned, not only about the quantum of demand for food aid, but also the cost. Over the last year, costs have increased by 20%. One can just imagine the demand on all the countries that are engaged in attempting to provide food aid to the most needy when the land closest by is being dedicated to biomass and biofuel production.

We are going down that same road. In North America, for example, Nebraska has decided that it will use as its economic strategy an increase in the land utilized for corn or biomass and biofuel. Nebraska is dedicating an additional one million acres this year alone. It is already producing a billion gallons of ethanol per annum in order to feed the growing American demand, the American demand that has seen production plants increase from 100 to 150 last year and is expected to reach 450 plants in this coming year.

There will be a huge and constant demand as we cross over into environmental concerns and greenhouse gas emissions, especially in North America and in Europe where we see that 80% of personal energy consumption through vehicles takes place.

Of the 800 million vehicles on the road today, 70% of them are on roads in Europe or North American. As I said earlier on, when China and India begin to produce vehicles to meet a demand for an emerging middle class, it will equal North America and Europe.

Every time 10% of the population in India and in China buy a car, 200 million more vehicles will be on the road. Clearly, the demand on traditional energy sources, those greenhouse gas emitting sources, will be huge. It will be equally impressive on those new technologies that are emerging in the ethanol production and other biomass products.

I mentioned Brazil earlier on. My colleague on the opposite side made reference to Brazil as well. Brazil has 300 million acres dedicated to the production of biomass for the purpose of ethanol production. India already has 35 million acres dedicated to the same type of industry. Indonesia has 16 million acres. These are not places that we have traditionally associated with land utilization for the production of anything other than food.

My colleague from the NDP said a moment ago that they were doing it at the expense of the rain forest and the consequent result on multi-environment and on other issues associated with the depletion of rain forests, not only in the Amazon but everywhere else around the world.

We must deal with those pressures because they are closer to us today than we imagine. It is great to talk about the competitiveness and productivity of our own agricultural sector. We want our farmers to make more money but we want them to do it in terms of producing for the demand that is there in the world. For what? The first goal should be to provide, with all due respect to my colleague from Malpeque, cheap food or low cost, high quality food but not at the expense of the farmer. How many people would be in business if they could not get their money? We want them to do that but we also want them to be wary about the kinds of policies that may have implications for virtually everything else.

One area that I do not think has not been explored sufficiently is the true cost of the production of ethanol. Some of these factors, which we used to rain upon all the industrial enterprises not that long ago to include all the true inputs in industrial production, need to be applied to any kind of alternative energy sources.

However, we must develop the new technology for those energy sources. We need to build a green economy. We need to invest in innovation. We need to invest in the technologies that will make us not only competitive but environmentally friendly and conscious of the impact for greenhouse gas emissions.

However, we can never forget those who are less fortunate than us. As I said earlier on, over 40 million Americans who live below the poverty line will experience this year a 40% increase in the cost of their food.

In an environment where the economy is submitting to all the vagaries that we normally see in the cyclical economic environment, the last thing people need is to see the vulnerable, not only in North America, but everywhere else around the world, submit to the high pressures of excessive food costs at the expense of environmental issues, technological issues and international relations.

We owe it to ourselves in this kind of debate to ensure that our governments keeps their feet firmly to the ground and understand that the implications of amendments like this to a bill like this go well beyond the stated purpose of the debate in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with some of the issues the member is raising because he is talking about the need for food in countries that cannot afford it. If we look at the developing world, we realize that they are agrarian-based societies. The best way to start generating wealth in an agrarian-based society is allow it to start getting paid for what it produces.

Here is an opportunity with biofuels where it can actually see an opportunity for increased revenue through the biofuel industry as well as have the incentive to grow more. The problem we have in today's world is that the commodity prices have been so low up until this year that there was no incentive, especially manually in developing countries, to go out and plant a crop.

It is important that we provide these countries with an incentive, and that incentive comes from the marketplace which we all can support, to plant more crops and with that generate more food for their people as well.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand that concept. There is no reason why anyone would plant anything in the ground if they are not going to get a return not only on their investment but also their labour and effort.

I fear that on occasion we tend to romanticize a career or a job decision that has long gone beyond the moment that we fixed it in time. While this absolutely true about family farms, many of those family farms are such in name only.

I do not think that any part of this debate is designed to in any way undermine the viability of any agricultural enterprise. I do not think anyone has that in mind and if they do, they are in the wrong place.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was intrigued by the member's comments with regard to the impact that this will have on the food supply and food security, particularly when we look at the whole world.

Many of us who paid attention to what happened in some of the third world jurisdictions, particularly Central and South America, will understand what happened when North America decided it was going to respond to its craving for coffee. Whole tracts of land were taken over to grow a crop that was a cash crop, the product that came to North America, but really did not provide for the local folks who used to have that land to grow their own food, vegetables, fruit and so on. We saw the impact that has had on the world and some of our poorer countries.

That could actually happen here in Canada in our backyard if we are not careful. That is why we are asking for greater scrutiny on this brand new initiative, one that is taking us places we have never been before. The member might want to comment further on that.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his observation and it is quite fine to think in terms of oversight and scrutiny. My understanding of the bill and the bill that preceded this is that we already have the oversight capacity in this House. Whether we utilize that oversight capacity is another matter. Maybe the member is right to be concerned that people in governments do not always implement the kinds of things that they say they have already approved.

In general, it would be equally a mistake to think that people who actually consume an end product are culpable because the redistribution of the wealth that is generated as a result does not flow in its appropriate proportions to those who are at the origin of that production cycle.

The hon. member mentions coffee. Some of the wealth that has been created around coffee is just absolutely mind-boggling. I can cite an example because I happened to have studied this a little while ago. For example, in Italy alone there is the consumption of three espressos per day, per person, at a retail value of about $180 million a day, every day of the year. That is only for that product. So there is a production cycle that should be producing wealth for the original farmers of the coffee beans and those who work the lands to generate that.

I cannot have an influence on the countries of origin. I can only have an impact on how we might view our responsibilities internationally. If the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order. It is with regret that I must interrupt the hon. member. We are resuming debate, and the hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh has the floor.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the amendment to Bill C-33 that has been brought forward by my colleague.

In spite of the comments made by the last speaker, it is crucial that oversight by parliamentarians be an integral part of this bill and of this process within the department. The prior speaker raised a number of issues that emphasize the need for that oversight. The NDP is going to support this bill. Should it go ahead and become law of the land, it will impose that additional responsibility on us as parliamentarians.

My experience on these reviews has been less than positive because we do not follow the law and we do not fulfill our responsibility as regularly as we should.

There are other ways of doing it. If the committee that is ultimately responsible for this review is not entirely capable of doing it, the responsibility can be assigned to a subcommittee made up of members of Parliament who are particularly interested and knowledgeable with regard to the use of ethanol and its progress, and the use of it in our economy. Even a smaller committee can be put into place as a subcommittee of the standing committee.

We need to do that because of a number of points that have already been made, and let me just reiterate some of those.

Just in the last year there have been increasing riots, and I use that term advisedly, around the world with regard to the cost of food. As the former speaker suggested, this is not just happening in the undeveloped world. There were riots in Italy earlier this year over the cost of pasta, which of course comes from various grains, and the cost of those grains had escalated dramatically, by more than 100% in some cases. That ultimately is reflected in the end product.

I can tell members about my experience in my riding in the county of Essex. The cost of corn has more than doubled in a little over 12 months. It is true that is great for corn producers. Farmers in my community who are producing corn by and large are very happy with the increase in price because for too many years it has been too low to cover their input costs and allow them to make a living from the farm.

This doubling of cost is now significantly impacting dairy farmers as well as several hog farms and a significant number of poultry farms in the county of Essex. These farmers need the same corn that is now being used for ethanol because of the plant over in Chatham. That ethanol is taking the cost of their inputs up dramatically.

They have to compete with that new market that values that corn much higher than they are able to meet, and I have to say that quite bluntly. The cost of their feed grain has gone up by more than 100% in less than a year. A small farming operation faces great difficulty when it is faced with such a significant increase in the cost of a key ingredient for their operation over a short period of time.

There have also been food riots in Asia and Africa. Some NGOs are coming back and asking for hundreds of millions of dollars more to meet the demand in refugee camps and other areas where there is drought or famine. That is a direct result of the very dramatic escalating costs in grains.

In terms of Asia, for instance, I am hearing reports that there are a number of countries where again the cost of grain, rice in particular, has more than doubled in less than a year's time. There does not seem to be an end. For some countries, the estimate is that it has more than tripled in the past year or year and a half. A good deal of this is being driven by the demands that we are putting on the supply of grain for the use of ethanol.

I will use another example. Shortly after the second world war, Brazil made the conscious decision not to run its vehicles on carbon-based products but on ethanol. It has a requirement that 50% of all the fuel used in vehicles comes from sugar. Last year, Brazil, for the first time, was forced to curtail the amount of production of sugar that would go into the sugar market because of the demand it had for ethanol.

There was a very strong reaction and I do not think using the word “riot” is too strong a term. There were a number of large demonstrations over the fact that the population of Brazil could not access as much sugar as it had historically. The reason for that was that it needed the sugar for the purpose of producing ethanol.

At the end of the day, when we look at this amendment, and although we have overall some reservations on the bill we are generally supportive of it, it begs the attention of the House on an ongoing basis, in a parliamentary committee, to continue to review the use of food products, grains in particular.

One of the other points I want to make is that the review would also allow us the opportunity to continue to bring forward alternatives in the use of ethanol. Instead of actually using the food product, we could use the stock and waste, including garbage, in a number of ways, but there is a need to develop the technology.

There is a company right here in Ottawa, Iogen, that has done some great work in this area. It is using a product that is not food. It is using straw and stalks from other grain such as corn, et cetera. There are other experiments going on and plants operating around the globe that are using, for instance, waste products from forestry and they are able to produce ethanol.

The other thing we have to be monitoring on an ongoing basis is the efficiency of this. If we are using food products and not achieving an efficiency ratio that is substantially better than carbon-based technology, then we have to look for those alternatives and develop those technologies.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully while my friend from the NDP was speaking. I can remember vividly, shortly before and after I was elected to this place, meeting with some members of my farming community, particularly the grains and oilseeds part of the farming community. I listened to some third and fourth generation farmers who said they were at the brink of losing their multi-generational farms. Now when we meet, they say they are beginning to have some pluses, some black ink on their ledgers.

I hear now from the NDP that food is too expensive and we have to shut down ethanol production because people cannot afford their food. In other words, it wants really cheap food and for farmers to go out of business. That is what I am hearing.

I also had a chance to speak to my friend from northern Canada and he talked about his community heating with wood pellets. I lived in northern Ontario and Shell Oil Company, BioShell Ltd., had two wood pellet plants when I moved there. When I moved back to southern Ontario less than four and a half years later, those two plants were closed. Why were they closed? They were closed because the price of oil, natural gas and propane went down, and it no longer became economically viable for the wood pellet plants to stay in business. I suspect that because oil and gas prices are going up, some of those alternate fuel plants will come in.

I am at a loss. I am at a complete loss as to why we should wish our farmers not to get a reasonable price for their products,because now they have multi-markets and some value added. My farmers in my riding are very happy with the situation with regard ethanol and food prices.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is the end of the day and I am probably being a little facetious here, but I was going to suggest that the member for Northumberland—Quinte West have his ears checked.

I grew up on a farm and my sister and brother-in-law still run that farm. I have nephews who operate farms in the Essex county area. I did not for one minute, nor did anybody from the NDP, suggest for one minute shutting down ethanol production. We are not talking about that.

What we are talking about is that we have a responsibility as parliamentarians to recognize the impact it could have. It does not just mean positive things. Poultry producers in my riding are having serious trouble meeting their feed bills. I am worried about them, as should everybody who is looking at this sensibly and with any degree of wisdom.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Northumberland—Quinte West went on quite an attack against the member opposite saying that the NDP were basically in favour of a cheap food policy. I do not believe that.

