Alex Atamanenko

[Livestock Industry, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, for requesting this emergency debate. I would also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing the debate this evening. It is extremely important. Why? Because there is a crisis, the rising dollar and rising input costs, and the additional costs for managing and disposing of specified risk materials.

At the committee meetings, we hear that there is a crisis and that families and people are suffering. We also hear that no one is doing anything. That is the problem. Something must be done. And so we tabled a report in December, after listening to and hearing the testimony of the pork and livestock producers. We were all in agreement, and we made unanimous recommendations.

I will give you an example of those recommendations.

Before I speak to the recommendations by the all party committee, let us look at the chain of events. We had an urgent meeting with the cattle and pork producers last fall in November. Our committee worked hard and came out with a report containing six recommendations. In the next meeting we had with the pork and cattle producers, we were told that if those recommendations had been followed there would have been no need for us to be here today and no need for them even to be at that meeting in January.

What kind of recommendations were they? Recommendation 1 reads:

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada deploy, before the end of 2007, a special transitional measure that will provide cash-flow in the form of interest-free loans to be paid back over a period of three to five years, and bankable cash advances to hog and cattle producers.

That seems to be a reasonable request, which, once again, was agreed to by all members of our committee.

Our producers are, I would say, the best in the world. They do not want handouts. They want a bit of assistance in the form of loans so they can get through what we call la tempête, the storm, the perfect storm for farmers right now.

What was the second recommendation. Recommendation 2 reads:

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommends that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, in partnership with the provinces and territories, payout the remaining percentage owed to producers under the CAIS Inventory Transition Initiative...and respect the federal-provincial funding agreement.

I could go on and list the other recommendations but most people in this area have read them.

The problem is that when approached with our recommendations or with a request, the answer from the minister and the government is that we should look at the billions of dollars that it has put into agriculture and look at all the good programs that have been renamed. It tells us that everything is fine but it is not fine.

Let us go back a bit to November 27. As a result of the first meeting we had with the producers, I wrote a letter to the minister and personally delivered it to him. In the letter, I very politely told him what we in the committee had gone over and that everybody would like his help to move the file forward. At that committee, I was able to pinpoint three things that at that time we thought were the key: first, the elimination of inspections at slaughterhouses and at the border; second, immediate loan guarantees; and third, additional specified risk material funding to assist rendering facilities with disposal.

To my knowledge, those have not yet been implemented nor put into place.

The theme that we heard at that meeting in November was that our producers wanted a level playing field to compete, not with other producers, but with foreign governments that give subsidies and that help their farmers and their producers, the kind of assistance that we do not have here.

My November letter continues to state:

As we continue to play by trade rules our producers continue to get hammered. Somehow we have to give them the support they need to be able to compete fairly.

A couple of months went by and we were contacted by our friends, the producers, in all provinces. We had been contacted before. This was not a crisis that all of a sudden appeared. It was a crisis that had been growing due to the high dollar, the costs and other factors involved.

We had another meeting. As a result of the meeting in January, I again wrote a letter to the minister, as I always try to do, in a courteous way, as a follow up to our meeting, and told him that this was for his information and told him what we had here hoping there would be some action.

My letter reads:

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food heard today from witnesses representing the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and the Canadian Pork Council. The main message we received in regard to the current crisis in the pork and cattle industry is that there has been enough talking. Action is urgently needed immediately.

Our cattle and pork producers have reached their limit and feel abandoned by the lack of a positive response from this government. It will interest you to know that the announcement on December 19, 2008 to deliver federal aid to farmers is being widely perceived as a “cruel joke”.

This was something that was told to us by people in the committee. My letter continues to state:

In fact, they are saying February 01, 2008 will forever be remembered as “Black Friday” by the pork industry in Canada.

Those are the words of the producers. In other words, the announcements that were made in December and all the good things that the government was supposed to be doing still have not had any effect because farms are being foreclosed, they are not able to continue, our rural communities are in danger of dying and we hear talk.

