The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker—
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 41% of the vote.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act April 10th, 2008
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker—
Canadian Environmental Protection Act April 10th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, we have had a cheap food policy in our country and in North America for much too long. It is one of the things that has led us here. There certainly is a huge desire by the farm community to see these new markets open up.
The hon. member makes a valid point in terms of some of the cautions of which we have to be aware. I said in my opening remarks that three policies are going to collide, food policy, energy policy and environmental policy. We have to be aware of those. We have to be conscious of them. That is part of the reason for the review as well.
In the agricultural sector, I point out that the upward pressure and the price of grains and oilseeds is also causing tremendous problems in the agricultural community itself, especially with our rising dollar and other factors. These very same products that are going into ethanol are the feed stream for hogs, beef, poultry, chicken, dairy and so on. It is causing a cost price squeeze on farmers who are producing these commodities.
As China and India come on stream, beyond the energy use of increasing automobiles on the road, there will be the increasing demand for meat and other protein foods. This is the reality of the world that—
Canadian Environmental Protection Act April 10th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and on the amendment put forward by the NDP.
As I said earlier, I do not see why the amendment is necessary. There is already a review in the act and I think the amendment is redundant. Many of the aspects of what the NDP is trying to do through the amendment are already covered by the review process established in the bill.
The bill gives the authority to allow for the efficient regulation of fuels. In so doing, it does open up opportunities for the biofuel industries in quite a number of areas, especially for ethanol and biodiesel.
With the bill in place it should give some confidence to investors to put up the kind of capital required to build plant capacity for the refining of those fuels. As we all know, without that assurance in terms of industry being willing to invest, there will not be a market for the products coming from the farms, be it corn for ethanol or, in my neighbourhood, new varieties of canola for biodiesel.
This is also a benefit to our environment by utilizing these fuels and therefore producing fewer greenhouse gases. The evidence is certainly in on that area.
I realize, though, that there is some controversy. As I said earlier, I do not think there is any question that in the next decade for sure, and probably beyond, there is going to be a constant debate between the linkages and the conflicts between food policy, energy policy and environmental policy. We need to be at the forefront of that debate.
We hear it and I am sure you hear it, Mr. Speaker. There is the whole debate about whether we should be using what could be called a food product to fuel SUVs. There have to be other policies in concert with this one to try to limit the wasteful use of fuels that is adding to greenhouse gases. There has to be a lot done in that area as well.
One such area is the whole area of transportation policy. I raised a question with the Minister of Transport the other day, who basically ignored my question. My question was on the government doing a costing review following the study by the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture that showed the railways are gouging primary producers in this country by $175 million. That cannot be allowed.
I would suggest that the government needs to act in that area, because we know that rail transportation is a lot more efficient than road transportation in its use of energy. What we have seen taking place with the railways, beyond their excessive profits, is a major thrust over the last several years in terms of tearing up branch lines. I certainly remember, and I know you will, Mr. Speaker, that just 15 years ago Canada had about the best rail infrastructure in the world in terms of branch lines moving out into communities.
However, the railways in their wisdom decided they would go to two major lines and tear up those branch lines. As a result, there is damage being done to rural communities, to the availability of farmers to ship on those lines. Now there is much trucking on highways, which uses more fuel down those highways. It is really a transfer of the infrastructure cost back to the provinces and to producers.
Although this is a debate on ethanol, it all ties together. We need to be reducing greenhouse gases and the government of the day needs to be challenging the railways on their excess profits and doing a costing review of what they are doing by tearing up railways and reducing infrastructure for the use of communities and producers in our country.
The government should go beyond this bill in providing regulatory authority to allow biofuels and ethanol and go to other areas as well. It should show some concern about the environment by taking other means to reduce greenhouse gases. One of those is to challenge the railways on their destruction of infrastructure to gain more profits for themselves and to heck with the rest of the country.
The bill and the regulatory authority changes would open up some opportunities for the agricultural community. There is no question that is direly needed. As the minister himself has said, close to three billion litres of renewable fuels will be needed annually to meet the requirements of these regulations.
That kind of expansion will represent an economic opportunity, we hope, for grains and oilseeds producers. It will be a new market for Canadian producers. We in fact are seeing that in my province of Prince Edward Island, not so much in the ethanol area but in the biodiesel area. A cold pressed canola operation is now in place with quite a number of canola acres that will go in this spring. This will help the environment in a number of ways. It will give us an alternative crop with which to rotate other crops. It will move us away from our dependence on the potato crop as the major economic generator and therefore we would have less erosion, less use of nitrogen fertilizers and less silting of rivers as a result of growing that alternative crop.
As we go down this road, although it is not all tied into this bill, it is important for the government to also expand funds in R and D and look at cellulosic ethanol and the use of wood byproducts and waste. They might even be able to use it out west for the damage done by the pine beetles. There are many other areas with regard to the whole idea of producing biofuels where we can take what is now seen as waste in many areas, or excess production, and use it in a positive way.