However, I will say that the member for Northumberland—Quinte West, by supporting his leader's position on the Wheat Board, is certainly supporting the disempowerment of farmers in western Canada who are challenged by the corporate sector.

Yes, there are concerns about food supply, but is not the biggest problem we have with regard to food supply in the world some of the trade agreements and the dominant position that the multinational grain trade and others are in, in not only exploiting farmers but exploiting people around the world? That government over there seems to support that multinational sector against farmers in this country.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the analysis by the member for Malpeque. I see it in my riding. I see it in that plant in Chatham. Most of the corn is coming from large corporate farms. They are agribusinesses that are supplying the market on our side and there is no regulation of it. I am not suggesting protectionism here in the extreme, but there is no level playing field here.

The member for Malpeque is absolutely right. The problem we are confronting here is one of a Conservative government that has blinkers on when it comes to protecting our farmers.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I spent five years of my career, prior to becoming a member of Parliament, with an organization called United Co-operatives of Ontario which has over 100 retail outlets across the province of Ontario. Ethanol was one of our big new areas of endeavour, and now most Canadians will recognize that ethanol as a biofuel is very popular and highly used in some countries but not in Canada yet because of the production and the distribution.

I have a constituent who bought a very expensive vehicle, E85 to operate on ethanol. The nearest place for him to get ethanol fuel for his vehicle is in Guelph or Ottawa. It gives one a sense of where we are on this.

I know we are talking about the amendment but, generally, with respect to the bill, as the members have noted, we also have some changing circumstances with regard to the supply of crops that provide what is necessary to produce ethanol. All of a sudden, the demand around the world for crops, such as wheat and corn, etcetera, are in greater demand in terms of the supply. A strategy is going on with regard to food and biofuel uses, demands and priorities.

I intend to continue my speech when we resume debate and I want to address specifically the amendment. I know the member for Eglinton—Lawrence had a few words. This is quite an important bill and, from time to time, although we do not realize it, there are people in this place who bring to Parliament some expertise and insight into some of the realities that face the agricultural community, particularly farmers, regardless of whether it be in the feed and crops area or in the dairy side as well.

It is a very important sector. Seventy per cent of the people involved in agriculture are employed outside of the farm. It is referred to as off-farm gate. It is a very important sector. It requires the attention of Parliament and I hope we will continue this debate at the next sitting of the House.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It being 5:39, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill C-33, the hon. member for Mississauga South will have seven minutes left.

The House resumed from April 10 consideration of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, as well as Motion No. 2.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again to speak to Bill C-33. Members of the House had the opportunity to express their position at second reading. The committee then did an excellent job trying to improve this bill. Unfortunately, many of our amendments were rejected, both by government members and by the Liberals. This did not prevent us from pursuing our work, however. For instance, an NDP member introduced motions to improve Bill C-33, including the motion selected by the Chair that we are currently discussing in this House.

I would remind the House that Bill C-33 seeks to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and that the motion we are discussing here today was introduced by the hon. member for Western Arctic.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports this motion, whose purpose is to improve a clause added by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food by specifying that a thorough review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada should include a review of the progress made in the preparation and implementation of regulations enacted by the governor in council.

In committee, during the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-33, I proposed an amendment with a similar purpose. That is why it was not so difficult for the Bloc Québécois to support the NDP member's motion. This addition will provide for a more complete evaluation of the consequences of biofuel production and the implementation of governing regulations.

As I was saying, I proposed amendments to broaden the scope of the regulations and to allow the committee to study the regulations. Unfortunately, these amendments were rejected by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. Nevertheless, I feel it is worthwhile looking at these amendments again to give citizens, who have not necessarily followed the committee's clause-by-clause review, an understanding of how useful these amendments could have been. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. The purpose of these amendments was to improve Bill C-33, to tighten up the regulations and also to allow the committee to study the regulations, as we would like to do in many files.

The amendments sought to broaden the scope of the regulations. Bill C-33 will allow the government to blend biofuels with regular gas. I had proposed two amendments.

First, I wanted the government to be able to regulate the submission by persons who produce, sell or import fuel of information regarding the environmental effects of biofuels. This would have provided an additional safeguard with respect to the source of these biofuels and their method of production. More specifically, we believe that the submission of information about the environmental and energy record, the life cycle and the environmental and social consequences of fuels must be regulated. This is currently a shortcoming of Bill C-33. We wanted to remedy this shortcoming.

Second, the bill, in its present form, distinguishes biofuels according to a certain number of criteria such as the quantities of releases, feedstocks used, or the fuels' chemical properties. We believe that the government should be able to differentiate biofuels according to criteria with broader environmental scope, namely their environmental and energy record, the analysis of their life cycle, even their social and environmental repercussions.That was the intention of the second amendment tabled.

We also proposed other amendments, because Bill C-33 does not include any standards per se. All it does it authorize the government to make a certain number of regulations governing biofuels, including standards and their consequences.

These amendments were designed to enable the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to study the proposed regulations before they were adopted, for the simple reason that the oversight will come from the regulations and not the bill that is before Parliament, Bill C-33.

If the committee were able to study the proposed regulations, the committee members could keep abreast of technological advances in the field of renewable biofuels and also evaluate the appropriateness of the measures proposed by the government.

Although renewable fuels are one way of combating greenhouse gases and reducing our dependence on oil—the Bloc Québécois has presented a very detailed policy on reducing our dependence on oil—they are not all created equal. When studying the proposed regulations, the committee could look further at biofuels, their sources and their potential impacts. Environmental and energy impacts were mentioned earlier. These amendments were therefore similar in their approach.

I am still talking about them, because I feel that it is not too late to do the right thing. Unfortunately, however, these amendments were not accepted during the clause-by-clause review. I repeat, if they had been, Bill C-33 would have been improved. As I said in several committees, this is often the norm. It is being discussed more and more. There is a desire for committees to study the regulations arising from bills. As issues evolve, there would be more frequent opportunities to study the regulations and look at technological progress that has been made and how the regulations are being applied, in order to determine whether this is in keeping with the spirit of the bill. Unfortunately, Parliament does not yet do this routinely.

All that to say that it is logical for us to support the motion of my NDP colleague from Western Arctic. Bill C-33 will only be stronger if Parliament agrees to vote in favour of this motion. This bill addresses some of the Bloc Québécois' concerns. We want to reduce our dependence on oil. We also want the transportation sector to make an increased effort in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and we want the use of agricultural and wood residues to be developed.

It is common knowledge that the Bloc Québécois favours the use of cellulosic ethanol. In Quebec, two plants have been built quite recently in the Eastern Townships. They should be up and running by this summer. There is one in Westbury and another in the Bromptonville area of Sherbrooke. The Kruger company is also involved in opening this latest plant in order to develop wood residues.

The goal of the Government of Quebec is for fuels to consist of 5% ethanol by 2012. In Bromptonville, there is a new development in cellulosic ethanol. Apparently agricultural and wood residue is used, but construction wood that is no longer of any use and would get burned anyway could also be used more. Producing cellulosic ethanol from leftover construction wood could be a rather useful development.

The federal government has announced a regulation requiring 5% renewable content in gasoline by 2010. Regulations will also require an average of 2% renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012. In addition to cellulosic ethanol, which I spoke about earlier, it would be a good idea—and I will finish up with this topic—to develop and explore biodiesel.

In committee we heard from people from the CFER back home, in Victoriaville, who are using a vehicle that runs on french fry oil. Used vegetable oils are collected from 10 restaurants in Victoriaville, and are currently used to run a delivery vehicle for a local pharmacy. Yves Couture, the director of that training and recycling centre, came to speak to the committee about this vision for the future. People may say that it is only one vehicle, but when the government has the good sense to invest in these new technologies, I am convinced that we will be able to make major advances in the development of biodiesel.

The Fédération des producteurs de boeuf du Québec is in favour of Bill C-33, and is also calling on the government to focus on biodiesel. Now that there are new standards for removing specified risk materials, these people do not know what to do with residue and animal waste. They even have to pay to dispose of it. If it were sent to biodiesel plants, we could run our vehicles on materials that would probably have been sent to the landfill.

We must fully examine these possibilities. We will have the opportunity to discuss them as these technologies move forward.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I found my hon. colleague's presentation to be thoughtful and it focused on what is happening on the ground.

I was pleased to hear about all the different initiatives that are going on in Quebec with respect to the use of biofuels. This is very positive, but it also poses the important question, how can we determine the winners and losers in the biofuel industry as we move forward?

What we are trying to do with the amendment is to give us some flexibility in the approach we take. We in this party do not think that there is trust and confidence in the government to put forward regulations that are going to apply in a very good fashion to all the different types of initiatives that are available under biofuels, or as I like to call them, bioenergy.

In my constituency in the far north we are rapidly transforming the fuel used to heat major institutional buildings to wood pellets. Right across northern Canada including northern Quebec many communities are strictly on diesel fuel or fuel oil for their buildings. Fuel oil is $1.30 a litre. The wood pellets that are imported from Alberta are half that cost.

There is still much work to be done in this field to understand the nature of the incentives and programs, and the conditions we should be attaching to the biofuels industry. Does the member agree there is a need to have that oversight?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Western Arctic for his question. I also want to congratulate him on introducing this motion.

As the saying goes, it is better to be safe than sorry. Consequently, when Bill C-33 was studied clause by clause in committee, we introduced the amendments I mentioned earlier. The member's colleague, the NDP agriculture critic, also introduced worthwhile amendments. Only one was adopted. There was a good reason the member decided to introduce a few motions in the House so that we can have a better idea of the approach the government wants to take.

We are talking about technologies that are often in their early days. For example, cellulosic ethanol techniques are just emerging now. Canada does not yet have the capacity to produce these biofuels commercially. That is why it is imperative that in committee, we be able to look quickly—not just every five years or so—at everything the government wants to do and also at all the environmental and energy-related impacts of that decision. This is really very important. We also have to look at the social impacts, especially with the food crisis in the world today.

It is important that we be able to study all the regulations the government wants to make once this bill has been adopted, to make sure they are on the right track. Some countries are taking a step back, while others are seriously questioning the use of biofuels. However, when a country wants to reduce its dependence on oil, it has two choices: it can either do nothing and continue using oil or it can use biofuels. But it has to use them intelligently.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to speak today to contribute to the debate on government Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to provide for the efficient regulation of fuels.

According to the government's own technical briefings on March 14, 2008, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have grown steadily since 1990. At Kyoto, Canada committed to a target of 6% below 1990 levels; however, Canadian emissions have grown steadily since 1990. Canada's annual greenhouse gas emissions are currently more than 25% higher than they were in 1990 and 32% higher than Canada's Kyoto protocol target. This growth is due in part to the continued expansion of Canada's production and export of oil and gas. Without immediate action, our emissions from all sectors could increase by another 24% to reach 940 megatons in 2020. This is terrible news.

As my colleague, the MP for Ottawa South, has said, for Canadians all of this has to be seen in the context of climate change policy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, 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. The IPCC report also says that there are already many low cost options available to developed countries like Canada to reduce greenhouse gases, such as financial incentives, the excise fuel tax, deploying existing technologies, tradeable permits and voluntary programs.

The Conservative government since it came to power has cut the carbon credits and the renewable power investment programs which were the former Liberal government's initiatives.

Professor Mark Jaccard of the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University said in an interview with The Hill Times last year that the Conservative government believed it could deliver a successful environmental plan based on improving air quality.

A number of the former Liberal government's climate change programs were cut. Then, public opinion polls finally made the Conservative government realize that this was not a fleeting movement, but that the public was truly concerned about climate change.

Professor Jaccard added that a number of public officials advised the Conservatives to reinstate the Liberals' regulations and reintroduce them with different names, which was a waste of time. He also pointed out that the Conservatives wanted to delay the release of the new programs because of their similarity to the Liberal programs.