My letter further states:

As you know, our all-party committee made a number of recommendations that if implemented would bring immediate assistance to those affected. We have been repeatedly told that guaranteed loans would be able to keep our producers alive until long-term programs are in place and producers have had the opportunity to adjust to the new market forces.

As we work on long-term solutions and new business risk programs....

I am not saying that what the government is proposing is bad. There is good intention. After all, there are farmers on the government side as well as on the opposition side. However, as we look at these long term solutions, we must not overlook the fact that urgent help is needed now.

When I was first elected in 2006, I recall a crisis in Porcupine Plain, Saskatchewan. I believe it was a drought or flooding. The farmers were hurting so we approached the federal government. It said that it was a provincial government responsibility and the provincial government said that it was a federal government responsibility. As the governments could not seem to get together, farmers were hurting and suffering. I have personal accounts of farmers saying that their phone lines have been cut, their credit has gone and yet there has not been any immediate aid.

Let us look at what is happening. In this case, it is an industry in crisis. It did not happen recently. Representatives met with the committee and there is a report. There was another meeting with the committee and still no action. When this is discussed among members of Parliament we often say that it is the bureaucrats.

I have a high regard for the professionals in our public civil service. Civil servants do their jobs. The ones I have met in the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food and those who have taken time to come to my office know their jobs. If they are given a direction, they will take it. I have come to the conclusion that if nothing is happening, then obviously there is no political will.

Why would I say that? Let us look at what the government is trying to do in regard to the Canadian Wheat Board: to move fast, the sham task force, names off the voter list, the firing of the CEO, the gag orders and the ambiguous plebiscite. Had it not been for a farmers' coalition, a court ruling and the opposition in committee and in the House, we would not have a single desk. We would not have a Wheat Board and the Wheat Board would be going the way of other grain companies in Canada controlled by the multinationals.

What I am saying is that governments can move fast and, in that instance, it was trying to move and it was moving fast but we had to stop them. If it can move fast on that issue, why can it not move to get some loan guarantees for our pork and cattle producers now? I do not quite understand what is happening.

Let us look at some of the things that were said at the committee meeting. Mr. Stephen Moffett, director of the Canadian Pork Council, stated:

To carry on, then, to answer the second question—how we think the government has responded to our requests and to this very severe situation—I can tell you that we are pretty disappointed at this point by the response from the government. Clare indicated that the major problem is liquidity in our industry and the fact that this downturn is much more severe than a normal downturn because of the ethanol and corn issue--

That is another issue that has been raised recently.

He went on to say:

--and because of the Canadian dollar and just the normal price swings in hogs. This has been a much more severe downturn.

It goes on and on. We have heard many testimonies.

The same gentleman goes on to state:

What have we heard from government? Certainly, right from the very start they have been saying that we need to deal with the existing programs: “Let's do what we can with existing programs.” I can tell you, we don't think that's enough.”

The message that seems to be coming from our producers is that nothing is happening immediately to stop the small farms from going under or the producers from losing money even though they have had promises of a lot of big programs. The point is that the industry is in crisis and we must get moving.

I would like to read from a press release put out by the National Farmers Union. The headline reads, “LIVESTOCK PRICE CRASH A RESULT OF DYSFUNCTIONAL MARKETPLACE”. The press release is about the overall livestock industry and it states that it is not a good one, if the information is correct.

The president of the National Farmers Union said:

...the dysfunctional livestock marketplace is the result of a situation where a handful of large corporations dominate the industry. In fact, a single company, Cargill, owns half the packing capacity in Canada and is able to heavily influence prices at both the farm gate and at the wholesale/retail level. A rising Canadian dollar is just a small factor in this larger equation.

My colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, has undertaken a mission to expose the whole security and prosperity partnership in Canada. Hearings have been held in my riding where over 400 people showed up in Nelson to hear him speak on this proposed integration of Canada with its partners Mexico and the U.S. driven by the corporate agenda.

What we see here in this press release and what we see in the agriculture sector is the consolidation of big companies driving us in this direction. Therefore, we need to be careful. We need to keep our food security issues in our own hands. If we allow the takeover of our livestock industry by multinational corporations, influenced by other governments, our producers will lose a say in what is happening.

