Bill C-33 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

This enactment amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to provide for the efficient regulation of fuels.
It also provides for a periodic and comprehensive review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada by a committee of Parliament.

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to help the poor, then he will deal with Bill C-293, the private member's bill from my colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood, which deals with ensuring that CIDA's main focus is poverty reduction. I look forward to him supporting and getting his government to support the bill forthwith so that it can come through the House and become law.

On the issue of agriculture, our former colleague, Susan Whelan, who was the head of CIDA, made agriculture a priority. We were trying to do that, but unfortunately things changed. I do not know quite what the government's priorities are on agriculture with respect to CIDA, but I do not think that they are there.

On the issue of what Mr. Zoellick said as head of the World Bank, he is right, but what happens is that all of these international organizations produce a mountain of studies and reports and nobody implements them. That is the problem. If we do not take our subsidies and our reports and do something with them, as I keep telling people, we set countries up for failure.

What happens is that large international organizations develop very expensive studies, done by very expensive consultants, and hand them to developing countries. They then tell these countries to deal with them, but if they do not have the capacity to implement the studies, and they do not, then we are setting up developing countries for failure. That is what we do time and time again.

The greatest thing CIDA could do would be to build up capacity in developing countries so that when those countries receive the plans they have the capacity to implement those solutions. Can we do it? Absolutely. I developed a plan called the Canadian physicians overseas program, as part of a larger plan to get Canadian professional groups to go abroad and help build capacity in focused numbers of countries. That is a variant on the Canada Corps that our previous prime minister developed to give support overseas.

The current government should support that. If we were to take on that mantle of building capacity in developing countries, using Bill C-293 to do it, we would do something that has not been done before.

We would enable developing countries to have the capacity to implement these plans so that we can have an effect on the ground and on the person who makes a dollar a day. It would result in them not making a dollar a day any more because they would be making a reasonable amount of money. They would be able to put their children in school. They would have enough food on the table. They would get education for their children. They would get access to health care. We would not see the deplorable, appalling, disgusting, unfathomable and immoral situations that we are now seeing in developing countries.

This is something the government should take on the mantle for and implement, and it should do it now.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33, which seeks to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and establish minimum levels of biofuel content in gasoline, diesel fuel and heating oil, to be implemented within three to five years.

This legislation is wide open and does not differentiate between biofuels. And yet we know that not all biofuels are equal.

My colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior proposed some wise amendments at committee that would have helped to make biofuel production safer and more sustainable, but unfortunately they were voted down by Liberals and Conservatives.

These were amendments such as preserving the biodiversity of lands used in biofuel production and prohibiting the importation of grains or oils for use in biofuel production, which would have helped prevent the kind of problem that my colleague from Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca just raised. There also was an amendment to establish criteria in relation to environmental sustainability of biofuel production and so on. As I said, these were voted down by Liberals and Conservatives.

However, at least his amendment strengthening the reporting requirements placed on government regarding how it is implementing the biofuels regime was approved at committee.

The amendment before us today, proposed by my colleague from Western Arctic, would ensure stronger oversight of the regulatory framework. Without proper safeguards such as this, we are giving the government a blank cheque to pursue a strategy that will not necessarily benefit rural communities in our country and could sacrifice millions of acres of productive crop land or grassland, all the while contributing to global warming.

Biofuels can be a first step toward a cleaner, greener, more affordable and more sustainable source of energy, as long as there exists a clear and comprehensive regulatory regime. That is what this amendment we are discussing today tries to get at.

Our amendments were intended to inject some sober second thought into a rush for alternative sources of fuel. They were intended to ensure that we do not forge ahead without a mechanism to determine if we are going down the right path or indeed creating other problems. As this legislation stands, it could cause more problems than it solves.

This enabling legislation does not differentiate or restrict to sustainable biofuels those which rely on waste products, for example, instead of food crops on agricultural lands for production. Even with so-called waste products, we must proceed carefully, because some of the suggested inedible agricultural products like corn husks or cornstalks can be used to replenish depleted soils in some countries or even in ours. On a life cycle basis, recycling and reuse are almost always a better conservation strategy, as they enable us to preserve, by recycling and reusing, a large portion of the energy used in converting raw materials into products in the first place.

