Agreed.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege, notice of which I had provided to you a few days ago while you were deliberating on another related matter. I thank you for allowing me to rise today, now that the other matter has concluded. It involves the right of free speech and the right to participate fully without obstruction or impairment as a member of the House. These particular privileges are fundamental to us here in the House. I will refrain from providing explicit citations and relieve you and colleagues of that part of it, but a reasonable discussion of those rights is contained in pages 70 to 75 of Marleau and Montpetit.

Former Speaker Bosley once described the right of free speech in this place as “absolute”. Going back through history, those attributes of our free speech rights here, our privileges, are contained in parliamentary law going right back to 1689, as one benchmark, the Bill of Rights.

The right to vote also is fundamental to our role here and is similarly protected by our privileges. They are so fundamental, Mr. Speaker, that you seek these privileges explicitly at the beginning of each Parliament.

I want to submit that in the result, these undoubted rights have been impaired by a ruling of the Ethics Commissioner on May 7, 2008 in relation to the member for West Nova. For reasons I am not exactly clear, the report of the Ethics Commissioner describes the member by name and not by riding, but I will refer to the member by riding in my remarks. One of three findings of the Ethics Commissioner is contained on page 21 of her report. Her words are, “I conclude that section 13”--she is referring to the code of ethics--“requires that [the member for West Nova] not participate in the debates or votes on the Mulroney Airbus settlement and that consequently he has contravened section 13” of the code.

Curiously, the commissioner's quotes and the evidence relied on by the commissioner appear, in reading it, to deal with a sequence of events that have become known as the Bear Head project and the Thyssen proposals and not the actual Mulroney Airbus issue, but I will leave that. That is already written in the report and I cannot do much about that. I would suggest that in practice and in theory the member for West Nova might actually still be free to vote and speak on the Bear Head project issue or the Thyssen proposal issues as distinct from the Airbus issue.

However, in this report, the Ethics Commissioner actually purports to remove the rights of free speech and the vote of the member in relation to the Mulroney Airbus matter. That was based on her reading and interpretation of our code. She did not do this on her own; she was simply interpreting our code the best way she felt she could.

Therefore, I have to note with some surprise that the member for West Nova, if this report of the Ethics Commissioner is to govern, is now completely free to speak on the Mulroney Airbus matter everywhere in Canada, on TV, on radio, in a scrum, in the press, as a citizen of Canada, but he is not free to speak in this House.

How could it be that a member has more freedom of speech everywhere except in this House, where we are supposed to have virtually absolute constitutionally protected rights and privileges of free speech? How could that member have less freedom of speech in this House than out on the street? How did we, in creating the code and in having it interpreted here, turn a freedom into a straitjacket?

Someone here today, Mr. Speaker, may say to you that this House adopted the rules so we should live with them, that this interpretation comes from that and the result comes from that and we should live with those things. However, I submit that the result is an unintended one, brought about by an unanticipated interpretation of the code, and in the parliamentary context, it is intolerable that we now have this abridgement of free speech and voting rights. It was not intended and it is intolerable.

Mr. Speaker, there are four points I want to make that you may find helpful in reviewing the report of the Ethics Commissioner, not in the sense of an appeal, but in relation to the privilege motion here.

First, in her report, the Ethics Commissioner concluded that being a defendant in a libel suit constituted a private interest. However, such a claim in a libel suit is not a liquidated amount. It is not a debt. There is no ownership or control of it and there is no real dollar value attached to it.

By concluding that this allegation gave rise to a private interest, the Ethics Commissioner potentially gives life and credibility, and validation, to a libel claim of any person or corporation who decides to sue any one of us here in the House before there is any conclusion to the suit at all.

I note that if one reads the popular press, there are at the present time two other lawsuits at play involving members of the House of Commons involving speech issues not in the House, but outside the House, as I understand it.

Our free speech privilege is here. It is living. It is protected from the police. It is protected from the king. It is protected from the powerful. It is protected from the press. How could it be lost by the simple filing of a lawsuit at the hands of a single plaintiff who makes such an allegation?

Second, the term “liability” as set out in section 3(2)(b) of the code is contained in a phrase that refers to “the extinguishment, or reduction in the amount, of the person’s liabilities”.

The Ethics Commissioner has decided that the term “liability” also includes a contingent liability. However, I submit that a liability claim raises the possibility of a liability, just the possibility. Just like the possibility of getting the common cold, just like the possibility of death, it applies to all of us, but that is not the same thing as a quantifiable liability that crystallizes on the happening of a specifically defined happening of an event described on formation of the legal relationship or obligation, two different types of contingencies here.

The mere claim in this particular case has no asset value and no dollar value, so the liability has no value. Therefore, if there is no dollar value, how could this give rise to any reduction in the amount that is described in section 3(2)(b)? Section 3(2)(b) clearly describes a reduction in amount of a person's liabilities, and there is no amount here. There is no amount in question.