I would like to applaud the minister for his push on cooperatives in the biofuel sector. We are holding committee hearings on the biofuel sector but that is not enough. We need a firm commitment by government to help our pork and cattle producers.

In the same press release, Stewart Wells, from the National Farmers Union, said:

The long-term solution to the livestock crisis is to restore farmers’ market power and limit the economic power of the big companies, stated Wells. In the meantime, short-term emergency measures are needed to get farmers through this period and allow them to stay in business. He noted that this investment needs to be targeted to farmers, in particular family cow-calf and sow barn operations. “If we lose the foundation of these sectors, we’ll lose the whole industry eventually,” he noted.

I am new to this area. I have been on the agriculture committee for a couple of years. I have an idea of what is happening. I see an industry that is struggling. We have an upswing in the grains and oilseeds, thanks to many different factors, but we also have a downswing in the pork and cattle industry.

The other thing I have observed is that more and more Canadians are looking at this whole area of food security and food sovereignty. In my opinion, if we do not support our producers, if we do not allow our family farms to survive and if we do not give them help right now to weather the storm, we will not have an industry. We will not be able to feed ourselves. As we go further on in this century, as we realize the cost of fossil fuels and transportation is increasing, we need to somehow ensure that Canada, first and foremost, can feed itself and, at the same time, have a fair say in the whole export market.

At this point in time, I would once again like to thank my hon. colleague for having asked for this debate. I think it is vital and crucial. Emergency debates do not just happen all the time.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that you said yes to this debate because you believe it is important. You saw the proposal, you read the letter from my colleague and you decided that this debate is very important.

We are here not to just bat words back and forth, we are here to raise the issues, to talk to each other, and hopefully we will come out of this tomorrow and decisions will be made to do something.

As I mentioned, we have a civil service of capable people. We have a government that says it cares. We hear this all the time. I do not doubt the sincerity, but we need action. Actions, as we know, speak louder than words.

[Health, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Princeton are extremely concerned about the health care crisis currently facing their community, with the loss of three positions by the end of April and, in addition, the closure of their hospital's emergency room.

It is estimated that five million Canadians currently do not have a family physician, and 4,000 more doctors are expected to retire within the next two years.

The residents of Princeton and other rural communities deserve to have access to doctors and to emergency services. The mayor and council, together with the Interior Health Authority, are working hard to address the situation.

Something is wrong here. Massive cuts to health care transfers, together with a lack of leadership at the federal level, have shifted the burden onto provinces and communities. In B.C., the provincial government chose to cut and slash the health care system at the same time that it implemented massive tax cuts.

It is time for the federal government to assume its responsibility to ensure that towns like Princeton have enough health care professionals and adequate hospital facilities. Canadians deserve no less.

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak to the bill and I congratulate the hon. member for Malpeque for putting it forward.

I am shocked and amazed that this was put before Parliament six years ago and reintroduced in the House of Commons for the third time in October of last year and still nothing has happened. I say shame because something like this should not have any obstacles.

When we look at the giveaways in corporate taxes, something that is a minimal amount of money that helps people, those volunteers who are precious and who keep our communities alive, those who provide, in this case, emergency services, there should be no question of assisting them in any way that we possibly can.

I remember years ago, when I was working for the Yukon Recreation Branch, that we put on seminars to show people in communities how to help and work with volunteers. Often we forget and we take them for granted. We forget there are people who do not take any money for jobs they do day in and day out and we even forget to thank them for that.

I believe firmly that if we are able to get this bill passed it will be a bill that will thank those people who put, in this case, their lives on the line for us.

It is almost similar to the feedback I am getting from the private member's bill that I tabled on the GST for 100% reimbursement for school boards. It is something we would think would not cost that much money but would help school boards as they try to overcome these great financial difficulties with government cutbacks these days.

Somehow once again the big government machine stops and we cannot move to help people who need the help.