Regardless of the problems with this legislation, I recognize that there is still an opportunity to ensure that we produce environmentally beneficial biofuels. For instance, innovative technology for treating sewage using human effluent in the production of biofuel to heat buildings and run vehicles is being examined as an approach to sewage treatment in my riding of Victoria. The food in this source of fuel would take an indirect route through our stomachs and through the toilets to a groundbreaking treatment plant. This is the only way that “food for fuel” makes sense.

Vancouver-based Paradigm Environmental Technologies Inc. piloted new technology that is 95% efficient in converting sludge waste to biogas, which is then converted into electricity and heat. These types of projects will generate environmental, social and economic benefits. I applaud the fact that Bill C-33 will enable them, but this kind of wide open legislation needs checks and balances because it also will enable many other projects that are not as sustainable.

At committee, a representative of the National Farmers Union stated that ethanol and biofuels were a costly misadventure and that the promoters of ethanol in Canada are mainly the big agribusiness corporations in this country. His concerns about corn-based or wheat-based ethanol and the significant amounts of energy required to produce it seem valid.

For corn-based ethanol to be a viable source of energy, it must be imported in even larger quantities than is currently bought from the United States and how would that benefit our farmers? We should be examining more sustainable methods of decreasing our fuel consumption and producing new renewable fuel sources rather than pursuing policies that will exacerbate the global food crisis and have little impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The focus of this legislation should not be to further enrich large corporate interests in the oil, agriculture or biotech industries. Worldwide investments in biofuel rose from $5 billion in 2005 and is expected to top $100 billion by 2010, thanks to investments from large multinationals like Cargill and others.

There are many concerns over food security and over the various causes of rising food prices. Oxfam and other agriculture groups say that the surging demand for biofuels like ethanol are contributing to the rising food crisis by turning food crops into an energy commodity and this, in turn, is fueling wild speculation in the stock market.

However, without fearmongering, this bill does raise serious concerns regarding the sustainability of production practices and there is nothing within the bill to restrict them in any way or to address emerging issues. We cannot charge ahead without considering the impact on food security or the chain reaction in land use caused by the acceleration of biofuel demand.

Without the NDP amendment proposed and defeated in committee, nothing in this legislation prevents producers from importing corn, for example, to make ethanol, which will contribute to that chain reaction. What kind of sustainable energy policy is that?

Testimony before the committee and recent comments on Bill C-33 show that many people are worried about the Conservative government's approach to the development of biofuels, and specifically to the problem of climate change in general.

Climate change is this generation's greatest challenge. Biofuels are just part of the solution to climate change in Canada. If we use some of the technologies I just mentioned, we can jump straight into the next generation of biofuels.

However, the government has largely overlooked one of the most important tools for tackling the massive problem of climate change, which is the widespread use of conservation measures to help wean us off our reliance on heating oils and to reduce our consumption of all types of fuels. If fuel is wasted, it does not matter if it is clean or dirty, it is still a waste.

Policies that promote a reduction in fuel consumption are always the best and most important policies, since they create a sustainable fuel system.

Above all, the federal government must make a real effort to tackle climate change. Regulations requiring the use of renewable fuels are just part of what is needed to ensure a more accessible source of energy.

If the government truly plans on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it must take a tougher approach. Climate change is our greatest challenge, and solutions to this problem must be sustainable.

Biofuels can be produced sustainably provided some conditions are met, for example a net decrease in greenhouse gases, minimal use of water, no competition with the production of food crops, and no detrimental effect on biodiversity. Once these criteria are met, the production of biofuels can be considered sustainable.

Our focus should be to provide opportunities for Canadian agriculture and rural communities by supporting small-scale regional renewable energy systems for multiple feedstock sources. Let us say yes indeed to biofuels, but let us apply some common sense reasoning, demonstrated by the amendments under consideration today.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's comments. Unfortunately, I have to take exception with many of them. This whole food versus fuel debate is absolutely ridiculous. The facts show that Canada has more than enough agricultural production to meet our renewable fuel targets without affecting one iota of Canada's food supply.

The opponents of biofuels, like the NDP and the NFU, are completely disconnected from Canadian agriculture. One of the studies that the NDP used in committee to back its claims referred to much of the prairies as a semi-desert. The breadbasket of the world is a semi-desert according to the NFU and the NDP. It is absurd studies like this that opponents of biofuels use to justify their ridiculous claims.