I am nearing the end of my time, but I understand where the NDP are trying to go with the proposed amendment. However, I firmly believe the review aspects already in the bill will cover those members' desire. The review of the economic aspects and the environmental impact will take place as already designed in the bill. Yes, we need to do that. We need to understand what is happening.
We also need to ensure the bill does not just set up a situation where cheap ethanol is floated up the St. Lawrence River and into Canada and also that cheap corn from the United States does not come into this country, undermining our pricing structure and being produced through Canadian plants.
We have to ensure this remains an opportunity for Canadians, especially Canadian farmers, in a way to reduce greenhouse gases in Canada as a whole.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act April 10th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, it is quite unusual to be able to agree with the government on something.
The bill moving forward and bringing in the regulations to make it possible to have the ethanol and biodiesel blends, we believe, is very important.
We have had a number of discussions about this at committee. The member has been to the U.S. and elsewhere. I ask the member, where is the government intending to go in terms of research and development into other products?
There are discussions in the United States that they will move toward production of cellulosic ethanol in the not too distant future, in five or six years. I am wondering if the member can give us some estimation of what will happen in terms of research and development in this country. That is important as well.
Could he explain a little further what this is doing for the hopes and aspirations of the farm community in terms of grains and oilseeds? It is the first time in quite a while that I have seen a sparkle in the eyes of some of the grains and oilseeds producers and I think that is a good thing.
Canadian Environmental Protection Act April 10th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's concern, which is out there. There is no question that over maybe even the next decades the linkages and the conflicts between food policy, energy policy and environmental policy will be quite evident. We have a responsibility, globally, to ensure that our environment is protected and that there is a good food supply for the public. I understand his concerns. I do, however, feel we are moving in the right direction with this bill.
The question I have relates to the amendment itself. As I understand the bill, a review process is in place to review the economic environmental impact of developing production and the ethanol policy as we move ahead. The motion really refers to expanding the review into “preparation and implementation of the regulations referred to in subsection 140(1)”.
Could the member explain to me what is specifically meant by that amendment? Does it go beyond ethanol? Does it go to other energy areas? Could he give us an explanation on that amendment so we know specifically what the intent of it really is?
Petitions April 9th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this income trust broken promise petition.
The petitioners remind the Prime Minister that he promised never to tax income trusts but that he recklessly broke that promise by imposing a 31.5% punitive tax which permanently wiped out over $25 billion of the hard-earned retirement savings of over two million Canadians, particularly seniors.
The petitioners, therefore, call upon the Conservative minority government to admit that the decision to tax income trusts was based on flawed methodology and incorrect assumptions; second, to apologize to those who were unfairly harmed by this broken promise; and finally, to repeal the punitive 31.5% tax on income trusts.
Grain Transportation April 8th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, recently the Canadian Wheat Board and Canadian Federation of Agriculture released a report which found that in 2006-07 the railways gouged western grain farmers again, this time to the tune of $175 million.
The Conservative government's first act was to abolish farmer control over grain cars. Now it is complicit in allowing the railways to gouge farmers an additional $175 million. Will the minister finally show some accountability to farmers and call a full rail costing review, not a service review, but a full costing review?
Budget Implementation Act, 2008 April 7th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the member for Surrey North and she mentioned some of the programs that were cancelled, the SHaRP being one, and the need for a national housing strategy. I do not imagine in her wildest dreams she would ever expect to get that out of the government.
She also mentioned child care, as did the member for Victoria before her. In fact, the member for Victoria, after going on a little rant against the Liberals, asked the question of why there is no system of early learning and child care in this country. To both members, the answer to why there is no early learning and child care in this country is quite simple.
It was implemented by the last Liberal government. It was signed with the provinces, but the leader of the NDP, in his wisdom, got into bed with the leader of the Conservative Party and decided to bring the government down. That is why there is no early learning and child care. That is why there is no real chance of getting economic and social policy that means something to ordinary people again.
These are the bedfellows of the leader of the NDP over here. He is the leader who made it possible for that crew to form the government. That is the reality.
Why does the NDP not at least be honest and admit the facts, that it is responsible for the lost program in terms of early learning and child care, and indeed for the lost opportunity to have social and economic policies that matter to ordinary people?
Budget Implementation Act, 2008 April 7th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, if you want me to name the hecklers, I can certainly do so because it was very loud from the other side at the beginning of the speech.
The member for Davenport gave a well thought-out speech on the tactic that the government is using here to insert draconian immigration measures into a budget bill to avoid debate.
However, with the heckling and some of the other tactics by the government, is it not true, I would ask the member for Davenport, that the government attacks rather than explains itself? We are seeing that on the Wheat Board, the immigration bill, on the trusts the Conservatives have set up and on the farm issues.
I wonder if the member would want to comment on the fact that it is the tactic of the government to go as far as attack personalities to avoid getting in-depth into the issues so that the people of Canada cannot really understand what the government is trying to do.
Budget Implementation Act, 2008 April 7th, 2008