Agriculture Committee on Feb. 7th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Your time has expired, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.

First of all, I'd like to state that my party and I do not see this as a done deal. I see this as an important step in a direction that needs further exploration.

I believe the whole issue of biofuels needs careful study, because there are some indications, for example, that the direction the United States in is going is not the right direction. Having said that, I appreciate the commitment to producer involvement. We think this is key.

We know about the trend in the United States. The first generation of ethanol plants had something like 30% or 40% producer cooperative involvement. But the next plants--I think it's around a hundred that are being built--have almost no producer involvement. I'm wondering if that's a trend we may see in Canada. In other words, we start with producer involvement, but for one reason or another it decreases, and all of a sudden the industry is taken over by the big companies. Then the producer is left at the mercy of these companies. For example, in Manitoba it's Husky Oil that has two plants.

That's the first question. I'm wondering what the trend is here.

We're seeing the benefits. We're seeing them for farmers. At the same time, we're seeing that this is one of the reasons that life is much harder for pork and cattle producers. So we see the good and the bad, and hopefully this will settle out.

There is research that I and my staff have been doing with regard to the life cycle of biofuels. I'd like to quote from a document called Biofuels: The Five Myths of the Agro-fuels Transition. It says:

But when the full “life cycle” of agro-fuels is considered--from land clearing to automotive consumption--the moderate emission savings are undone by far greater emissions from deforestation, burning, peat drainage, cultivation, and soil carbon losses. Every ton of palm oil produced results in 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions--10 times more than petroleum. Tropical forests cleared for sugar cane ethanol emit 50 percent more greenhouse gases than the production and use of the same amount of gasoline.

These are examples of what's happening in the southern hemisphere.

I'm wondering what studies have been done to actually look at the whole life cycle, the amount of fossil fuel that goes into the input of growing biofuels, and the transportation costs. Are we really bringing greenhouse gases down? Because we see that this may not be happening in the south.

The last question is whether we are going to be self-sufficient in this, or do you see Canada importing feedstock to promote our bio-industry?

I'll stop. Hopefully you have enough time to answer some of these.

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

Those are all good points, Alex. I certainly share your concern that producers need to be involved. I've pushed for that. We have it in the bill. I welcome your intervention on their behalf.

The problem we're having at this point is that producers--and speaking as one, I'm condemning myself as well--tend to be short-sighted. Last year everybody was hot to do this, because prices were down. This year prices are up, and they're saying, hey, I'm getting my money out of the marketplace; I don't need to invest in anything else.

A case in point is that of a small facility, for 25 million litres. It's going up in my riding at Unity. It's totally producer-driven. They've raised the money. We kicked in a little bit as the federal government under our programs, but they're already talking expansion. They've just had the facility closed in, and the tanks going. They're already contracting product for next fall, and they're already talking expansion because they see the light at the end of the tunnel. Those are forward-thinking producers, and that's who's going to take charge of this program and run it forward.

At the same time, there are other communities that are having trouble raising the money because their farmers are saying “The marketplace is paying. I'm going to Arizona. Don't bother me.” And I condemn them for that. I hope the media puts that in their papers, because it is just so short-sighted by these producers to think that one year of good prices is going to be the be-all and end-all. Everybody else tells me, from the American model or wherever they're doing it, that in the good years the farm pays the bills, and in the bad years the diversification into those other facilities pays the bills. So farmers have to start thinking big picture and longer term, and most of them are. That's that point.

I welcome your support and your party's support. You finally seem to get the idea that we need a global commitment to greenhouse gas, and not have just Canada running alone. We do need the Brazils onside, we do need the Chinas onside if we're going to make this work. That's been the thrust of what Minister Baird took to Bali, and he was condemned for it by the short thinkers, by the short-sighted folks.

I couldn't agree with you more that there's a lot of palm oil being produced. There's a lot of sugar cane being put into Brazil. But if we get our act together here, we can offset a lot of that and actually save the rainforest in Brazil, because we're doing our own ethanol. We're not going to rely on them to do it.

I think you have something there, and you may want to take that back to your next convention and explain to the people on the floor that with Canadian production, we can help save the rainforest. We can help start to make a difference to the palm oil suppliers, and I welcome that.

You're saying it's not a done deal, and we should study it some more. The problem I have with that is that it's counterproductive to helping Brazil and helping the rest of the world by developing a product here in Canada. We have the resources. We have 47 million arable acres in Saskatchewan alone that are crying for options other than food-line products. So I think this is a natural for Canada. I think it's past time.

I don't disagree that we need to study and renew and innovate as we move along. I don't think we have to make the mistakes that the Americans did or didn't make. I think we can develop our own, and that's why these amendments are to our acts, to our producers, and not to the American studies.

Is big oil taking over? That's always a possibility. But with the legislation and the way we've put it together, farmers get the first shot, and the subsidies and so on are tied to producer involvement. That's not going to change. I guess that's why Mr. Easter supports this bill and said let's get it done. If I bring it to the House this afternoon for unanimous consent, I'd be happy to have you stand up and support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you, Minister Ritz.

Mr. St. Amand, you're up.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the outset, I'll be sharing my time with the member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River, Mr. Boschcoff.

Minister, I'm hoping this question is not ruled out of order by the chair, but I do want to take a message back, to use your phrasing. You'll know, Minister, from correspondence from me and no doubt what you've heard from Minister Finley, that the suicides among tobacco producers continue--

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Point of order, Mr. Miller.

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

I'd say that the tobacco industry isn't on the table today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That isn't relevant. You can use your time as you see fit, but the minister is not obligated to respond to any of these questions. They're not relevant, and they don't apply to any of his testimony or to the agenda before us.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

We're dealing with a here-and-now crisis, Mr. Chair, and I'm inviting the minister to convey to me some type of positive message I can provide to tobacco producers in my riding and the neighbouring ridings. I'll invite the minister to make a comment to offer some glimmer of hope for these producers or perhaps invite him to decline the opportunity.

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

Well, I never decline an opportunity to speak on behalf of what the government is doing for producers. I can assure the tobacco industry in southwestern Ontario that we will act in a far more substantive way than the Liberals ever did in the ten years. How's that?

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

When might that be?

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

Sooner rather than later.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

In terms of a calendar date, whatever sooner means.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Mr. Miller, on a point of order.

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

The questions are out of order. He got away with....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Minister, you don't have to answer these questions, since they're not relevant to the day's agenda. We are here to talk about Bill C-33.

There are three minutes left, Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

This bill, honourable minister, received first reading on December 3, and here it is February 7, almost two months later. I'm wondering about moving the process along. You seem to say you'd have us pass it, but it's been well over two months since it was first introduced, so how do you account for the delay?

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

You seem to be forgetting, Mr. Boshcoff, that none of us were here for six or seven weeks of that timeframe.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

That may sound like an erudite and brilliant answer, but your party seems to be using it for all sorts of other bills that you claim are being delayed. It doesn't seem to apply in this case, but it applies in the other cases. I'm just trying to bring some reality here, in terms of the arguments you've been using.

I don't feel it's been delayed, but you just--

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

To interject, I've never said this bill was delayed.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

In terms of your party talking about other bills, they seem to have forgotten we have been away for six or seven weeks, as you just said, so I wanted to make that point very clearly.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Point of order, Mr. Miller.

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

On a point of order, I'd like Mr. Boshcoff to tell me what these other bills have to do with this one.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The point is correct, Mr. Boshcoff. We are talking about Bill C-33, and we are talking about Bill C-33 moving in a very expeditious manner since it's been tabled.