I wonder if the NDP is not spending too much time in association with the Liberal Party because it seems to flip-flop on these issues. I would like to quote from the NDP's 2006 election platform. On page 17, it states:

Require a phased-in substitution of Canadian ethanol from local inputs for non-renewable fuel sources to 10% of motor vehicle fuel by 2010 and target increases in reliance on biodiesel fuel.

Could the member confirm that the NDP has, as the Liberals do, flip-flopped on this issue? I would be very interested in hearing that.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure who is associating with the Liberals because according to the Toronto Star, it states:

With the support of the Liberals and Bloc Québécois, [the Prime Minister's] government is expected to push Bill C-33 through the House of Commons this week.

Our support for biofuels is clear. What we are saying today is that this kind of wide open legislation is not the way to go.

The suggestion is entirely reasonable. It is worth making sure that we are not contributing to a global food crisis caused by this increasingly accelerated demand on biofuels. Many legitimate questions have been raised about these measures.

We are suggesting a sober second thought and that we take a look at how this can be done promoting the kinds of technologies I referred to that the Vancouver-based Paradigm Environmental Technologies proposes, such as using sewage effluent in a highly efficient way, 95%, compared to 55% to 60% in corn ethanol. It is worth looking at this and getting this right.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the report stage motion wants to add a further review item; that is, that the review required under this new section 140 would review the progress made in preparation and implementation of regulations referred to in subsection 140(1).

I want to ask the member, could she advise the House exactly what preparation of what regulations is being required here since there are none proposed in Bill C-33 for section 140, and whether these are not already covered by the general review required as to the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production?

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, what is suggested in this amendment is not already covered because the program would already be implemented. So, what is being suggested here is that because of all the real concerns that have been expressed, it would be important to have an oversight committee to review these regulations before they are implemented, before we start down a particular path. Any new legislation is followed by a set of regulations and this is what an oversight all party committee should be looking at to ensure that this legislation does not have unintended consequences.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating Bill C-33, but more specifically a report stage amendment affecting section 140 of the act. I would like to remind the House what the amendment requires.

The current wording in Bill C-33 is that under subsection 6, within one year after the subsection comes into force and every two years thereafter, a comprehensive review of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada should be undertaken, et cetera.

The proposed amendment which we are debating at report stage is that in addition to the general requirement to review the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel, it would also include a review of the progress made in the preparation and implementation of the regulations referred to in subsection 140(1).

The situation is that regulations can be made from time to time. At this point I am not aware of regulations being proposed in regard to biofuel production, or what current regulations may exist under the EPA for that matter, simply because that bill would have to be before us at the same time. That is a predicament we have as legislators. When we deal with bills, we do not have available to us at the time regulations that are required and prescribed to be prepared under the legislation. Those things come after a bill gets royal assent. Parliamentarians in both Houses do not get an opportunity to look at regulations. They may have an opportunity to ask the officials to give them a general idea of what might be proposed, but it is a circular argument because the officials may very well say that we cannot know what the problem of the member is, as he indicated in his speech, about what the act requires.

Regulations are enabled by the legislation; it is not the reverse. We have a situation here where I am not exactly sure whether it is just a hope that should there be additional regulations proposed, if they were relevant to the section, that a review would be done. It is not clear to me right now the basis for the change, unless one knows what is being contemplated in terms of the proposed regulations.

Before we vote on this, I want to be informed and maybe other members do as well, about what might be there. Certainly in terms of the preparation of any regulations, we are never going to know that, but in terms of the implementation, it would presume that there are existing regulations which have not been implemented for some reason, that they are waiting for further data or whatever, and it is pretty hard to review something that has not been implemented.

This whole section does require a review one year after the section comes into force and every two years thereafter, so it may come into play somewhere down the road.

Having dealt with the report stage issue, I want to follow the line of debate at report stage with some of the comments that members have expressed with regard to the world food crisis. Some have decided that the world food shortage crisis we are going to discuss is in Canada. There is not a food crisis in Canada and I think we understand that. The public is very concerned about the balance between the use of agricultural land to produce crops for biofuel purposes.

The most prevalent source right now is corn. Corn obviously is a major staple used in food production and even in exported products. When we look at how the costs of various aspects of producing food or fuel work through the economy, it is not a simple thing of whether that corn is being used to feed people or to produce fuel, and whether one is causing some distress on the other in terms of the objectives.