My colleague from Ottawa South also reported that the failure of the government's plan has been well documented by the C.D. Howe Institute, the Deutsche Bank, the Pembina Institute and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the Conservatives' own board, has told the government its plan is baseless and will not achieve the targets in any way. In fact, it appears not a single third party observer has put forward a shred of evidence to substantiate that the government's plan would work.

The developed countries are responsible for the pollution rate we have now in the world. By moving their industries to developing countries such as China and India, to name only two, they have damaged their environment and their agriculture and have helped increase global warming.

Today, studies show that the expansion of the production of ethanol is doing very little for the environment. On the contrary, ethanol use could add to greenhouse gas emissions, not reduce them.

My constituents in Laval—Les Îles, many of whom are from India, Pakistan, the Middle East and other countries, are very concerned about what is currently going on in their home countries.

The problem of global warming is the most urgent ecological problem of our generation, as the leader of the official opposition pointed out. That is why, together with my colleagues from the Liberal Party of Canada, I think the government's bill does not go far enough. It does not provide any real solution to the greenhouse gases problem.

According to a study by the OECD, Canada is behind other developed countries and is among the lowest-ranking OECD countries in terms of emissions per person for smog-causing gases, at 2%. Although Canada contributes just 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the quantity of those emissions per person is among the highest in the world, and that percentage keeps going up.

A number of studies show today that corn ethanol and other biofuels, such as soy or sugar cane, contribute to increasing greenhouse gases and therefore to global warming.

A study published in Science magazine concluded that the current use of prime farm land to expand biofuel crops will probably only exacerbate global warming because of deforestation and increased cash crops to the detriment of food crops. That is to say nothing of the economic pressure being put on farmers to produce more biofuels including wheat, soy, barley and sugar cane, which has a negative effect on the price of corn and wheat, and therefore on the living conditions of those involved.

We are already beginning to feel the negative effects. All we hear about in the media these days is the food crisis, which is a direct result of the massive cultivation of cereal crops and other food products for uses other than feeding populations. And this is only the beginning of a vicious circle.

According to recent studies, there are other solutions, particularly the use of renewable or green energy sources that do not use carbon.

As for transportation, we could follow the example of Europe, and particularly France, which is currently developing electric car prototypes.

As for household energy consumption, we can now use alternative energy sources, including wind, solar or photovoltaic energy, that is, converting solar radiation directly into electricity, as some countries in northern and western Europe are doing, as well as hydroelectric energy.

We can also use new, environmentally friendly materials in the construction of houses, which is already being done in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and even in certain developing countries. Some African countries, for instance, are using solar and wind energy. These environmentally friendly materials are designed to conserve energy in houses, thereby reducing the waste and over-consumption of energy.

My colleagues and I firmly believe that the most effective solution combines two attitudes: first, consuming less energy; and second, developing and producing more renewable energy.

[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 would like to thank the member for her presentation. She brought up some very interesting points, many of which I agree with.

Although I am in agreement with the hon. member opposite on some points, I would like to point out some differences.

First, one of her last points was that we had to get our waste of energy under control, and I agree with her on that. However, she also mentioned that there was a crisis in food prices. There is definitely a marked increase in food prices around the world, but we have to be careful not to blame the food prices on biofuels. For example, food prices have increased by roughly 7% over the last three years. During the same period, oil has jumped by 70%. Therefore, if there were ever a case for finding replacements for oil, this would certainly be it.

Canadian families continue to enjoy some of the best food at the most reasonable prices anywhere around the world.

She mentioned that emissions had grown since 1990. As we know, during that period her government, the former Liberal government, was in power for 13 of those years. One of the members who sought the leadership of the Liberal Party mentioned that the Liberals did not get it done . Perhaps she could speak to that.

She states that we are behind the U.S. when it comes to biofuels. We are and that is because the former government did not get it done during the last 13 years. Therefore, could she comment on that?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry for the compliment.

We are not talking about a problem that touches only Canada. We are talking about a problem that touches not only the hemisphere but the whole earth. What has happened to people elsewhere will happen to us.

I talked about the rise in food prices. I am not a specialist in chemicals or in the environment. However, I read the newspapers and I listen to the media. The media has said for the last two weeks that it is important for us to look at the alternatives. I am not saying we have the right answers. Far from it. My colleague from Quebec mentioned a while ago that we had to do more research and in different avenues.

For my colleague from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, yes, the Liberals were in power for 13 years and we looked at several answers. He may recall that the leader of our party was, at the time, minister of the environment. He was in charge of putting together an agreement, the Kyoto agreement, which took place in Montreal.

However, the Conservative government has been in government for two years now. Therefore, the Conservatives cannot always throw back the argument about what happened before. We are asking the Conservative government to govern and get something done.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, quite specifically, the amendment we are debating right now is an oversight amendment, which would give us more control over the process of the development of the biofuels approach in Canada, the bioenergy approach. Why will her party not support the amendment? It will give us the time to deal with the issues as they come up and ensure that the government acts correctly?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Laval—Les Îles has 30 seconds to respond.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond to that in 30 seconds. It is very complicated.

If I may, I would like to answer my colleague at some other time. However, I would like to say this about the oversight function.

One has to be very careful. The government has oversight functions that look after it, but it is so secret that the oversight does not work in any case.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is primarily about the NDP's two motions concerning Bill C-33. The NDP's first motion is two-pronged. Part (a) seeks to correct part of the English wording. Part (b) of the first motion seeks to give the governor in council the authority to regulate the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed in the production of biofuels, to prohibit the use of GMOs in grains used in biofuel production and to restrict the use of arable land for production of biofuel crops.

Part (b) could render the entire motion out of order, first, because it broadens the scope of the initial bill, and second, because we are at the report stage.

With respect to the latter consideration, we are against Motion No. 1, should it prove to be in order, because management of a province’s agricultural land is under Quebec’s jurisdiction.

The NDP's second motion seeks to improve a clause added by the committee, which states that “a thorough analysis of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada” should include a review of the progress made in the preparation and implementation of the regulations enacted by the governor in council.

If the second motion is in order, we should support it, especially since the Bloc Québécois put forward a motion with a similar purpose in committee. This amendment will lead to a more complete assessment of the impact of biofuel production and the regulations that govern it.

Bill C-33 addresses some of the concerns of the Bloc Québécois, which is urging that we free ourselves from our dependence on oil, that the transportation sector make an effort to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and that we promote the use of forestry and agricultural waste.

With regard to biofuel substitutes for oil, the most interesting avenue at present is the production of ethanol 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.

The concept of using raw materials that can be produced more readily is gaining support.

Thus, research is being focused on the production of ethanol from non-food crops and materials rich in cellulose. The development of an efficient process for converting cellulose to ethanol could promote the use of raw materials such as agricultural waste and straw as well as forestry residues, primarily wood chips, and even fast-growing trees and grasses.

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 a very interesting possibility.

Quebec can cut its oil dependency in half within 10 years. The Bloc Québécois estimates that this huge shift requires that six objectives be met: quickly help Hydro-Québec regain a margin of flexibility; continue encouraging individuals, businesses and industries to give up using oil; reduce fuel consumption in passenger transportation; stop the increase in consumption in goods transportation; reduce consumption of petroleum products as fuel; and make Quebec a centre for clean energy and clean transportation.

The goal is to increase residential efficiency by 18% and reduce consumption by 15% in 10 years. To find more energy, we need to start by looking at the energy we waste.

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.

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 and to reduce by 45% the use of oil as a source of energy in industry.

We also recommend curbing fuel consumption for the intercity transport of goods. Unlike intercity transport, for which it is possible to develop alternatives to trucking, 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.

Furthermore, we must reduce the amount of fuel used to transport people. 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.

Another objective is to decrease the proportion of oil relative to all fuels. The Bloc Québécois recommends that current oil-based fuels have a 5% biofuel content.

Furthermore, we recommend that Quebec—a leader in some areas of transportation and clean energy—become a leading centre for transportation and clean energy.

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 competitive 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 these objectives 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 billion on the cost of importing oil into Quebec.

As my Bloc Québécois colleague was saying earlier, the bill does not go far enough. It is nonetheless a major step forward for the people of Quebec and Canada.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on this particular issue. I put forward the amendments to this legislation and one amendment has been accepted. The amendment would provide more oversight to the process that my colleague on the agricultural committee put forward as an amendment. The amendment would provide a two year review and would enhance the bill by providing more review over the actual regulations as put forward by the government. As I have pointed out before, that is a very significant thing.

Some great work has been done in Quebec. The REAP institution, located in Quebec City, demonstrated at committee that even the move toward cellulosic ethanol would really not be cost effective or as potentially greenhouse gas useful by simply converting cellulosic material, whether it be wood or waste from agricultural processes, to thermal energy. Thermal energy can be used in homes and commercial businesses to replace other fossil fuel products, and in the case of Quebec, for instance, replacing liquefied natural gas, a product we are now looking at importing from Russia or Qatar.

My colleague said her party is supporting the bill, but you really are not. You are supporting a bill that would enable the government to do exactly what it wants with the regulations right now. It would enable the government to reward whoever it wants, with Canadian tax dollars, to go ahead with biofuels rather than having some conditions attached which would give the real winners in the biofuel industry the leg up they need.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I would like the hon. member for Western Arctic to resist the temptation to use the second person and make a greater effort at using the third person.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot has the floor.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to answer my colleague opposite, currently everything to do with cellulosic ethanol is still in the embryonic stages of research. The Bloc Québécois and I believe that this is the avenue we should be taking. We must invest in research and development in order for this avenue to become cost-effective in the near future. What is more, as I concluded in my speech earlier, I would say that the bill does not go far enough to satisfy the Bloc Québécois. Nonetheless, it is a major step forward and that is why my colleagues and I will support it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things in which I am most interested, above and beyond the merits of the bill, is the development put forward by my colleague from Western Arctic that would force the government to allow the regulations to be scrutinized by the committee.

I raise this only because it is a rare and unusual thing, and I hope even a precedent setting thing. All too often Parliament debates the text of a bill, the legislation itself, and gives it great scrutiny, but then it is up to the government to put in place the regulations, which have very little or no oversight at all. Will the hon. member agree with me that this is a very positive development and a precedent that should be implemented or used in other pieces of legislation as well?

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska previously mentioned the possibility of going to committee and reviewing the way the House currently manages bills. I agree with the position he took in his speech this morning.

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

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--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Lambton--Kent--Middlesex.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the NDP raised a number of issues around Bill C-33.

On the weekend, we met with some embassy people from Africa. When we were speaking to them about food prices, we found that in Canada we need to be concerned about how we relate agriculture to food prices. By February 3, Canadians have paid for all of their food. It would appear to me that one of the sustaining factors that keeps us alive has been paid for by February 3. I would suggest that in Canada we have a cheap food policy.

I want to reiterate that Canada is the second largest contributor to food aid in the world. Canada plays its part because we recognize how crucial and significant it is to support and help supply foreign aid to those who are more vulnerable than us. I believe I read, and I may be corrected, that if Canada were to provide its resources to biofuels, we would still use 95% of our crop land for the production of food.

We have had projections of 20% by 2020 and 60% to 70% by 2050. No other government has done that because no other government has taken the initiative. I am wondering how much the member feels we are contributing to the price of food through our agriculture in Canada. Does he believe we should look at new technologies for biofuels so it is not all about agriculture products?

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

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should be looking at other technologies in the area of biofuels, which is why I and my party are saying that we are not against the concept of biofuels. We are questioning the way in which Bill C-33 would implement biofuel production in Canada.

With regard to Canada and the production of food, although we do contribute to food aid in the world, someone recently implored Canada to do more. I believe it was a man who said that Canada was actually not contributing enough, that the current government was not taking the initiative internationally to work with various NGOs and other countries to alleviate the suffering that is being caused by a lack of food.