With regard to the bill, I would like to read a letter I received from Munro Pickering who is with the Kootenay Boundary Regional Fire Services, Company #1 Rossland, British Columbia, Rossland and District Search and Rescue. He said:

I am writing regarding the proposed tax incentives for volunteers in Canada. I have been A/ a volunteer firefighter for 20+ years and B/ a search and rescue member and manager for 20 years. Many members spend a large sum of money on equipment they use in these endeavours and are on call 24/7. Also, much time is spent fundraising, whereas this time would be better spent training. Any tax deferments/incentives would be gratefully appreciated and would lead to more members to provide the services needed. Membership lists are available upon request.

Thank you for your interest in this matter.

I would like to add that in my riding, as in all ridings--I guess with the exception of major cities where people doing this work are paid and, thankfully, they are--we have people from Princeton, to Hedley, to Osoyoos, New Denver, Caslow, all these small communities have dedicated people who gather once a week and practise to be there when we need them.

In my own community, which is called Pass Creek and is approximately 15 kilometres outside of Castlegar, there are dedicated individuals. My neighbours and friends gather every Tuesday to ensure they get the proper training to be there in case I or someone else needs them. Recently they received a state of the art fire truck which all of us are very proud of and which will help them to do their work.

In a press release from Parry Sound we have the McDougall fire chief, Brian Leduc, and Seguin fire chief, Dave Thompson, who both support this bill. The press release reads:

We need to encourage people to volunteer as firefighters and really, most of us, as fire chiefs, are at our wits' end because we can't find people to replace those who leave”, said Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Leduc said people don't put their names forward for any financial reward, but that the tax deduction would help the many who end up paying out of pocket to serve.

This seems to be a recurring theme. Those of us who volunteer in our communities pay out of pocket and people do this willingly. Surely, if this happens, we, as parliamentarians and as government, should do all we can to assist them as they continue to provide this valuable work.

The press release further states:

“There's probably some guys, if they sit down and figure out expenses (such as lost wages, gas to attend calls); there's probably guys that it costs them to be a volunteer firefighter”, said Mr. Leduc.

In the immediate area where I live, namely the Southern Interior, it has comparable groups of dedicated individuals who are there at a moment's notice to help us. There is the Castlegar Society for Search and Rescue. It is a non-profit society of professional volunteers dedicated to providing search and rescue services to our community and the surrounding area. It is based in Castlegar and has about 25 to 30 active members.

We also have the Nelson Search and Rescue. It is a registered non-profit society consisting of over 40 dedicated and highly skilled individuals who are capable of an organized response to assist local police, fire departments and B.C. Ambulance in a variety of areas.

We often do not know what goes on and this is an example of what is happening right across the country. The group consists of a management team, an initial response team, a rope team, a swift water team, and general search and rescue personnel. These teams include mountain rescue technicians, rope rescue instructors, Canadian avalanche technicians, paramedics, physicians, swift water rescue technicians, and certified helicopter flight rescue systems practitioners.

This society is managed by a board of directors, consisting of a coordinator and six directors. Directors meetings are held at least once on the last Wednesday of each month. General training is conducted on the first Wednesday of each month, with additional weekend training, usually quarterly. Individual teams train together on a regular basis as team members see fit.

It is important for us to understand what happens at the grassroots level. I know when the member for Malpeque was thinking of bringing this bill forward, he had in mind people who he is in contact with on a weekly basis where he lives.

In my area there is also the South Columbia Search and Rescue, formerly known as Beaver Valley Search and Rescue. In 2000 members of the society voted on a name change to better reflect the response area of Trail, Waneta, Montrose, Fruitvale, Pend D'Oreille and other regions of South Columbia. This group assists with other SAR groups in B.C. and most often with the local search and rescue groups of Rossland, Castlegar and Nelson.

Their members are trained in GSAR, ground and inland water search and rescue. No prior training is required for interested new members, although an interest in outdoors and a basic level of fitness is a benefit. All GSAR training is provided by quality local instructors.