The Ethics Commissioner may wish to reconsider this, and the House may also wish to consider this issue.

Third, the Ethics Commissioner's ruling on free speech on the member, in my view and I hope the view of the House, neglects to accord appropriate recognition and standing to parliamentary rights of free speech. Both the courts and Parliament have inquiries for the purpose of seeking the truth. Neither the courts nor Parliament will allow its members to be impaired in that function.

The objectives of transparency and non-furtherance of private interests are, to be sure, worthy goals, but as against the fundamental right of free speech, especially in Parliament, they must be seen and interpreted as subsidiary or secondary amenities in the public interest.

Fourth, in fairness to the Ethics Commissioner, she did recognize these principles. She says on page 20, “Members should not be precluded from participating in parliamentary votes and debates unless there is a serious justification for doing so”. It is good that she recognized that. In my view, that is a complete understatement of the principles involved. We should not just be unencumbered because it sounds good; we are legally, by constitutional privileges, accorded that right.

She also says, “the requirement to recuse oneself under section 13 does amount to a serious interference with the exercise of a member's public duties”. I say bingo, because she has recognized that the obligation to recuse oneself is a serious interference. I say it breaches the constitutional free speech rights of every member in this House, but at least she recognizes that it is a serious interference, to use her words.

She refers to our having public duties. Public servants have public duties. We do too, but we here must be vigilant in protecting our constitutionally protected parliamentary privileges of free speech and non-interference.

Lives in the past have been given to obtain and maintain these rights. History shows that a king was beheaded to assure these rights, and we must count on our Ethics Commissioner to recognize and uphold those rights. They are so fundamental that they do not even have to be pleaded outside this place in our courts. Section 5 of the Parliament of Canada Act says so.

The Ethics Commissioner is not and should actually never be asked, in my view, to become the gatekeeper of our parliamentary rights and privileges. This is our job in this House and if our code has somehow allowed the Ethics Commissioner to stray from the straight and narrow, we should at least take some of that responsibility. We must assist the Ethics Commissioner in achieving these broader objectives.

According to the Ethics Commissioner, a similar conjunction of circumstances is unlikely to occur frequently. She says that this kind of thing is not likely to happen very often, but let me put a hypothesis out here, now that the mechanism has been identified.

What if some scoundrel out there decided to sue for libel every member of the New Democratic Party or the Bloc Québécois and named every member in the libel suit? Under this ruling, it seems to me that that might functionally disconnect the entire political caucus from participating in a particular debate or a vote. It was never the intention of our rules that this happen, yet if we look at the ruling, this in theory could occur again now that the mechanism and the unintended result has been spotted. I am pretty sure there are not too many members in the House who would wish that to be an eventuality. The rights and privileges of the member for West Nova are identical to the rights and privileges of every member in this House.

We are not just, here in this place, the complaints department for some government ministry. We are, in the words of Sir Edward Coke from the 17th century, the grand inquest of the nation, so we need to fix either the ruling or the rules, as the Ethics Commissioner has invited us to do, and I would be prepared to move a motion in that regard. In that light, I just wanted to bring four things to the House's attention, because it is contextual.

First, I want to ask the Speaker of the House to take notice of the following things. A motion should reaffirm our privileges of free speech and our right to vote.

Second, this particular report of the Ethics Commissioner will be deemed concurred in after 30 sitting days under subsection 28(10) of the code unless it is otherwise dealt with by the House. Therefore, I believe that the proposed speech and the voting restrictions on the member for West Nova should be suspended by the wording of a motion, if there is to be a motion and if it is to be adopted.

Third, the motion should amend the code to clarify its terms as the Ethics Commissioner has invited us to, for example, in restating what is comprised by the terms “private interest” or secondly, possibly modifying section 13 of the code which now states: “A Member shall not participate in debate on or vote on a question in which he or she has a private interest”. That could be modified to read “a member should not” as opposed to “shall not”. I am only placing it out there for consideration.

Fourth, we should invite the Ethics Commissioner, under subsection 28(13), to reconsider this matter making reference to any changes in the code adopted by the motion, the free speech benchmarks described in parliamentary law and affirming the confidence of the House in her work as a Commissioner of Ethics.

Finally, it is not clear to me now that the procedure and House affairs committee would be in a position to deal with this on an expeditious basis. This is simply part of the current context.

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, according to Bourinot, “One of the first and greatest of its privileges is free speech and one of the advantages of legislative bodies is the right of exposing and denouncing abuses by means of free speech”. Page 42 of Joseph Maingot's Second Edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada states:

The protection afforded the Member speaking in the House is, in law, spoken on an occasion of absolute legal privilege, that is to say, spoken with impugnity to the outside world, but he publishes outside the House at his peril. Parliament protects him when he speaks in Parliament, but when he speaks outside, or publishes outside what he says inside Parliament, Parliament offers no protection; only the common law does, if it is offered at all.