It has been quite some time since we have reached the goal that was set years ago of 0.7% for international aid. Maybe now, with a food crisis in the world, this is a chance for all parties to really help with the scarcity of food in this world.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone can underestimate the food crisis. Our dollar has gone up considerably over the last number of years and that has sheltered Canadians a bit, but with the high cost of everything we have in this country, our consumer price index, for instance, keeps out energy and food costs so that Canadians do not even get the message about what is happening in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not quite get the question that my colleague was going to ask but I believe it had something to do with the cost of food.

It is true that food prices are rising in the world. Biofuels are one reason for this but not the main reason. There are obviously other reasons. I believe if a biofuel policy were looked at--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I must resume debate at this point.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join the debate on Bill C-33 dealing with biofuels. I have been following this with great interest as it winds its way through the House of Commons. I want to compliment my colleagues from British Columbia Southern Interior and Western Arctic for providing great guidance to our caucus on the subject of biofuels.

I should note that the NDP government in my home province of Manitoba is advancing biofuels a great deal in its greenhouse gas strategies.

I should begin my remarks by saying that the NDP is not opposed to the idea of shifting from fossil fuels to biofuels in a controlled environment with the caveat that we investigate the real benefit and the real gain and that we go into this with our eyes open.

My colleague from B.C. Southern Interior tried to move an amendment at the committee to state the basic principles associated with this bill so that the country would know what it is we seek to achieve and thereby, right in the bill, we would have a yardstick by which we could measure success or failure. In other words, if we are going in with our eyes open, we want to know that the objective of the bill is to ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions and shift from fossil fuels to renewable fuels.

I will speak briefly to that because I want to speak about the amendment and the subamendment primarily, which are being debated here today. We note that the biomass debate being criticized by those involved in food security is largely looking at the renewable fuels, ethanol made from grains, et cetera. We really need to couch this whole debate in the notion that there are other non-food agricultural residues where we could draw biofuels from, such as wheat straw and forest biomass. Even sugar cane grown elsewhere is less of a risk to the food security issue than some of the ideas of using corn, grain and things that could otherwise be used for food.

Having said that we are not against the idea of biofuels and we want to be able to support this bill, we also want amendments made so that Canadians can feel confident that we are going in the right direction. I am very proud of the amendment by my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior who succeeded in getting a bi-annual review of the legislation. I believe he introduced it as subclause (8). It reads:

Within one year after this subsection comes into force and every two years thereafter, a comprehensive review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada should be undertaken....

I am surprised the legislation did not have that obligatory mandatory review. I am relieved now that it does.

However, my colleague from Western Arctic has taken it further today, which is what we are really debating today. We have now qualified this review with a subamendment. This is quite revolutionary. I am actually very proud of my colleague from Western Arctic. I hope what he is doing here today passes and sets a precedent for all other subsequent legislation. What he has done today is introduce language that says not only should the environment and economic aspects of biofuel production be reviewed on a semi-annual or bi-annual basis but we should also review the progress made in the preparation and implementation of the regulations referred to in subsection (140).

It is revolutionary because it sets a very virtuous precedent in that we agonize over the legislation. We debate it in full at all stages and at the committee stage we hear witnesses and then, when the bill passes, we hand it back over to the government and the government sets all the regulations. This is where the devil is in the details.

My colleague suggests that the standing committee should also have a go at the regulations. Let me walk members through how important these regulations are going to be in the biofuel legislation that we are talking about here.

The regulations, which normally the government sets without any consultation from elected members of Parliament, are going to be dealing with things like the adverse effects of the use of the fuel on the environment, human life or human health, and on the combustion technology or the emission control equipment of vehicles, et cetera. These are critical aspects and speak to the very heart of this bill. The regulations will be made unilaterally and arbitrarily by the government unless my colleague's amendment succeeds today.

I can safely say that the NDP will be supporting this bill if this amendment goes through. We will then have some comfort that the regulations will not take us all off guard; that we will not blindly vote for this bill and then be unpleasantly surprised by the regulations.

Regulations that also will come up in the context of this bill will relate to the quantities of releases, production capacity, technology or techniques used, and feed stocks used. In the case of workings or undertakings, they will relate to the date of commencement of their operation, et cetera, and the substance or the fuel source, the commercial designation and the physical and chemical properties of the fuels.

These are the thousands and thousands of details that will come into force and effect with the regulations, but by that time it will be out of our hands. We are elected representatives charged with the responsibility of testing the veracity and integrity of pieces of legislation, but we get no opportunity to deal with the regulations. I know of no other example whereby the regulations actually come before a committee to go through the same sort of oversight and testing.

That is why today my colleague has brought forward the most common sense amendment we could possibly imagine. I hope his constituents back home and the voters of Canada acknowledge this. He is saying that if the devil is in the details and the substance of the bill is in the regulations, why then do we not look at the regulations?

The rest is academic, frankly, because the real implementation, the real nuts and bolts, the real meat and potatoes, is in the regulations, and the scrutiny of regulations is something that is rarely done in this place. There is a committee called the scrutiny of regulations committee. I do not know if it has ever been convened. I think I was put on it one time just to humour me or to keep me out of trouble or something, but it is one of those committees that nobody ever does anything on, and this amendment would provide for actually analyzing the implementation regulations associated with what could be a very important bill.

I have noticed the interest in this amendment. I understand that there have been some fairly sympathetic comments in the speeches made about the notion. We should stay relevant and stay on topic. We are not really engaged in a broad, sweeping debate about the merits of the bill. It has passed second reading. It has passed the committee stage. We are now at the third reading report stage of the bill, with an amendment at the report stage.

The amendment is in order because it deals with another amendment. This could not possibly have been done at committee because the amendment that passed at committee is what is being amended now. This is the technical detail that allows us to dwell on this today.

Some of these regulations that may come forward will be dealing with the blending of fuels. This is one of the controversial things: the source and the origin of the fuel product. Whether it comes from grain or corn that would otherwise be used in food products is what is creating the controversy and the apprehension among the people concerned with global food security.

In actual fact, in Canada and the United States an awful lot of corn that is produced does not go to food directly. It is used to make Coca-Cola. Corn is grown in abundance throughout North America for the corn syrup, really, for the sugar content. A lot also goes to animal feed, but certainly some does come into the food chain for our grocery store shelves.

I am running short of time, but let me say that part of the problem is that we should not be encouraging an industry that will be counterproductive. Some of the authorities on this subject caution us that if we go in that direction we will not be achieving what we set out to achieve.

In the first place, we should have passed the amendment by my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior, which said that we should clearly state the principles in the bill. Sadly, that failed. However, with the amendment that did pass, with a review within one year and then reviews every two years thereafter, at least now we will be able to monitor and track the progress of this bill and nip it in the bud if in fact it is being counterproductive.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that good presentation on the nature of our concerns. Our concerns lie with the enabling nature of this bill on this very important topic. We tried very diligently in the agriculture committee to put forward conditions that should be attached to the kinds of directions we are to take. If we are trying to do something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country, then the bill should make that part of the solution.

This particular work on biofuels was also part of Bill C-30. Within the larger bill there were opportunities to set the conditions within the industry for the direction that we are taking. This bill, without Bill C-30, has none of that. This is a piece of work that was stripped bare and rammed through the committee against the good advice of many people who support the biofuel industry, and now we are ramming it through Parliament and we do not have a chance to take a look at the meat, the regulations.

I can support this bill if we have the opportunity to make sure that we do a good job for Canadians. I would ask my colleague to give me some of the reasons why the Liberals and the Conservatives might not want to support this simple effort to make sure that we do the right thing here.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question put forward by my colleague from Western Arctic. For years, I have tried to figure out what motivates the Liberals and the Bloc. Reason and logic do not usually drive them. They are usually motivated by some other factors that I do not pretend to understand.

Let me simply say that it would be crazy “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 greenhouse gases”. That would be the kind of thing that would be so counterproductive and counterintuitive that if, after two years, we decided that was the direction we were going in, the review hopefully would reveal it. That was a quote from Professor Robert Watson, the chief scientific adviser to the World Bank.

Another speaker on this subject, Vandana Shiva, the director of the India-based Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, said, “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”.

We are seeing riots in the streets. If what we are doing is contributing to an international food security crisis, then in the review that my colleague fought for and won in this bill, I am proud to say, it hopefully would be brought to our attention at that time and we could again nip it in the bud.

What I am particularly pleased about, though, is that, should this amendment today pass, in the review process of this bill we now would be analyzing the regulations with the same scrutiny and oversight with which we analyze the original bill. To me, that is revolutionary. That is a breakthrough.

If we do that on this bill, I think we will have set a precedent that will serve Parliament well for the rest of its life and also will serve all parliaments to come. They might not build a statue of my colleague on the grounds of the Parliament Buildings for this, but surely he will be remembered in the annals of parliamentary history as the guy who made a breakthrough in the way that we do things in the best interests of the people who voted us here.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to join in the discussion today of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, regarding biofuels.

As we have been hearing, this is very important legislation. The amendment before us today is also very important, as it relates to how we do the business of the people of Canada in this place.

The intent of Bill C-33 is to enable the government to regulate renewable content and fossil fuels and proceed with plans to mandate a 5% renewable content in gasoline by 2010 and a 2% average renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012. This is something that we have supported in this corner of the House, although we supported it with reservations in the hope that we might see some important changes made when it was before the committee.

My colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior and my colleague from Western Arctic have worked hard to see improvements made to the legislation before it came back to the House. Unfortunately, that work was only partially successful. That is the reason we have this amendment before us today.

I should say that in committee there was some success, in that my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior managed to ensure that a parliamentary review would be undertaken every two years on the environmental and economic impacts resulting from the biofuel industry. That was a very significant addition to the legislation.

It is certainly something that needed to be there, especially given the changing scene regarding biofuels and the concerns that are being raised more intensely with every passing day, it seems, about the effect of this industry and these fuels on our planet and on food production in particular. Achieving that review at committee as an amendment to the legislation was a very important contribution to the debate around Bill C-33 and will have an important and lasting effect should this legislation ultimately pass.

The other problem, however, is that the other amendments introduced by the NDP and my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior did not get through the committee. They were very significant as well, in that they would have ensured that Canadian farmers benefited from any federal investment in the biofuel industry by the prohibiting of imported grains and oils for the production of biofuels. These amendments would have made sure that what is used in the biofuel industry is produced here in Canada.

The other part of the amendments that unfortunately was lost at committee called for the protection of the natural biodiversity of the environment from contamination by genetically modified trees and seeds. We have seen over and over again the concern about genetically modified foods being grown in Canada. There is a particular concern about the use of genetically modified seed and the effect that will have on agriculture in Canada. Given the interest in producing for biofuels, we wanted to make sure that there was some limitation on genetically modified seed and trees being used. Unfortunately, that did not make it through the committee either.

Finally, my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior tried to ensure that prohibiting the exploitation of sensitive biodiverse regions for growing crops for biofuel production was part of the legislation. That seems to be a very reasonable addition. It is something we should be concerned about when we are going down this road of biofuels, but sadly that did not make it through either.

The final and most blatant statement, I think, and the most important statement of all, was that food production should come first, before production for biofuels. We wanted to see that enshrined in the legislation as a principle as well. That did not make it through the committee process.

These are all very serious issues that were raised by the NDP in the debate at committee and ours were all very reasonable and appropriate amendments to bring forward. I am sad that they did not get the support of the other parties to get them included in the legislation we are debating here today.

That being said, we are putting forward another amendment today at this stage of the debate. That amendment would ensure the scrutiny of the regulations related to the bill that are brought forward and would make sure that the appropriate committee of the House has that opportunity specifically to look at the regulations. We heard earlier from my colleague from Winnipeg that often the devil is in the details. When it comes to legislation, the details are often in the regulations.

That is why we believe it is important to pass this amendment. As well as having oversight of the overall environmental and economic impact of heading down the biofuels road, we want to make sure that we look specifically at the regulations that are brought forward by the government relating to this bill. That is extremely important. Often we do not pay the kind of attention that we should. Given the very serious concerns related to biofuels, it is important that we do that.