Obviously the science is still being worked on, but the results are fairly clear that the benefits of corn based ethanol with regard to greenhouse gas emissions are not great. There are other forms of producing ethanol, such as from straw and even from municipal waste, which calls out for research. There will have to be a lot of work done to make sure there is an efficient and appropriate use of the crops that we grow not only in Canada but around the world. Canada could be a leader on the research side to ensure that the land use is appropriate and that we get the significant benefits through the research.

Bill C-33 proposes that all fuel have 5% ethanol content by 2010. Others have proposed that it be 10%. The bill would involve spending some $2.2 billion which would help ensure that farmers would be able to grow the crops that are applicable to their end use. It would also help build ethanol plants.

There are some interesting things going on in the area of biofuels, but we cannot ignore the food shortage problem. There are some arguments that maybe the current activity in Canada with regard to biofuels is affecting it, but the ethanol role with regard to food shortage actually is very small. We must take into account the rise in the cost of fuel. As the price per barrel of oil goes up and is at a record high, the cost of food goes up. All of a sudden the economics of food production and the impact on the whole food supply chain becomes very significant to the argument.

We cannot just say that growing a crop for biofuel purposes is causing a world food crisis. It is relevant and it depends on the magnitude, but there is such a large number of other factors that it is not a cause and effect. It is not black and white. It is not simple.

On top of that, we could probably make some arguments that if we do not deal with the greenhouse gas emissions problem and its impact on our environment, we will have more aberrant weather, more violent storms and more crops will be destroyed. It is almost a circular argument. It is very important to understand that this is not just a two variable equation.

In addition, I was doing a little research and found that the dietary habits in India and China are changing noticeably. In India and China more and more meat is being consumed. That line is going up, to the extent that if there is more consumption of meat, there is a need for more feed, which means that more crops need to be grown and more and more of the crops will be allocated to a significant population component of the world, being in India and China. The dietary habits in India and China will have more far-reaching implications on the demand for corn and other crops.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

We don't have control over that; we only have control of this.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is staggering.

To conclude my comments, it is apparent that all hon. members are very concerned about the world food crisis. It is a reality. We are also concerned about what Canada is doing to contribute to alleviating those problems. At the same time, we must promote appropriate research. As we address other priorities that we have not only for Canada, but for the world as a whole in addressing greenhouse gas emissions, that research will be a significant part of it in Canada, particularly with regard to alternatives to corn for producing ethanol, such as straw and municipal waste particularly, which I think is a very important source of ethanol production.

I am going to leave it at that. There clearly is a need for a balance here, but I have no doubt that the House would want to ensure that Canada is playing a substantive role in addressing the food crisis around the world.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about not understanding why there would be regulations coming forward. Bill C-33 is an empty box that is going to be filled with the regulations that will guide the industry in the future. This is the case. There is nothing in this legislation that sets conditions or terms as to how the biofuel industry is going to develop in Canada.

Quite clearly, section 140 states:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations for carrying out the purposes of section 139...

Some portions of the act talk about the different types of regulations in the act, regulations made under sections 93 and 140, et cetera, quantities of released production capacity. The substance or the fuel source, interestingly enough, is not something that is going to be dealt with in the regulations. Under the regulations we are going to decide where the fuel is coming from. We are going to make a decision about whether biofuels are going to be a local product, a national product or an international product.

We are going to make those kinds of decisions in regulations rather than here in Parliament where those decisions should be made, such as the substance of the fuel's commercial destination, the substance of the fuel's physical and chemical properties, how much greenhouse gas emissions the fuel produces, the chemical properties.

Once again, through regulation later on, the government, rather than Parliament, is going to decide how our industry develops. That is why we put the oversight amendment forward, to provide parliamentarians with the opportunity to actually speak to the substance of this new industry. I would ask my hon. colleague, is that not a good enough reason to support having an oversight provision within this bill?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly some of the items the member cited are relevant. For the assessment required under the proposed clause in Bill C-33, which is an amendment to the Environmental Protection Act, we have to look at the whole act to see the implications.

The member will recall that I talked about the fact that these regulations will never be seen by this place before we have to pass the bill. Subsection 3.2 says specifically, “Regulations made under section 93, 140”, section 140 being the relevant one to the report stage motion, “...may distinguish among any class of persons, works, undertakings, activities or substances, including fuels, that they may establish on the basis of any factor, including” and then it goes on to list quantities of releases, production capacity, technology, feedstocks used, the substance or fuel’s source, et cetera.

