I believe Mr. Tonks asked a good question about incentives and the steps that would allow us to be effective in the reduction of greenhouse gases. That was where his question was leading.
You didn't talk about that but one may wonder if the results we could achieve by reducing vehicle gas consumption would be as significant. As was rightly said by Mr. Cullen, ethanol is not a panacea for the reduction of greenhouse gases, far from it.
Let's go back briefly to agriculture. Mr. Cardin asked you what could be the impact on agriculture and on food production. In my riding, grain corn is priced at $117 a ton. A few years ago, it was $180 a ton. If we start to produce ethanol a big way, what will be the price of grain corn? UPA believes that the price could go as high as $250 a ton. If they're right, this would have a huge impact on food.
So, one can't say that it couldn't have an impact on food and agriculture. It will have one, that's obvious. It will also have an impact on greenhouse gases because, the more we use wood fiber to produce ethanol, which is more effective as Mr. Row stated, the more we will cut carbon sinks since we will cut more trees. This is exactly what's happening now in Brazil where carbon is collected back on Earth.
Therefore, it's not necessarily an effective solution. One understands Brazil's position but we would have more difficulty to accept that becoming Canada's position because we already have oil. It's difficult to understand why you want big subsidies to produce ethanol instead of letting the market evolve freely.
Why you do you say that biodiesel has problems? That's what you said in your briefs. Why not ask for subsidies to set standards so that biodiesel would always be on an equal footing and the trucking industry and buses would be able to use it? Why don't we carry out serious research on cold climates and biodiesel? There's not enough money to do that. We're only doing small-scale studies.