Without that kind of scrutiny, and given that this is broad enabling legislation, we worry that we are handing the government another blank cheque. The Conservative government seems to be very interested in those kinds of blank cheques. It seems to be very interested in promulgating legislation, guidelines and regulations that are big enough to drive a Mack truck through. We have seen this over and over again.

We saw this with Bill C-10. That bill was essentially about closing income tax loopholes, but also included a guideline around the film and video tax credit dealing essentially with the censorship of film and video production in Canada. It is a very broad guideline that gives the minister and the government very broad powers with respect to deciding, based on apparently their own personal tastes, what should or should not be funded when it comes to film and video production in Canada. We in this corner of the House and many people in the arts community and the film and video production community in Canada are concerned about that and are extremely upset about it. It is another example of putting a very broad guideline or regulation into a piece of legislation that would give the government broad powers to make decisions without being clear and transparent.

We have also seen this with respect to Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill. The bill includes similar broad powers for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when it comes to dealing with immigration applications from people wishing to come to Canada. It gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to choose to ignore immigration applications. This is very inappropriate. The NDP has fought long and hard for an immigration system that is transparent, that is guided by clear regulations and clear policy. To give this kind of broad arbitrary power to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who can ignore immigration applications based on unknown decisions to us, such as personal preference or biases of the current government, seems unreasonable.

We see Bill C-33 as very broad legislation. It would essentially give the government a blank cheque to develop regulations around the biofuels industry. The NDP is very concerned about that. It should be more closely delineated. There should certainly be, at least as a bare minimum, more opportunity for scrutiny of the overall direction of the legislation and the impact it would have, as well as direct scrutiny of the regulations that are brought forward relating to it. That is what our amendment deals with today.

The whole question of biofuels is part of what some people are calling the perfect storm. In an article Gwynne Dyer wrote about the coming food catastrophe, he sees it as a piece of the perfect storm, related to population increase, related to the demand for food which is growing faster than the population, and to the changes in diet in countries like China and India where there is a growing middle class. It is related to global warming. Some countries are seeing changes in climate that affect their ability to grow food. Again there is the whole question of biofuels and whether they supposedly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but because of the change in food growing patterns that they are evoking around the world, they actually may strongly increase carbon dioxide emissions. Biofuels may not be a solution to the problem, but in fact may make it worse.

Gwynne Dyer certainly sees all of these things coming together as the perfect storm. He quoted Professor Robert Watson, a former adviser to the World Bank, who said, “It would obviously be totally insane if we had a policy to try and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of biofuels that is actually leading to an increase in greenhouse gases”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's discussion. This is a very serious issue. As much as we are talking about the need to have a biofuels plan for Canada, we also have to place it in the international context in which we are living right now. We are facing a global food crisis and Canada certainly appears to be absent from this debate on the international stage. Canada does not appear to be showing any leadership because the government is apparently not interested in it.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks the implications are if leading countries like Canada are not stepping up to the plate at this time in terms of the global food crisis. What is it going to mean for further global instability, especially as the food riots we are starting to see in a number of countries begin to escalate?

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct that we are seeing some very serious and troubling developments around the world. The food riots we have seen are certainly one example of it. There are the rising costs of grains and rice, for instance, around the world. I read one report that in Thailand farmers are actually sleeping in their fields to protect their rice crops from people going into the fields to steal them because rice is becoming so valuable. These are changes that are very disturbing.

I have seen the chain reaction that the drive to biofuels causes. It is an American example. U.S. farmers are selling one-fifth of their corn to ethanol production. That means that U.S. soybean farmers are switching to corn because they can make better money doing it. The Brazilian soybean farmers, in reaction to that, are expanding into cattle pastures to expand their production. The Brazilian cattlemen are being displaced further into the Amazon basin, leading to more rainforest being chopped down. All of these developments contribute to the development of greenhouse gas emissions. The chain is pretty direct and far extending. It extends around the world. The policy changes we make here have an effect all the way around the world because of this kind of chain reaction.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk by the opposition about the price of food and whether or not we should be turning food into fuel.

Farmers in my riding, and I am sure a lot of agriculture producers in British Columbia where the member is from, have been struggling in recent years to make a living and finally, they are making some money on their crops to survive.

It has already been pointed out numerous times today that less than 5% of agriculture production is being used to produce fuel, which I think we would all agree is pretty minuscule. I am sure the member knows that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has recently authorized the removal of kernel visual distinguishability, KVD. This move by the minister will allow varieties of wheat, which I am sure will lead to other crops, to basically increase their yields in a huge way.

I would like to know if the member supports the initiative taken by this government that will allow farmers to increase their crop yields and therefore, profitability.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in this corner of the House we have always been concerned about the income of farmers and agricultural producers across Canada. Sometimes we wonder if that commitment is shared by other parties in this House.

One of the key things we tried to do in committee was to make an amendment to the legislation that would protect Canadian farmers by ensuring that if there was going to be production of biofuels, it had to be done in Canada. There would be protection so that corn or wheat could not be imported into Canada to be used in Canadian plants that were producing biofuels. That was a measure that was intended to protect Canadian farmers. Unfortunately, other parties in this House turned it down.

It seems like a very reasonable amendment, one that tries to protect the place of Canadian farmers in this industry as it goes ahead. It is something which we feel very strongly about. Given the fact that the amendment was turned down, it really makes us question what the intentions are of the government and the other parties when it comes to this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the amendment that our party is trying to make on a very serious bill. It is important for a number of reasons. When we are talking about this amendment, which is about allowing a scrutiny of the government's actions and being able to examine the impacts of the increase in biofuel production, it is really important for us to look at how we came to this point.

When discussions were first made about biofuels, there was a general air of excitement. There certainly was in farm communities. I represent a farming district. There was the hope that we could find a new market, that we could actually start to bring fields into production. We have many fields that are fallow in our area, and it would be great if we had new markets for our domestic agriculture. There was certainly that component in terms of the agricultural rural perspective.

There was also very much a sense of our party's growing concern about global warming. The government party does not seem to share that concern. The government seems to think it is a direct threat on the expansion of the tar sands project. Most other people in the world would agree that global warming is a serious issue and needs to be addressed, and the best way to address it is actually by diverting us from the oil economy as opposed to simply throwing more subsidies into the Athabasca tar sands project and the political backers of the Conservative Party.

We looked at the issue of green fuels as certainly a way that most people were willing to examine, to support to help foster a new economy to get the biofuels industry off the ground. We are, however, seeing many, many disturbing implications from the success of the biofuels industry, and it certainly is a reason for us to pause and reflect and to examine. It is also incumbent upon us as legislators to make sure that there is ongoing reflection and examination of how this industry is going to continue to develop.

We need those checks and balances. If the New Democratic Party were asked if we should give a blank cheque to the Conservative government to carry on without scrutiny, we would certainly say no. It is not that we are opposed to the further development of biofuels, but we certainly do not trust the government without accountability, without clear checks and balances, without someone leaning over its shoulder to make sure that it is continuing to play by the rules, because we know that the government certainly has had a few problems in playing by the rules recently.

This is where the amendment would come in. The amendment is not to oppose the future development of biofuels, but to say we need some reflection. That would be a perfectly reasonable position.

A couple of serious impacts are beginning to take place in terms of the whole development of biofuels. In our domestic agricultural community, we are certainly seeing some up sides, in terms of increased payouts that are being paid to grain, of course, but there are major implications for our hog sector, for our cattle sector, for anyone looking for feed. There is the international implication and what this means in terms of the global food supply. I am going to focus mainly on that. There is also the question of whether or not this is, as an article in TIME magazine said, basically an energy myth that there is something clean in biofuels as it is presently being pursued. The article actually refers to it as the clean energy scam. We have to be very clear about why we are putting hundreds of millions of dollars into developing an industry that may not actually be helping us environmentally at all and in fact may be hurting us. I would like to speak in terms of those three priorities.

On the first priority, I am seeing in my region a growing concern about the price of feed and inputs. If I ask any of the farmers what they would attribute that to, they will say simply ethanol production. It is very clear. There is clearly the impact and the effect is right there.

Last year our hog producers were paying maybe $90 to $100 for a ton of barley. Now they are paying $140 and it could go up to $200. We are in a situation where 10% of the hog capacity in this country is about to be culled. In fact, even worse, part of the culling program will lead to sterilized empty farms for three years. Anybody who accepts the payout will not be able to hold any hogs for three years. That is a very serious hit to the regional and rural economies of Canada. It is a very serious threat to farm based families that are losing their farms.

Cattle producers tell us they get the same price for cull cattle now as they did in 1986, but in 1986 they were able to fill their diesel tank on the farm and buy feed. What they would get for a cull animal now would not even begin to pay for feed. They are very concerned about the growing cost of feed. With the push to get ethanol based products and corn and other agricultural products, we see the impact on our primary producers, especially anyone who has animal livestock. That is why we need to have ongoing scrutiny to see the implications and effects of this.

When we look at this internationally, the picture becomes much starker. We are seeing international food riots. We hear talk about a growing crisis that will affect perhaps the entire economy of the world. People will go hungry because they cannot afford to pay for basis staples. When we look at any of the economists who speak on this, one of the clear factors they always continue to indicate the fact of increasing production and spending money for fuels rather than to feed people.

This is a very serious issue. It is so serious that it is bringing together traditionally conflicting views. For example, Jeffrey Sachs has accused Canada of ignoring its position as a potential world leader on this issue. I do not know if there has been a time that Jeffrey Sachs and I have ever agreed on an issue, but in terms of this issue, we do.

Where is Canada's leadership? Right now people around the world are going hungry. There are food riots under way. We are in a situation where we are seeing growing instability and we hear nothing in the House, nothing from the government, nothing from Canada as a former international leader on addressing this.

What are the problems? We are talking about global warming. We are talking about the continual move to take food out of food production and move it into fuels. When we do the math, again, we see the bloated North American and European economy living off the sufferings of the third world. TIME magazine pointed out that if we took one SUV and filled it with corn-based ethanol, the amount of corn that went into filling that one tank of gas would feed one person for an entire year. It is clearly a question of efficiency, the fact that we have taken so much valuable food land and moved it out. We seeing the stripping of the Amazon basin now to move into soybean production for fuel economy.

The government wants us to give it a blank cheque, wants us to allow it to continue to expand the biofuels economy and give subsidies to a biofuel plant in this riding and a subsidy to another riding, which ridings are predominantly on the government side—

[An hon. member]

They would never do something like that, would they?

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

This is like the biofuels equivalent of in and out, except it is into government ridings. We see the Conservatives throw cheques around. They stand and say that we should let them do it without any scrutiny, that they should not bring this to the Canadian people and that the people should trust the government. We are in an international food crisis and the government is missing—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Come on, Charlie.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member only has 50 seconds left in his speech. If members want to ask some questions or make some comments, if they could just hold off for about 50 seconds, they can do so then.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your appearance to ask members to remember that this is the decorum of Parliament and to rise up and work with the New Democratic Party on something that is very simple, which is the need for scrutiny of the government's often shameless record. If the government had submitted to a bit of scrutiny before, it might not be in the trouble it is now.

We are looking to help the Conservatives. We are looking to keep them from getting themselves in further trouble. However, at the end of the day, we have to go back to the fact that this is a very serious issue.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to help the poor, then he will deal with Bill C-293, the private member's bill from my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, which deals with ensuring that CIDA's main focus is poverty reduction. I look forward to him supporting and getting his government to support the bill forthwith so that it can come through the House and become law.

On the issue of agriculture, our former colleague, Susan Whelan, who was the head of CIDA, made agriculture a priority. We were trying to do that, but unfortunately things changed. I do not know quite what the government's priorities are on agriculture with respect to CIDA, but I do not think that they are there.