The question I would ask is, why did the report stage amendment not also require that the word “may” be changed to “shall” or “must”? This is optional; this is not mandatory under Bill C-33. Maybe we have not done the job fully.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the experience of the member opposite shows in his speech and his answers to some of the questions.

I wonder if he could shed any light on the NDP's flip-flop. I am tempted to say that he has a little experience in flip-flopping but I will not. Based on the comments I made earlier about 2006, the experienced member was here and was in the 2006 election, in its platform the NDP wanted 10% of motor vehicle fuel by 2010 to be biofuel.

I know the member opposite supports farmers. We on this side put farmers first and I am sure the member would, although he probably does not have a lot of farmers in his riding. I wonder if he could explain to me why a party which two years ago wanted 10% content now thinks it is a bad idea for farmers to make a decent living. What would change in two years? I wonder if he could shed some light on that for me, please.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that question would probably be better posed to and answered by the party to which the member is referring. I will not speak on its behalf.

However, I would use my remaining time to suggest to the entire House to recall that we have Bill C-293, which deals with developmental assistance, aid and poverty alleviation. That bill is coming back to the House as a result of a Senate report. I hope the government will support Bill C-293 so we have the proper definition and guidelines for developmental assistance and ensure we have the proper tools and are in the right direction to deal with poverty alleviation and food shortages.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33 and specifically to the amendment proposed by the member for Western Arctic calling for a review of the progress made in the preparation and implementation of the regulations.

I appreciate the comments by my colleague from Mississauga around the need for this amendment. I am well aware that other committees have taken a proactive stance as this regulatory process has evolved. I commend the member for Western Arctic for inserting this amendment so the House can oversee what essentially would be a blank cheque.

It is important to have oversight considering some of the other legislation that has come before the House where I would suggest that perhaps the House did not do the due diligence that was required. I only need to point to the voter identification bill. New Democrats raised some very serious concerns around that legislation. Lo and behold, the government had to bring forward another bill to fix the problem in the original bill because it had effectively eliminated the ability of about a million voters in Canada to register to vote.

I understand there is continuing disenfranchisement in that voter identification bill. We know that homeless people and many first nations will have difficulty voting in the next federal election unless more fixes are put into place.

I would argue that New Democrats are doing the due diligence that other members in this House have chosen not to do by insisting on some oversight on this bill.

In case people think this is merely New Democrats talking, I want to point to an editorial in The Star today. It states:

But in their rush to biofuels, the politicians have overlooked the drawbacks of turning food into fuel.

Although biofuels do emit less greenhouse gas than regular gasoline, environmentalists point out that this comparison does not take into account the emissions coming from the farm machinery and fertilizer required to “grow” these new fuels and the trucks for transporting them.

It goes on to state:

Parliament should heed NDP Leader...and take more time to consider the implications of Bill C-33 before passing it.

David Suzuki, in September 2007, said:

Biofuels have many advantages, but we have to look at all our options and make sure we make the best choices to ensure a more sustainable future.

...attempting to save the planet by wholesale switching to biofuels like ethanol and biodiesel may unintentionally have the opposite effect.

The Pembina Institute stated:

Many concerns have been raised about the environmental and social impacts of un-controlled production of bio-fuels. Pembina believes strict criteria need to be in place to ensure these impacts are minimized.

The parliamentary secretary has stood a number of times today and said that New Democrats have flip-flopped since 2006. New Democrats have said that there is new and emerging information that requires this House to take a strong, hard look at this legislation. We have new information about what is happening in the world around rising food prices and new information around production and all those factors need to be considered.

In committee, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior proposed a number of amendments that, unfortunately, the Conservatives and the Liberals chose not to support. Some of those amendments would have dealt with some of these other emerging issues. I will not read all the amendments put forward by the member but I do want to touch on a couple of them because they are issues being raised in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan. I know other members are getting calls, letters and emails about them.

One of the amendments reads:

prohibiting the use of genetically modified grains, oilseeds or trees for biofuel production....

The next one reads:

prohibiting the use of lands protected by federal legislation and other sensitive biodiverse lands for biofuel production;

preserving the biodiversity of lands used in biofuel production;

prohibiting the importation of grains or oils for use in biofuel production;

establishing criteria in relation to the environmental sustainability of biofuel production to ensure compliance with internationally recognized best practices that promote the biodiversity and sustainability of land, air and water;

In British Columbia, fortunately under Dave Barrett and the provincial New Democrats, they instituted the agricultural land reserve in an effort to ensure our farmland was protected. I do have farms in my riding. My riding is a rural-urban community and there are a number of farms there.