Specialized training opportunities also exist in the area of rope rescue, swift water rescue, avalanche rescue, tracking, et cetera. A lot of money and time has gone into ensuring that we have the very best quality of assistance in time of need.

A recent search summary was issued on Monday, January 28. Rossland & District SAR was called at 2235 hours on January 5 to look for a local skier who failed to return from a late afternoon tour. A 44 year old male with touring equipment and experience had last been seen between 1400 and 1430 hours at the Red Mountain base area. A hasty search was conducted by 19 Rossland & District SAR members. Due to very poor and dangerous weather conditions, the search was suspended at 0230 hours, which is 2:30 in the morning, and commenced at 6 o'clock in the morning with the assistance of the Castlegar SAR, Beaver Valley SAR and Salmo SAR teams.

Let us not forget that these people do other things in their lives. They are not full time members of these teams. They have taken time to get the training and to dedicate part of their lives to helping other people. On this particular search, a total of 31 search personnel responded on Saturday morning. At 8:10 a.m., the subject skied out after spending the night in a snow cave near Mount Grey. It was a happy ending and thankfully the skier was found alive.

We often forget, though, that these folks put their lives in the line of duty, especially when it comes to rescues in the mountains where I live. Lately, there have been avalanche conditions. It has been tough. People sometimes do not make very smart decisions and go out of bounds. These people are then called in to get them.

So, Mr. Speaker--

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, what I find alarming and amazing is the heckling from the government side when we are dealing with an important bill recognizing volunteers in our community. I do not quite understand it.

Six years ago this bill was put before Parliament and still nothing has been done. Farmers told us at the agriculture committee yesterday that they had shown up with the same complaints before Christmas, and still nothing has been done.

What is wrong with us collectively that we cannot get our government machine moving fast enough to help people in our country? Could the member comment on that?

[Petitions, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have here over 150 names of people from Manitoba who are extremely concerned about the proposed security and prosperity partnership. They are calling upon the Government of Canada to stop further implementation of this partnership with the United States and Mexico until there is a democratic mandate from the people of Canada, parliamentary oversight and the consideration of its profound consequences on Canada's existence as a sovereign nation, and also our ability to adopt autonomous and sustainable economic, social and environmental policies.

These people urge the Government of Canada to conduct a transparent and accountable public debate of this process, involving meaningful public consultations with civil society, and a full legislative review, including the work, recommendations and reports of all SPP working groups and a full debate and a vote in Parliament.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, pork and cattle producers told the agriculture committee that the government has basically abandoned them. Some have called today, February 1, black Friday and others are calling the government's funding promises a cruel joke.

Farms are foreclosing, rural communities are dying and yet no immediate assistance has been committed. At the same time the minister is using bully tactics and blatant pressure on the Canadian Wheat Board which will take power away from farmers. This is clearly undemocratic.

When will the government stop leading Canada down the road to agricultural suicide?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, February 1st, 2008]

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, energy policy in Canada has to be good for Canadians. We have to look at our needs first. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. We know that with the whole locking in of energy and what we have to export to the Americans, we have locked ourselves in under NAFTA.

Clearly the federal government does have a role. It does have a role in looking very closely at the cumulative impacts on water resources and the misuse of natural gas. We can do it. We are a nation of innovators. We can have a balanced approach whereby we support business and we support development for Canadians first, and at the same time we can look at the environment, shift over to a greener energy and look at, for example, carbon sequestration. We have the ability to do it, but the government must have a role in this.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her comments and the concern of many in our country in regard to food security and GMOs.

One of the problems in having the big biotech industries involved in the push for biofuels is that there is more pressure to produce crops, to produce strains of weeds and corn that are genetically modified, in order to increase the harvest. But at the same time, if we introduce this into our environment, there is a very strong probability of contamination.

This is one of the reasons why we do not have genetically modified wheat in Canada. There was a very strong push to say no to this. Genetically modified crops can and do contaminate fields in their vicinity. As we have seen, there is the whole case of Mr. Schmeiser, who has been fighting against Monsanto and is still continuing to fight against this.