On the issue of what Mr. Zoellick said as head of the World Bank, he is right, but what happens is that all of these international organizations produce a mountain of studies and reports and nobody implements them. That is the problem. If we do not take our subsidies and our reports and do something with them, as I keep telling people, we set countries up for failure.

What happens is that large international organizations develop very expensive studies, done by very expensive consultants, and hand them to developing countries. They then tell these countries to deal with them, but if they do not have the capacity to implement the studies, and they do not, then we are setting up developing countries for failure. That is what we do time and time again.

The greatest thing CIDA could do would be to build up capacity in developing countries so that when those countries receive the plans they have the capacity to implement those solutions. Can we do it? Absolutely. I developed a plan called the Canadian physicians overseas program, as part of a larger plan to get Canadian professional groups to go abroad and help build capacity in focused numbers of countries. That is a variant on the Canada Corps that our previous prime minister developed to give support overseas.

The current government should support that. If we were to take on that mantle of building capacity in developing countries, using Bill C-293 to do it, we would do something that has not been done before.

We would enable developing countries to have the capacity to implement these plans so that we can have an effect on the ground and on the person who makes a dollar a day. It would result in them not making a dollar a day any more because they would be making a reasonable amount of money. They would be able to put their children in school. They would have enough food on the table. They would get education for their children. They would get access to health care. We would not see the deplorable, appalling, disgusting, unfathomable and immoral situations that we are now seeing in developing countries.

This is something the government should take on the mantle for and implement, and it should do it now.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33, which seeks to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and establish minimum levels of biofuel content in gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil, to be implemented within three to five years.

This legislation is wide open and does not differentiate between biofuels. And yet we know that not all biofuels are equal.

My colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior proposed some wise amendments at committee that would have helped to make biofuel production safer and more sustainable, but unfortunately they were voted down by Liberals and Conservatives.

These were amendments such as preserving the biodiversity of lands used in biofuel production and prohibiting the importation of grains or oils for use in biofuel production, which would have helped prevent the kind of problem that my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca just raised. There also was an amendment to establish criteria in relation to environmental sustainability of biofuel production and so on. As I said, these were voted down by Liberals and Conservatives.

However, at least his amendment strengthening the reporting requirements placed on government regarding how it is implementing the biofuels regime was approved at committee.

The amendment before us today, proposed by my colleague from Western Arctic, would ensure stronger oversight of the regulatory framework. Without proper safeguards such as this, we are giving the government a blank cheque to pursue a strategy that will not necessarily benefit rural communities in our country and could sacrifice millions of acres of productive crop land or grassland, all the while contributing to global warming.

Biofuels can be a first step toward a cleaner, greener, more affordable and more sustainable source of energy, as long as there exists a clear and comprehensive regulatory regime. That is what this amendment we are discussing today tries to get at.

Our amendments were intended to inject some sober second thought into a rush for alternative sources of fuel. They were intended to ensure that we do not forge ahead without a mechanism to determine if we are going down the right path or indeed creating other problems. As this legislation stands, it could cause more problems than it solves.

This enabling legislation does not differentiate or restrict to sustainable biofuels those which rely on waste products, for example, instead of food crops on agricultural lands for production. Even with so-called waste products, we must proceed carefully, because some of the suggested inedible agricultural products like corn husks or cornstalks can be used to replenish depleted soils in some countries or even in ours. On a life cycle basis, recycling and reuse are almost always a better conservation strategy, as they enable us to preserve, by recycling and reusing, a large portion of the energy used in converting raw materials into products in the first place.

Regardless of the problems with this legislation, I recognize that there is still an opportunity to ensure that we produce environmentally beneficial biofuels. For instance, innovative technology for treating sewage using human effluent in the production of biofuel to heat buildings and run vehicles is being examined as an approach to sewage treatment in my riding of Victoria. The food in this source of fuel would take an indirect route through our stomachs and through the toilets to a groundbreaking treatment plant. This is the only way that “food for fuel” makes sense.

Vancouver-based Paradigm Environmental Technologies Inc. piloted new technology that is 95% efficient in converting sludge waste to biogas, which is then converted into electricity and heat. These types of projects will generate environmental, social and economic benefits. I applaud the fact that Bill C-33 will enable them, but this kind of wide open legislation needs checks and balances because it also will enable many other projects that are not as sustainable.

At committee, a representative of the National Farmers Union stated that ethanol and biofuels were a costly misadventure and that the promoters of ethanol in Canada are mainly the big agribusiness corporations in this country. His concerns about corn-based or wheat-based ethanol and the significant amounts of energy required to produce it seem valid.

For corn-based ethanol to be a viable source of energy, it must be imported in even larger quantities than is currently bought from the United States and how would that benefit our farmers? We should be examining more sustainable methods of decreasing our fuel consumption and producing new renewable fuel sources rather than pursuing policies that will exacerbate the global food crisis and have little impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The focus of this legislation should not be to further enrich large corporate interests in the oil, agriculture or biotech industries. Worldwide investments in biofuel rose from $5 billion in 2005 and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010, thanks to investments from large multinationals like Cargill and others.

There are many concerns over food security and over the various causes of rising food prices. Oxfam and other agriculture groups say that the surging demand for biofuels like ethanol are contributing to the rising food crisis by turning food crops into an energy commodity and this, in turn, is fueling wild speculation in the stock market.

However, without fearmongering, this bill does raise serious concerns regarding the sustainability of production practices and there is nothing within the bill to restrict them in any way or to address emerging issues. We cannot charge ahead without considering the impact on food security or the chain reaction in land use caused by the acceleration of biofuel demand.

Without the NDP amendment proposed and defeated in committee, nothing in this legislation prevents producers from importing corn, for example, to make ethanol, which will contribute to that chain reaction. What kind of sustainable energy policy is that?

Testimony before the committee and recent comments on Bill C-33 show that many people are worried about the Conservative government's approach to the development of biofuels, and specifically to the problem of climate change in general.

Climate change is this generation's greatest challenge. Biofuels are just part of the solution to climate change in Canada. If we use some of the technologies I just mentioned, we can jump straight into the next generation of biofuels.

However, the government has largely overlooked one of the most important tools for tackling the massive problem of climate change, which is the widespread use of conservation measures to help wean us off our reliance on heating oils and to reduce our consumption of all types of fuels. If fuel is wasted, it does not matter if it is clean or dirty, it is still a waste.

Policies that promote a reduction in fuel consumption are always the best and most important policies, since they create a sustainable fuel system.

Above all, the federal government must make a real effort to tackle climate change. Regulations requiring the use of renewable fuels are just part of what is needed to ensure a more accessible source of energy.

If the government truly plans on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it must take a tougher approach. Climate change is our greatest challenge, and solutions to this problem must be sustainable.

Biofuels can be produced sustainably provided some conditions are met, for example a net decrease in greenhouse gases, minimal use of water, no competition with the production of food crops, and no detrimental effect on biodiversity. Once these criteria are met, the production of biofuels can be considered sustainable.

Our focus should be to provide opportunities for Canadian agriculture and rural communities by supporting small-scale regional renewable energy systems for multiple feedstock sources. Let us say yes indeed to biofuels, but let us apply some common sense reasoning, demonstrated by the amendments under consideration today.

[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 listened intently to my colleague's comments. Unfortunately, I have to take exception with many of them. This whole food versus fuel debate is absolutely ridiculous. The facts show that Canada has more than enough agricultural production to meet our renewable fuel targets without affecting one iota of Canada's food supply.

The opponents of biofuels, like the NDP and the NFU, are completely disconnected from Canadian agriculture. One of the studies that the NDP used in committee to back its claims referred to much of the prairies as a semi-desert. The breadbasket of the world is a semi-desert according to the NFU and the NDP. It is absurd studies like this that opponents of biofuels use to justify their ridiculous claims.

I wonder if the NDP is not spending too much time in association with the Liberal Party because it seems to flip-flop on these issues. I would like to quote from the NDP's 2006 election platform. On page 17, it states:

Require a phased-in substitution of Canadian ethanol from local inputs for non-renewable fuel sources to 10% of motor vehicle fuel by 2010 and target increases in reliance on biodiesel fuel.

Could the member confirm that the NDP has, as the Liberals do, flip-flopped on this issue? I would be very interested in hearing that.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure who is associating with the Liberals because according to the Toronto Star, it states:

With the support of the Liberals and Bloc Québécois, [the Prime Minister's] government is expected to push Bill C-33 through the House of Commons this week.

Our support for biofuels is clear. What we are saying today is that this kind of wide open legislation is not the way to go.

The suggestion is entirely reasonable. It is worth making sure that we are not contributing to a global food crisis caused by this increasingly accelerated demand on biofuels. Many legitimate questions have been raised about these measures.

We are suggesting a sober second thought and that we take a look at how this can be done promoting the kinds of technologies I referred to that the Vancouver-based Paradigm Environmental Technologies proposes, such as using sewage effluent in a highly efficient way, 95%, compared to 55% to 60% in corn ethanol. It is worth looking at this and getting this right.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the report stage motion wants to add a further review item; that is, that the review required under this new section 140 would review the progress made in preparation and implementation of regulations referred to in subsection 140(1).

I want to ask the member, could she advise the House exactly what preparation of what regulations is being required here since there are none proposed in Bill C-33 for section 140, and whether these are not already covered by the general review required as to the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, what is suggested in this amendment is not already covered because the program would already be implemented. So, what is being suggested here is that because of all the real concerns that have been expressed, it would be important to have an oversight committee to review these regulations before they are implemented, before we start down a particular path. Any new legislation is followed by a set of regulations and this is what an oversight all party committee should be looking at to ensure that this legislation does not have unintended consequences.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating Bill C-33, but more specifically a report stage amendment affecting section 140 of the act. I would like to remind the House what the amendment requires.

The current wording in Bill C-33 is that under subsection 6, within one year after the subsection comes into force and every two years thereafter, a comprehensive review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada should be undertaken, et cetera.

The proposed amendment which we are debating at report stage is that in addition to the general requirement to review the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel, it would also include a review of the progress made in the preparation and implementation of the regulations referred to in subsection 140(1).

The situation is that regulations can be made from time to time. At this point I am not aware of regulations being proposed in regard to biofuel production, or what current regulations may exist under the EPA for that matter, simply because that bill would have to be before us at the same time. That is a predicament we have as legislators. When we deal with bills, we do not have available to us at the time regulations that are required and prescribed to be prepared under the legislation. Those things come after a bill gets royal assent. Parliamentarians in both Houses do not get an opportunity to look at regulations. They may have an opportunity to ask the officials to give them a general idea of what might be proposed, but it is a circular argument because the officials may very well say that we cannot know what the problem of the member is, as he indicated in his speech, about what the act requires.

Regulations are enabled by the legislation; it is not the reverse. We have a situation here where I am not exactly sure whether it is just a hope that should there be additional regulations proposed, if they were relevant to the section, that a review would be done. It is not clear to me right now the basis for the change, unless one knows what is being contemplated in terms of the proposed regulations.

Before we vote on this, I want to be informed and maybe other members do as well, about what might be there. Certainly in terms of the preparation of any regulations, we are never going to know that, but in terms of the implementation, it would presume that there are existing regulations which have not been implemented for some reason, that they are waiting for further data or whatever, and it is pretty hard to review something that has not been implemented.

This whole section does require a review one year after the section comes into force and every two years thereafter, so it may come into play somewhere down the road.

Having dealt with the report stage issue, I want to follow the line of debate at report stage with some of the comments that members have expressed with regard to the world food crisis. Some have decided that the world food shortage crisis we are going to discuss is in Canada. There is not a food crisis in Canada and I think we understand that. The public is very concerned about the balance between the use of agricultural land to produce crops for biofuel purposes.

The most prevalent source right now is corn. Corn obviously is a major staple used in food production and even in exported products. When we look at how the costs of various aspects of producing food or fuel work through the economy, it is not a simple thing of whether that corn is being used to feed people or to produce fuel, and whether one is causing some distress on the other in terms of the objectives.

