Environment Committee on May 7th, 2008

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

—but that additional amendments can be introduced during the process of clause-by-clause, I think that solves the problem. If that's the friendly amendment, I'm going to accept it.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Are you saying that's 7 p.m. on Monday?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Yes.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's 7 p.m. on Monday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay. Get everything in by 7 p.m., and you can introduce other ones on Tuesday at noon—

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

That sounds good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Is that good, Mr. Bigras?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Yes, at noon on May 13.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay.

[An hon. member]

And that's for our clause-by-clause on Wednesday.

[An hon. member]

Understood.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Could we hear the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We have agreed, and that motion would be—let me paraphrase it here—that the deadline be 12 noon on Tuesday, May 13, and that amendments can be introduced as required through the clause-by-clause process—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

—any time during clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, any time during clause-by-clause.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

And with a plea, I hope, Chair, that people—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Make our life bearable.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

—would also submit amendments early, understanding that if they have them ready to go, please share them. That would be helpful, because we really want to work together here.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

We're now at Mr. Bigras' motion.

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased to present this motion to the committee. I will read it first:

That the committee recommend that the government ensure that the implementation of regulations resulting from the eventual adoption of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, not result in an increase in the proportion of Canadian corn production currently used to produce ethanol and that it be reported to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Chair, the reason we are tabling this motion today, is that we hope to send a clear message to the government concerning Bill C-33, which seeks to increase the ethanol content in gasoline by 5%. Why this motion, Mr. Chair, and why do we want to ensure that this bill does not result in an increase in ethanol production from corn? Simply because this policy has contributed greatly to an increase in the world price of food commodities. Between 2003 and 2008, ethanol production rose from 212 million litres to 1.5 billion litres once the final projects for 2008 will have been carried out.

This type of policy contributes to the world food crisis, and we do not believe that Bill C-33 should heighten the current crisis.

Furthermore, it has not been proven that the use of corn-based ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions; on the contrary we believe that it is important to compare how much energy is expended to grow corn for ethanol production purposes with the energy expended by the combustion of gasoline containing ethanol.

Therefore, the energy balance of the greenhouse emissions reductions is not what we would have expected a few years ago.

Lastly, it should be kept in mind, Mr. Chair, that producing a single litre of ethanol requires 1,700 litres of fresh water and releases 12 litres of fertilizer and pesticide into the environment. Mr. Chair, this could mean negative impacts for fresh water in Quebec and Canada, and I think that it is our duty, as members of the environment committee, to ensure that this policy and Bill C-33 do not contribute to an increase in social tensions on the world stage or to an increase in environmental hazards, while making no real contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gases.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Canadian farmers are the most innovative in the world. They're more than capable of meeting our ethanol targets without affecting the amount of production that goes into food. We continue to invest in ways to increase the yields of Canadian land and in the next generation of ethanol production, such as cellulosic ethanol.

Canadian ethanol is produced from other crops, like wheat and canola, not just corn, so I'm not sure why the Bloc is singling out corn. We have also been encouraged internationally and by environmental groups to move forward on clean and renewable energy. Part of that renewable energy cycle is to renew the energy above the earth and stop taking fossil fuels from below the earth and introducing them into the atmosphere.

We've been challenged, we are taking action, and that real action is part of renewable fuels. The targets are realistic, and our plan for renewable fuels includes not just corn but many different items, such as canola and wheat--cellulosic ethanol. So we will not be supporting this.

The irony is that the NDP are now saying “Slow down the process; this is moving too quickly.” But weeks before that they were saying “Do things quickly. We've got to solve the problem with climate change.” We agree, and that is why the government is taking action. It's the right direction. I'm not sure why the Bloc is trying to jump in front of the parade and act like people are following them. This is a motion that does nothing. We need to move forward with clean energy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'll try to be very quick.

My understanding, first of all—and maybe the clerk or the research officer could help on this—is that only 5% of Canada's produce is going towards this. But also, 40% of the foodstuff is exported. Is that not the case, that something in the neighbourhood of 40% is actually exported?

So is this motion a result of interest in food scarcity? Because obviously we're producing much more than we utilize. Or is it the food prices? Because my understanding also is that we're talking about very minimal amounts. You look at a cereal box, and I think it's 3¢ worth of product that goes into an entire cereal box that's sold for $6 or $7.

What is the purpose of the motion, Monsieur Bigras? Is it food shortage in the world or in Canada, or what's the case?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, do you want to answer that very briefly? We're conscious of the time here.