Also on the point of GMOs, research has been done. I met personally with Dr. Seralini from France, who has been doing extensive research on the negative aspects of GMO crops in regard to human health. The president of France has been very supportive and has put a stop to one type of Monsanto 810 corn, because studies have proven its negative aspects in regard to human health.

Therefore, as we start the debate on biofuels and GMOs, and I must emphasize that we are just starting, we have to take that into consideration. One of my tasks in Parliament at this time is to continue to push to eventually convince Parliament and the Government of Canada to put a moratorium on genetically modified food and seeds in Canada.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his insight and knowledge into what is happening in the industry. As I mentioned earlier, we see that the push in biofuels is helping our grain and oilseeds sector, and that is good, but at the same time we see that this is one reason that the pork and cattle industry is going through such hard times. I must reiterate that some in that industry are calling today “black Friday”. They are saying that there has not been any help. They came before committee before Christmas and we made recommendations. However, nothing has happened. There has been no immediate aid to offset all of the factors that are contributing to their downward slide.

I agree with the fact that the government has the responsibility to assist the pork and cattle industry to get through these hard times, which in part has been caused by biofuels. We can do it. Why can we not do it? Other countries do this. Why can we not be good to our farmers and why can we not help all sectors of the agriculture industry?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was at the point where I was discussing the biofuel example in Manitoba. Manitoba wants to get concrete results for farmers. The introduction of co-ops is also being considered, which is the way to go. If farmers can somehow get involved in the whole aspect of the industry, not just as suppliers, that is the way to go.

Both the federal and Manitoba governments have a subsidy for blenders. Federally, it is 10¢ per litre for ethanol and 20¢ per litre for biodiesel, guaranteed for three years. A $20 million biofuels opportunities for the producers initiative program runs from April 1 of this year until the March 31, 2017. In Manitoba, subsidies to the blenders will start at 20¢ a litre but will decrease by 5¢ every two years so that by 2016 there will be no subsidy to the industry.

This seems a more reasonable approach. In other words, by this time if this industry is not making a profit and there is a downturn in biofuels consumption, then government should not be injecting new funds into this enterprise.

It is important to look at the politics of the whole biofuel industry, not only in North America but in the world. While we were in Washington, the agriculture committee was told that the U.S. government's ethanol corn initiative was there to fulfill its need for increased consumption of fuel. In other words, the U.S. does not want to import any more oil as its consumption goes up. This increase is to be met by the production of corn and other commodities to make ethanol.

What we are seeing is a dangerous precedent. Instead of encouraging a decrease in oil consumption on fossil fuels, the U.S. government is encouraging an increase by growing corn. As we have seen from the research, corn is not an efficient energy input-output commodity. For every one unit of energy of corn, we may get 1.5 units of fuel, if that.

If we look at all of the input from fertilizer for fuel for machinery and transportation, we need to question the efficiency of corn ethanol production. This is why I advocate and my party is saying that we must discuss this bill in committee as part of an overall discussion in our country on the whole aspect of biofuels.

Today the reality is that big agriculture, big oil and big biotech are in the biofuels driver's seat. It is Husky Oil that has opened the ethanol refineries in Manitoba, which is a good idea and it is helping farmers, but it is the big corporations that are in the driver's seat. Our challenge and the challenge of governments is to work with them and ensure the benefits of this industry go to the producers and Canadians who always strive to meet their obligation to reduce greenhouse gases.

For example, of the 119 ethanol plants in the U.S., currently 49 are still owned by farmers. However, of the 90 plants currently under construction in the U.S., about 90% are corporate owned. By having the biofuel industry firmly in control by the major multinationals, the role of the farmer is reduced solely to that of supplier. If refineries then are allowed to import feedstock from underdeveloped countries or even from heavily subsidized U.S. farmers, our primary producers will once again be left out in the cold and at the mercy of these multinationals.

There is also the question of genetically modified foods. When major corporations step up biological research, we will be faced with the issue of GMOs. For example, there is the contamination of other crops, the debate in Europe about Monsanto corn, and so on.