Obviously the science is still being worked on, but the results are fairly clear that the benefits of corn based ethanol with regard to greenhouse gas emissions are not great. There are other forms of producing ethanol, such as from straw and even from municipal waste, which calls out for research. There will have to be a lot of work done to make sure there is an efficient and appropriate use of the crops that we grow not only in Canada but around the world. Canada could be a leader on the research side to ensure that the land use is appropriate and that we get the significant benefits through the research.

Bill C-33 proposes that all fuel have 5% ethanol content by 2010. Others have proposed that it be 10%. The bill would involve spending some $2.2 billion which would help ensure that farmers would be able to grow the crops that are applicable to their end use. It would also help build ethanol plants.

There are some interesting things going on in the area of biofuels, but we cannot ignore the food shortage problem. There are some arguments that maybe the current activity in Canada with regard to biofuels is affecting it, but the ethanol role with regard to food shortage actually is very small. We must take into account the rise in the cost of fuel. As the price per barrel of oil goes up and is at a record high, the cost of food goes up. All of a sudden the economics of food production and the impact on the whole food supply chain becomes very significant to the argument.

We cannot just say that growing a crop for biofuel purposes is causing a world food crisis. It is relevant and it depends on the magnitude, but there is such a large number of other factors that it is not a cause and effect. It is not black and white. It is not simple.

On top of that, we could probably make some arguments that if we do not deal with the greenhouse gas emissions problem and its impact on our environment, we will have more aberrant weather, more violent storms and more crops will be destroyed. It is almost a circular argument. It is very important to understand that this is not just a two variable equation.

In addition, I was doing a little research and found that the dietary habits in India and China are changing noticeably. In India and China more and more meat is being consumed. That line is going up, to the extent that if there is more consumption of meat, there is a need for more feed, which means that more crops need to be grown and more and more of the crops will be allocated to a significant population component of the world, being in India and China. The dietary habits in India and China will have more far-reaching implications on the demand for corn and other crops.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

We don't have control over that; we only have control of this.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is staggering.

To conclude my comments, it is apparent that all hon. members are very concerned about the world food crisis. It is a reality. We are also concerned about what Canada is doing to contribute to alleviating those problems. At the same time, we must promote appropriate research. As we address other priorities that we have not only for Canada, but for the world as a whole in addressing greenhouse gas emissions, that research will be a significant part of it in Canada, particularly with regard to alternatives to corn for producing ethanol, such as straw and municipal waste particularly, which I think is a very important source of ethanol production.

I am going to leave it at that. There clearly is a need for a balance here, but I have no doubt that the House would want to ensure that Canada is playing a substantive role in addressing the food crisis around the world.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about not understanding why there would be regulations coming forward. Bill C-33 is an empty box that is going to be filled with the regulations that will guide the industry in the future. This is the case. There is nothing in this legislation that sets conditions or terms as to how the biofuel industry is going to develop in Canada.

Quite clearly, section 140 states:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations for carrying out the purposes of section 139...

Some portions of the act talk about the different types of regulations in the act, regulations made under sections 93 and 140, et cetera, quantities of released production capacity. The substance or the fuel source, interestingly enough, is not something that is going to be dealt with in the regulations. Under the regulations we are going to decide where the fuel is coming from. We are going to make a decision about whether biofuels are going to be a local product, a national product or an international product.

We are going to make those kinds of decisions in regulations rather than here in Parliament where those decisions should be made, such as the substance of the fuel's commercial destination, the substance of the fuel's physical and chemical properties, how much greenhouse gas emissions the fuel produces, the chemical properties.

Once again, through regulation later on, the government, rather than Parliament, is going to decide how our industry develops. That is why we put the oversight amendment forward, to provide parliamentarians with the opportunity to actually speak to the substance of this new industry. I would ask my hon. colleague, is that not a good enough reason to support having an oversight provision within this bill?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly some of the items the member cited are relevant. For the assessment required under the proposed clause in Bill C-33, which is an amendment to the Environmental Protection Act, we have to look at the whole act to see the implications.

The member will recall that I talked about the fact that these regulations will never be seen by this place before we have to pass the bill. Subsection 3.2 says specifically, “Regulations made under section 93, 140”, section 140 being the relevant one to the report stage motion, “...may distinguish among any class of persons, works, undertakings, activities or substances, including fuels, that they may establish on the basis of any factor, including” and then it goes on to list quantities of releases, production capacity, technology, feedstocks used, the substance or fuel’s source, et cetera.

The question I would ask is, why did the report stage amendment not also require that the word “may” be changed to “shall” or “must”? This is optional; this is not mandatory under Bill C-33. Maybe we have not done the job fully.

[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, obviously the experience of the member opposite shows in his speech and his answers to some of the questions.

I wonder if he could shed any light on the NDP's flip-flop. I am tempted to say that he has a little experience in flip-flopping but I will not. Based on the comments I made earlier about 2006, the experienced member was here and was in the 2006 election, in its platform the NDP wanted 10% of motor vehicle fuel by 2010 to be biofuel.

I know the member opposite supports farmers. We on this side put farmers first and I am sure the member would, although he probably does not have a lot of farmers in his riding. I wonder if he could explain to me why a party which two years ago wanted 10% content now thinks it is a bad idea for farmers to make a decent living. What would change in two years? I wonder if he could shed some light on that for me, please.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that question would probably be better posed to and answered by the party to which the member is referring. I will not speak on its behalf.

However, I would use my remaining time to suggest to the entire House to recall that we have Bill C-293, which deals with developmental assistance, aid and poverty alleviation. That bill is coming back to the House as a result of a Senate report. I hope the government will support Bill C-293 so we have the proper definition and guidelines for developmental assistance and ensure we have the proper tools and are in the right direction to deal with poverty alleviation and food shortages.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33 and specifically to the amendment proposed by the member for Western Arctic calling for a review of the progress made in the preparation and implementation of the regulations.

I appreciate the comments by my colleague from Mississauga around the need for this amendment. I am well aware that other committees have taken a proactive stance as this regulatory process has evolved. I commend the member for Western Arctic for inserting this amendment so the House can oversee what essentially would be a blank cheque.

It is important to have oversight considering some of the other legislation that has come before the House where I would suggest that perhaps the House did not do the due diligence that was required. I only need to point to the voter identification bill. New Democrats raised some very serious concerns around that legislation. Lo and behold, the government had to bring forward another bill to fix the problem in the original bill because it had effectively eliminated the ability of about a million voters in Canada to register to vote.

I understand there is continuing disenfranchisement in that voter identification bill. We know that homeless people and many first nations will have difficulty voting in the next federal election unless more fixes are put into place.

I would argue that New Democrats are doing the due diligence that other members in this House have chosen not to do by insisting on some oversight on this bill.

In case people think this is merely New Democrats talking, I want to point to an editorial in The Star today. It states:

But in their rush to biofuels, the politicians have overlooked the drawbacks of turning food into fuel.

Although biofuels do emit less greenhouse gas than regular gasoline, environmentalists point out that this comparison does not take into account the emissions coming from the farm machinery and fertilizer required to “grow” these new fuels and the trucks for transporting them.

It goes on to state:

Parliament should heed NDP Leader...and take more time to consider the implications of Bill C-33 before passing it.

David Suzuki, in September 2007, said:

Biofuels have many advantages, but we have to look at all our options and make sure we make the best choices to ensure a more sustainable future.

...attempting to save the planet by wholesale switching to biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel may unintentionally have the opposite effect.

The Pembina Institute stated:

Many concerns have been raised about the environmental and social impacts of un-controlled production of bio-fuels. Pembina believes strict criteria need to be in place to ensure these impacts are minimized.

The parliamentary secretary has stood a number of times today and said that New Democrats have flip-flopped since 2006. New Democrats have said that there is new and emerging information that requires this House to take a strong, hard look at this legislation. We have new information about what is happening in the world around rising food prices and new information around production and all those factors need to be considered.

In committee, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior proposed a number of amendments that, unfortunately, the Conservatives and the Liberals chose not to support. Some of those amendments would have dealt with some of these other emerging issues. I will not read all the amendments put forward by the member but I do want to touch on a couple of them because they are issues being raised in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan. I know other members are getting calls, letters and emails about them.

One of the amendments reads:

prohibiting the use of genetically modified grains, oilseeds or trees for biofuel production....

The next one reads:

prohibiting the use of lands protected by federal legislation and other sensitive biodiverse lands for biofuel production;

preserving the biodiversity of lands used in biofuel production;

prohibiting the importation of grains or oils for use in biofuel production;

establishing criteria in relation to the environmental sustainability of biofuel production to ensure compliance with internationally recognized best practices that promote the biodiversity and sustainability of land, air and water;

In British Columbia, fortunately under Dave Barrett and the provincial New Democrats, they instituted the agricultural land reserve in an effort to ensure our farmland was protected. I do have farms in my riding. My riding is a rural-urban community and there are a number of farms there.

What we have found over the years is that the ALR, the agricultural land reserve, that was put in place is being eroded. There has been no net loss of land but there has been a substitution of land that is less productive, less arable. The amendments proposed by the member for British Columbia Southern Interior were partly around the fact that we cannot generate new land. What we need to do is ensure the farmland that is available in Canada is put to the best possible use and, as well, that farmers can maintain a decent living from their farming efforts.

In British Columbia, most of the policies that are made in Canada for agriculture do not take into account the fact of life in British Columbia where many of our farm holdings are small farm holdings. I would encourage this as an opportunity to examine the diversity of farming activity in Canada and how we protect that.

As well, British Columbia is in a unique position where we, unfortunately, have material that is available for Cellulosic. In an article from CleanTechnica, which was written in Colorado but equally applies to British Columbia, it talks about what is being done to prevent catastrophic wildfire while taking advantage of a clean energy opportunity. The article talks about several stories that hit the news wire this week about taking a collective hint at the growing conditions for a perfect storm for Cellulosic ethanol.

The virgin biofuel industry got a kick in the seat yesterday when a study in science confirmed that many environmentalists believe ethanol from corn and switchgrass could actually worsen climate change. The article goes on to state:

The cheapest, most logical, and most environmentally friendly way to make ethanol is to do so with waste...And thanks to the pine beetle epidemic, there is a wealth of small-diameter waste-wood in the Rocky Mountain West....

On April 1, 2008, in an article on The Tyee, it states, “Burn Trees to Light Homes”. It is talking about the fact that the pine beetle wood kill is a way to take the value of dead wood and create a viable energy opportunity. The article talks about the fact that in British Columbia there currently is a substantial amount of export to Europe on wood pellets. The pine beetle wood kill is an opportunity to take some of that waste-wood and turn it into a product that could be used both in British Columbia and for export.

Some science is required around the pine beetle waste-wood and some of the money that is being marked for renewable energy and sustainable energy strategies could be earmarked for research and development into the pine beetle waste-wood.

The sad comment is that in British Columbia our forestry sector is reeling. In the same Tyee article, it states that in the past year 34 sawmills in the province have closed permanently or indefinitely resulting in 10,000 job losses.

In my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, we have had a number of companies in the last six months either lay off workers indefinitely or close permanently. Some have gone into receivership. I saw one of the grimmest sights that I have seen in recent memory in my riding last week. As I drove north on the highway, I saw a former sawmill operation site filled with forestry equipment that was being auctioned off because a logging company, which had been in business since the early 1900s manufacturing equipment for the forestry industry, had gone into receivership. Hundreds of pieces of equipment and vehicles on this lot were being auctioned off.

That is a grim reminder that in British Columbia we are seeing a massive transition in the forestry sector and we are simply not taking hold of that.

When we are talking about waste-wood as a Cellulosic ethanol, there is an opportunity to do something for forestry workers. Where is the money for a transition strategy for communities and workers?

