Agriculture Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As to the remarks made earlier by Mr. Miller and Parliamentary Secretary Lauzon to you, Dr. Klein, I wouldn't feel bad about trying to show what the impacts are. This is a government that has always defined reality as pessimism, and that's how they attack you. It's your right to lay out the impacts, because in fact this government never wants to hear about the reality. We've seen that in the Canadian Wheat Board and in many other areas.

I'd say this to you: you're luckier working for a university, because if you were working for the government, when you stepped out that door you would have a gag order placed on you, because that's how far this government will go in terms of shutting you up from talking about reality. I'm hoping your remarks will maybe shock them into governing with some balance.

My question really relates to the energy sector, and I do recognize your concerns. As I said earlier, we do support ethanol and biodiesel, but I do think we have to look at it in a broader picture, and I'd like your comment on this. The energy security makes a whole lot of sense from the U.S. point of view, really from tri-national Mexico, U.S., and Canada. We tend to have a policy where we export our oil and natural gas to the United States in such a fashion that we give them cheap Canadian supply in real terms so that their industrial plant can compete against us using cheap Canadian energy.

Now, with the addition of biofuels, they are certainly looking at it from the standpoint that if they can be into biofuels and our fossil fuels, then it will give the Americans some energy security so they don't have to worry about the 80% of the world where they get energy supplies that are hostile to them or direct enemies. We don't seem to be looking at it with a broad-brush vision.

I'm wondering about the impact of this policy on hogs and beef. You've said that you've been to Germany, you've seen their biomass policies over there, and it's absolutely tremendous. Are there other ways we could be going in terms of supplemental policy on energy that would actually benefit the hog and beef sector?

We said earlier that there needs to be research and development into the byproducts of ethanol and biodiesel that would benefit the beef and hog sector, but are there other areas the government should be pursuing that it's not?

Talk reality. They may not want the facts, but we do.

[Dr. Kurt Klein]

Of course there are many ways you can do this. I've been a promoter of the biogas, for example, that's generated from manure and other organic waste that can produce electricity, but of course it's very uneconomic to do at the present time. The reason they can do it in Germany, Austria, and some of those countries is because they have a law that requires electricity distribution companies to pay a very high price for electricity that is generated by biogas, in the order of 0.25 euros per kilowatt-hour.

If we have a plant in Alberta, they're getting only 6¢ or 7¢ Canadian for a kilowatt-hour. If we had a policy that paid them to do this, I think you would see an awful lot more, and you could get the feedlots and so on that could generate their own electricity from their own manure waste. But it would be very expensive. We can do this; it's technically feasible, but it's very expensive, and I don't sense that there's any lobby group to try to push this kind of a policy on the government.

I think it would certainly be a lot more environmentally friendly than a biofuels policy based on the use of cereal grains and oilseeds, and I think it would certainly not have the impact of taking food grains out of the food chain. I think there would be a number of advantages for it, but it's very expensive.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

You only have 20 seconds. No? Okay.

Mr. Storseth, the time is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to do my best to restrain from refuting Mr. Easter's old and tired argument.

You talk about renters and labourers being two groups that aren't going to benefit from this, but the renters who are renting more land and planting more canola are going to benefit from higher farm-gate prices, are they not? How is it that they're not?

[Dr. Kurt Klein]

It's because the rental values go up. This and other aspects have been well studied, and already you're seeing cash rents almost double from last year.

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

I don't mean to cut you off, but we have to be short due to time.

Are you talking about Iowa studies again?

[Dr. Kurt Klein]

No, it's around the world. The structure of the crop sector in Canada is what we call perfect competition. This will always happen. The price of land will come up to the capitalized value of these benefits. If you don't own land yourself, you've got to pay for the use of that land.

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

I have two points.

First, I am a renter of farmland, and I can tell youthat in the province of Alberta, where farmland has significantly increased, the cost of renting hasn't gone up in the same proportion.

The other point is that many of our producers are mixed farmers, are they not? Many of our cattle guys farm canola and wheat. Have you looked at finding the balance between the two, and how it's going to offset that as well, Dr. Klein?

[Dr. Kurt Klein]

There are all kinds of mixed farms, but I'm saying if you separate the residual claimants to land, labour, and capital, the labour resource doesn't get anything in the end. In the beef sector, the feedlots and the backgrounders will eventually adjust, and there will be a beef industry. It will be a reduced beef industry, no doubt, but the cow-calf producers will be the ones at the end of the chain who will suffer most of the losses. Similarly, the pig producers who have the sow and weanling operations will suffer most of the losses.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make a motion that we return this bill to the House without amendment. I'd like to call the vote on it, please.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like the parliamentary secretary to repeat what he just said, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Go ahead with your motion.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I would like to return this bill to the House without amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That Bill C-33 return to the House.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

We've heard from industry now. All we get are objections and obstruction. I think the industry wants it, our farmers need it, and I suggest we put it back to the House, where it belongs, as soon as possible. I'd like to call the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

As per the standing order, this is a non-debatable motion. Am I correct in that?

On a point of order, Mr. Bellavance.

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

If we can't stick to the issue, I am at least going to raise a point of order. I find it absolutely appalling that two minutes before the end of the meeting this kind of thing is being said and what has been done is being criticized. The committee has worked hard on this bill, and everything has gone well and the work has progressed very quickly. We had agreed to hold an additional meeting so we could move faster.

No one has been obstructionist. I don't know where this is coming from, but I disagree completely with this approach, if I am not told in advance or if no one talks to me about the reasons why this is being presented.

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

This is a dilatory motion that is not debatable. Therefore, I would request a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Just so the committee knows, Mr. Lussier has subbed in, in time for this vote. He has followed the rules.

We'll have a recorded vote.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I've never seen such a play in my life. In this place, it may be hard to get it through Parliament. If you're going to deny these guys as witnesses, this may have been a move that cost the industry.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay, we have a tie vote.

I am inclined to continue on in good harmony with this committee, with the good work that we have done in the past. We do have a tie vote here. I think the committee should continue debating this bill, and I'm going to vote against this motion.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

With that, time has expired.

I have a motion to adjourn.

The meeting is adjourned.