What we have found over the years is that the ALR, the agricultural land reserve, that was put in place is being eroded. There has been no net loss of land but there has been a substitution of land that is less productive, less arable. The amendments proposed by the member for British Columbia Southern Interior were partly around the fact that we cannot generate new land. What we need to do is ensure the farmland that is available in Canada is put to the best possible use and, as well, that farmers can maintain a decent living from their farming efforts.

In British Columbia, most of the policies that are made in Canada for agriculture do not take into account the fact of life in British Columbia where many of our farm holdings are small farm holdings. I would encourage this as an opportunity to examine the diversity of farming activity in Canada and how we protect that.

As well, British Columbia is in a unique position where we, unfortunately, have material that is available for Cellulosic. In an article from CleanTechnica, which was written in Colorado but equally applies to British Columbia, it talks about what is being done to prevent catastrophic wildfire while taking advantage of a clean energy opportunity. The article talks about several stories that hit the news wire this week about taking a collective hint at the growing conditions for a perfect storm for Cellulosic ethanol.

The virgin biofuel industry got a kick in the seat yesterday when a study in science confirmed that many environmentalists believe ethanol from corn and switchgrass could actually worsen climate change. The article goes on to state:

The cheapest, most logical, and most environmentally friendly way to make ethanol is to do so with waste...And thanks to the pine beetle epidemic, there is a wealth of small-diameter waste-wood in the Rocky Mountain West....

On April 1, 2008, in an article on The Tyee, it states, “Burn Trees to Light Homes”. It is talking about the fact that the pine beetle wood kill is a way to take the value of dead wood and create a viable energy opportunity. The article talks about the fact that in British Columbia there currently is a substantial amount of export to Europe on wood pellets. The pine beetle wood kill is an opportunity to take some of that waste-wood and turn it into a product that could be used both in British Columbia and for export.

Some science is required around the pine beetle waste-wood and some of the money that is being marked for renewable energy and sustainable energy strategies could be earmarked for research and development into the pine beetle waste-wood.

The sad comment is that in British Columbia our forestry sector is reeling. In the same Tyee article, it states that in the past year 34 sawmills in the province have closed permanently or indefinitely resulting in 10,000 job losses.

In my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan, we have had a number of companies in the last six months either lay off workers indefinitely or close permanently. Some have gone into receivership. I saw one of the grimmest sights that I have seen in recent memory in my riding last week. As I drove north on the highway, I saw a former sawmill operation site filled with forestry equipment that was being auctioned off because a logging company, which had been in business since the early 1900s manufacturing equipment for the forestry industry, had gone into receivership. Hundreds of pieces of equipment and vehicles on this lot were being auctioned off.

That is a grim reminder that in British Columbia we are seeing a massive transition in the forestry sector and we are simply not taking hold of that.

When we are talking about waste-wood as a Cellulosic ethanol, there is an opportunity to do something for forestry workers. Where is the money for a transition strategy for communities and workers?

We talked about this community trust money. I have talked to people in my riding and they have not seen one cent of it. We have workers today who are running out of employment insurance because my riding is in an area that is tagged on to another riding that has a very low unemployment rate and it is on the mainland. It is not like the workers in my riding can walk out their door and go next door to get a job. They are running out of their employment insurance. Where is the effort to actually ensure something happens?

The bill speaks to, in a variety of ways, an energy strategy. We should take a look at what has happened in British Columbia, with things like the pine beetle. We should talk about how we can help some of the workers make the transition into some other industry.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague, as she articulated some of her concerns regarding the biofuel initiatives.

One of the unfortunate things that too often happens in the House and at committees is we tend to polarize this issue. Some of the comments my colleague made indicated that polarization, for example, using phrases like “wholesale switching to biofuels”. The government is not recommending wholesale switching. It is a very measured response. It is an environmentally friendly response.

The biofuel initiatives of the government would reduce greenhouse gases by over four megatonnes per year. That is the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road. That is responsible environmental leadership.

On the issue of cellulosics and using wood chips, is the member aware that the government has invested $500 million in the future of biofuels like cellulosics, which can turn wood chips and garbage into fuel?