We talked about this community trust money. I have talked to people in my riding and they have not seen one cent of it. We have workers today who are running out of employment insurance because my riding is in an area that is tagged on to another riding that has a very low unemployment rate and it is on the mainland. It is not like the workers in my riding can walk out their door and go next door to get a job. They are running out of their employment insurance. Where is the effort to actually ensure something happens?

The bill speaks to, in a variety of ways, an energy strategy. We should take a look at what has happened in British Columbia, with things like the pine beetle. We should talk about how we can help some of the workers make the transition into some other industry.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague, as she articulated some of her concerns regarding the biofuel initiatives.

One of the unfortunate things that too often happens in the House and at committees is we tend to polarize this issue. Some of the comments my colleague made indicated that polarization, for example, using phrases like “wholesale switching to biofuels”. The government is not recommending wholesale switching. It is a very measured response. It is an environmentally friendly response.

The biofuel initiatives of the government would reduce greenhouse gases by over four megatonnes per year. That is the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road. That is responsible environmental leadership.

On the issue of cellulosics and using wood chips, is the member aware that the government has invested $500 million in the future of biofuels like cellulosics, which can turn wood chips and garbage into fuel?

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

Mr. Speaker, if I said wholesale switching, I did not intend to say that, and I wish to withdraw that remark.

Yes, money is going into things like cellulosics. The problem is it is not the only place the money is going. We are not opposed to biofuels, but with the new information emerging, we are simply asking the House to take a strong oversight role. We are asking it take some responsibility for the new information coming in, ensuring that we are doing the job people have sent us here to do and ensuring there are no unintended consequences and impact. With what we see happening in many parts of the world today, with new science emerging, it would seem that it would be a responsible stance for the House to take.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member. She does her homework and knows what she is talking about, particularly on fetal alcohol syndrome, aboriginal issues and the list goes on.

Very briefly, there has been some research on the alternatives to corn based ethanol, being straws and municipal waste. It is really in its infancy. As I understand it, the process involves pelletizing and burning. I am not sure whether this is a near term or very long term approach, and I am curious about that.

Could the member provide a little insight as to whether she is proposing or suggesting that we back off the proven technologies of corn based ethanol production simply because of the pressures, and I would think most of them being public pressures with regard to food shortage issues? Is it more politically salable to abandon an ethanol strategy in terms of greenhouse gases? Is there not a balance? Maybe the member has some comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I was suggesting with cellulosic ethanol was it was in its infancy. I was putting it in the context of what was happening in British Columbia, with thousands and thousands of hectares of standing wood being killed by the pine beetle. I know there is a substantial amount of research currently being conducted at the University of British Columbia, in particular, for the use of this wood. I agree it is unlikely to come to market in the short term.

My understanding of Bill C-33 is there are some short term initiatives in it as well as some long term initiatives. That is where I am calling, again, through the member Western Arctic, for some oversight. Although there is some proven technology, much of the work going on right now in this area is new, emerging and experimental. We need the time and the oversight to ensure we have a good understanding of the impact.

Again, I am talking about the reasonable responsibility of members in the House, as I talked about in the voter identification bill, to not pass legislation that ends up as something with which cannot live.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to speak to Bill C-33, the amendments to Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I will use my time to speak to a few of the issues.

When the bill was first envisioned, I do not think it was controversial. However, since then, a lot of ramifications have come in to play, in particular those outlined by the opposition critic for foreign aid. I will talk later about the effects on the world food supply and world food crisis, the interrelations with the bill and the tweaking of it.

For the public watching and hearing the different points of views and concerns, the first thing to remember is the bill would only change the regulatory framework. It would not in itself do anything other than that. It would set the stage and the legislative ability for the government to act, but it would not cause any action. Nothing would change until the power provided under the bill would be used.

Almost everyone in the House, with the exception of a few members, understands that the regulations then can be used most effectively when the results of current scientific and statistical studies show the best use of those regulations, the best allocation of funds, regulations and legislation related to biofuels, biodiesel, ethanol and various products.

The bill only would allow the government to make regulations related to the exporting and composition of fuels. I think most people would agree that it is good for the government to have the ability to control these items. However, then the debate will be over what the government does with that control.

Current debates are around the world food crisis, the impact ethanol and biodiesels have on that and the use of waste by the next generation. I think most members of the House, including the minister, because he set aside $500 million for it, would prefer to have biodiesels produced not from items that could be food or food producing soils particularly, but from the waste products of those soils. The various alternative fuels, low emission fuels, can be produced from animal waste, plant waste and agricultural waste, such as straw, husks, wood waste from sawmills, switchgrass and cellulose waste. There is a great hydrogen plant in Ottawa.

I do not imagine too many people would disagree that there can be a great symbiotic relationship between agriculture and the use of waste products to ultimately produce a cleaner environment. Those waste products could be used for something productive and we would have much lower emissions. As we know the world is in a crisis in regard to greenhouse gas emissions. It affects my riding in the north more dramatically than anywhere else in the world. Species are becoming extinct. They are moving their ranges, which then threatens aboriginal peoples who depend on a certain species to be in a certain location at a certain time. It is causing havoc with the infrastructure. Therefore, we need bills such as this, initiatives that will reduce greenhouse gases.

Notwithstanding a lot of the scientific advisers have been cancelled by the government, we need to do a good scientific analysis on the actual effectiveness and efficiency of the various proposals to reduce greenhouse gases and other noxious elements in our air.

Everyone is quite aware that there is a world food crisis and it is the link to ethanol, which is part of the debate. However, I want to reiterate what many other speakers have said, which is we have another important bill before Parliament, Bill C-293. Hopefully everyone will support it and get it through quickly. It targets Canada's aid to the areas where it was originally intended to go. Our former agriculture minister, Susan Whelan, when she was the CIDA minister, worked in this direction to ensure that aid went to the right areas, and food would be one of those.

I want to talk about one area of the food crisis that has not been mentioned in the debate. It is a bit peripheral, but it is a very important crisis to a number of people in the world. That is the Burmese people in refugee camps on the Thailand border, where I visited in January. About 140,000 Burmese people are running from a horrendous dictatorship. All members of our Parliament have been very—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to take away from the serious issue about which the member is talking, but we are at report stage and third reading of Bill C-33. Debate is supposed to be extremely focused on the issue at hand and these meandering type of comments in debates do not have any place at third reading.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The member is speaking about what other people have spoken about at great length, but I would ask him to come back to the bill from time to time.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, there could not be more relevance in what I have said. I am talking about a world food crisis. A number of people have said that the bill could make it worse. I am talking about a crisis in the world and different aspects of it. It is much more relevant than, for instance, what the previous government member said, pretending it was a myth with no facts. I will quote facts later on in my speech related to the substantiveness of that crisis.

I am sure the member would not want to put forward a bill that could be the cause of malnutrition and starvation of people. I am trying to be supportive of the bill and the initiative, but we have to look at these determinants of the bill.

Relevant to the bill is the food crisis in the Burmese refugee camps. Food prices have gone up three times. The Thai-Burma border control, which deals with those prices and supplies the food from Canadian aid, has a $7 million shortfall right now. For the children, the elders and pregnant women, the rations will have to be cut from 2,000 calories a day to 1,000, or a cut from about seven food items to only rice and salt. I cannot believe any member of the House would want only rice and salt for every meal. Therefore, there is a crisis in food supply, and members cannot deny it is occurring.

Yesterday the government was generous with its aid for food, but this is another aspect. We need an additional $1 million to be added to what the government has provided to this area.

Continuing with the matter of ethanol, the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association has made the point that although ethanol production has increased in the United States, so has corn production. In fact, it is at higher levels than ever. Therefore, more exports are going to the rest of the world. The problem is not necessarily in North America. Experts around the world have suggested there is a problem. Biofuel critics from as far away as Ethiopia, Mali, Philippines and Paraguay warn Canadian lawmakers that western thirst for green fuels is costing human lives. Indigenous peoples in northern Argentina are dying of malnutrition as they lose their land to agricultural expansion.

In conclusion, the bill does nothing in itself. All it does is give the government the ability to regulate. We can support that, but we support the submissions by the various opposition parties that it needs to studied to determine exactly what direction those regulations go in so they do not deprive people food, but at the same time continue to make a cleaner environment as for which our leader has called.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague and my next-door neighbour from Yukon on his speech. We in the Northwest Territories and Yukon share a lot of interest in reducing energy costs.

When we talk about cellulosic ethanol, we are talking about a process which converts cellulosic material into ethanol at about a 40% energy efficiency conversion ratio. In other words, 40% of the energy within the cellulose is converted into ethanol.

Right now we have a very simple way of converting cellulose product at 100% efficiency in Canadian homes and businesses. We can put it into coal plants. It is called pelletization. Any cellulosic product can be pelletized, such as wood. Without the intense effort that we are going into, to produce cellulosic ethanol, we can replace natural gas in homes and coal in coal-fired plants. We can do a number of things, where thermal energy is required, with cellulosic product at a very low cost and at 100% efficiency.

By developing the cellulosic ethanol business, we are entering into a less efficient way of using a product that exists right across this country and could be used in every local community to heat our homes, to do a number of things, including Yukon where of course people right now are suffering with $1.30 a litre cost of fuel oil. In the Northwest Territories right now, my government, which I am very proud of, is converting its buildings to use wood pellets because it is half the cost.

What we see here is a move toward an industry-based solution which does not really serve everyone across the country. To my hon. colleague, would it not make more sense to use the most efficient way of using our energy resources to produce the best result for Canadians?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree and that is basically what I said in my speech. We have to use the most efficient method of cutting greenhouse gases. I would be very interested in any studies he has on wood pelletization, of which we do some in my riding, in comparison to the emissions and efficiency of cellulosic ethanol, which of course is much more efficient than the first ethanols developed.

I am delighted the member has gas at only $1.30 a litre in his riding. This weekend I had to fill up and it was $1.47 a litre. So I definitely think we have to use the most efficient method. Basically, the point the member made proves my point, that we have to get down to that scientific analysis. There are different good methods, such as solar; wind; pelletization, as he mentioned; biodiesel; biofuels; clean coal, which is connected to carbon sequestration; but some are better than others. If we are going to invest taxpayers' money, it cannot be a knee-jerk reaction.

We must do an analysis to ensure that we are investing in what will be the most efficient and the cleanest for the amount that we are putting in and that it will not harm the world food supply but will improve the environment. Our leader has been constantly saying that these are the types of fuels that we need to invest in to improve the environment and lower greenhouse gases.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member goes to the BIOCAP Canada site, there is a very clear and definitive analysis of greenhouse gas emissions from both pelletization and use of ethanol or any others, soya-based diesel, canola-based diesel, or a number of others. He will get a very clear picture of what is going on with the energy transfers with all these types of products.

As I say, the $1.30 is for fuel oil in the Northwest Territories, which we use to heat our homes. We could certainly convert our homes to use wood pellets inasmuch as we wanted to do that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that information. Certainly, in different areas of the country there will be different solutions, depending on the geography. We cannot do for instance carbon sequestration in many parts of the country because there is not the right geology. We cannot use hydro in certain parts of the country because it is not available. In areas where we have 24 hours of daylight in the summer, solar can be very useful at certain times of the year. I think if we all have the same objective, which is to cut greenhouse gases, increase energy efficiency and cut pollutants, we will use the right solution in the right geographical area of the nation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

There has been a request that the vote be deferred until 3 p.m. this day.

The House resumed 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.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

It being 3:05 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-33. The question is on Motion No. 2.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #94

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare Motion No. 2 lost.

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

moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

The hon. chief government whip is rising on a point of order.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope, if you were to seek it, that you would find unanimous consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the motion presently before the House, with Conservative members present voting in favour.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

The hon. whip for the official opposition.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting in favour of this motion.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this motion.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the NDP will be voting against this motion.

[André Arthur, Independent, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to vote in favour of this motion.

[Bill Casey, Independent, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in favour.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #95

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.