Biofuels have a role to play in a comprehensive renewable energy strategy, but we have to continue to keep a close eye on them to avoid problems like the ones that have occurred in the south.

If taxpayers are to assume the burden of funding this industry, then we must make sure that our ability to ensure food safety is not threatened or diminished. We also have to make sure our policies do not threaten another country's food safety, that we get real results when we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that the industry is not subsidized once it is established, as is the case in Manitoba.

Finally, we must continue to encourage a decrease in fuel consumption. In the long term, this is the most important factor in a fuel-based economy.

As we begin debating the idea of biofuels as a possible solution to part of our energy needs, we must not forget food.

For the first time we are seeing the emergence of a truly global agricultural market driven by the underlying force of all economic activity. The scarcity of goods, wheat supplies for example, have reached a 30 year low. In only one year, inventories in the European Union have dropped from 14 million tonnes to only 1 million tonnes.

We need to ask ourselves how humankind will be able to feed itself in the future and at what price. How can agriculture feed the world that grows by 80 million people each year? When we take land out of food production to produce fuel, we obviously complicate this matter and we need to find a balance.

If we come back to our local agricultural industry, we have seen that the demand for biofuels has driven up the price for corn, which is good if one is a corn producer but not so good if one is raising cattle and already competing with the high Canadian dollar, the rising cost of inputs and other factors that are driving the cost production up.

Only yesterday we heard once again from representatives of the pork and cattle industry saying that their industry was in crisis. Some producers in Ontario are saying that they are losing at least $300 for every steer sold. We are seeing that they are not getting any immediate assistance from the loan program that they asked for. Small communities are going under. Part of this is because of the rise in prices of corn that they must use in that industry.

Somehow we must get a balance and also assist those in parts of the agriculture industry who are suffering because of this demand for biofuels. The government still has not been able to address the fundamental needs of these producers who are struggling to survive.

We are seeing more critics in the world speaking out against the biofuels industry and we need to take that into account. For example, the verdict of the OECD, consumer organizations like FoodWatch and even major food corporations like Nestlé, is devastating.

According to the OECD, expanded biofuels production will lead to untenable strains on the commodities markets without yielding significant benefits for the environment. FoodWatch is convinced that the strategy, while benefiting farmers, will do nothing to protect the climate. Germany's environmental expert counsel says that the industry raises expectations that fly in the face of acceptable science. Nestlé's CEO bluntly characterized biofuels production as environmental lunacy.

That does not mean we need to stop the whole aspect of moving forward in this industry. What this means is that we must undertake a very logical approach. We must see that as this industry moves forward we help the primary producer. We have seen that this has given the primary producer a stimulus to at least start making some money but at the same time we have a responsibility to feed not only ourselves but the world.

We must ensure that we do not get on the band wagon that we see happening south of the border where the American ethanol industry is creating what I would say in many respects havoc in other parts of the world where countries are scrambling to supply this growing demand for fuels.

As I said before, instead of the growing demand for fuels, we should be concentrating on decreasing our demand for fuels and fossil fuels in particular.

Much of what the energy farmers produce is offset by the amount of energy that goes into producing the plants in the first place. They consume fossil fuels to harvest plants, for shipping, for storage and for drying, not to mention the energy required to produce pesticides and fertilizers. The economic possibilities are also limited.

Even in the U.S., if the entire corn crop were converted into fuel, it would satisfy only about 12% of the demand for gasoline. For example, to fill a 100 litre tank of an SUV, an ethanol producer has to process about one-quarter tonne of wheat. This is enough wheat for a baker to bake about 460 kilograms of bread which has a total nutritional value of about one million kilo-calories, enough to feed one person for a year.

I would like us to take this debate forward and to look at biofuels from the aspects of the environment, of food security and from our ability as a nation to assist our primary producers, who are basically the best in the world, to continue producing food with help from us here in Parliament and, at the same time, not to make life more difficult for people in countries like Malaysia, Brazil and other places where family farmers are being forced from their farm to finance the big plantations for palm oil and ethanol from sugar.