The member for West Nova invited a libel suit against him when he made statements outside of the House. He made a choice to give up his parliamentary privilege when he did that. You, Mr. Speaker, and the House have no role to play in the member's grievance. It is not our problem; it is his problem.

The House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada are not like the parliaments of some countries, in which people seek election merely so that they can take advantage of the privileges and immunities of parliamentarians to avoid consequences for their actions outside of that role and outside of that body. Our Parliament does not operate as it does in some of the lesser developed countries and, therefore, we can take pride in that. Those are important principles.

So too is the principle of having an Ethics Commissioner and a Code of Ethics. Parliament established the Ethics Commissioner and the Code of Conduct. Parliament gave the Ethics Commissioner the authority to interpret the code. The Code of Conduct is also governed by the rules of the House, rules which the House has established.

The right of free speech and the right to vote are not, contrary to what the hon. member just said, absolute. They are constrained by the code quite clearly so that members of Parliament are not to act in such a fashion as to advance their private interests, whether it be by speech or by voting. That is, of course, the principle on which the decision of the Ethics Commissioner turned.

As has been acknowledged by many members of the House speaking publicly, even those who have concerns with the decision of the Ethics Commissioner, Ms. Dawson made the right ruling given the rules of the House and the mandate granted her by Parliament.

If the rules were followed, then there can be no breach of privilege. It is our duty to follow the rules we established for ourselves. Even if this does touch on privilege, which it does not, but for the sake of this point let us assume that it does, the member would still be bound by the limitations of the rules.

On page 26 of Joseph Maingot's Second Edition of Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, it states that the importance of the right of freedom of speech is such that a member of the Senate or House of Commons may with impugnity make statements in Parliament “subject only to the rules, customs, and practices of the House of Commons”.

The member was indeed aware of that and, in fact, my understanding is that the reason this arose is because he was advised by other members of the House of Commons of the risk of running afoul of those rules. He chose to ignore that in the parliamentary context, thereby again inviting the decision to which he has been subjected.

The member is complaining that the rules of the House are putting limitations on his right to participate in debates. There will always be limitations. In fact, there must be limitations. Otherwise, we would have chaos. The member for West Nova said in the media:

I'll accept that her ruling--

Referring to Ms. Dawson:

--is in good faith, but I think we have to take our responsibilities as a legislature and see that if the code can be interpreted in such a way as she did then we have a dangerous code. We have to review the code.

I am not surprised to find someone who runs afoul of the rules saying the rules must be changed.

If the opposition's objective is to review the code, then it should know that it cannot be done through a question of privilege. This is simply not the mechanism to do so.

We cannot ask the Speaker to arbitrarily change the rules of the House or allow the member to move a motion without notice to change the rules of the House. That would be against the rules of the House. The proper place for review of the Standing Orders is through the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The fact that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is not meeting does not constitute in any way a prima facie question of privilege either. It is a problem that needs to be resolved by the members of that committee. We certainly are in a position where the potential for that to occur could occur if people were willing to put their minds to that task if parties were serious about making this Parliament work.

In the March 14 ruling, Mr. Speaker, you said that if committees continue on the path of overturning perfectly good rulings from the chairs of committees, then that could very well lead to anarchy. If the near future anarchy results, then we would be in a crisis. I am not sure we are in that crisis now, but it is certainly the suggestion being made by the hon. member opposite.

That requires a resolution of the political parties determining to respect the legitimate authority of the proper rulings and deciding to get on with the proper work of committees. They will not be resolved through a question of privilege. If Parliament is not functioning in that fashion, then the solution is to dissolve Parliament. That way Canadians can elect members who want Parliament to get back to work bringing to Canadians economic security, safer streets, human rights and a clean environment.

In the book The Question of Confidence in Responsible Government, written by Eugene Forsey and G.C. Eglington, it states at page 95:

It is a question to be determined in all the circumstances whether the loss of control [of the House] indicates want of confidence, which might be, and if there is any real question, should be tested by a vote for the purpose deliberately brought on by the Government.

In Australia, for example, no motion of censure or lack of confidence in the government has ever been agreed to in the house of representatives, however, governments have resigned or advised a solution on eight occasions following their defeat on other votes in the house ranging from votes on amendments to legislation, to votes on procedural motions such as “let this House do now adjourn”.

The deciding factor seems to have been the government's perception that it had lost control of the business of the house. Sometimes a government facing such a situation has moved a motion of confidence in itself or declared that a vote on a procedural motion is to be regarded as a challenge of confidence.

When this House met last, for example, we had a concurrence motion that disrupted the government's legislative agenda. The government attempted to adjourn that debate. It was unsuccessful. If in the future these disruptions make it impossible for the government to move its legislation through the House, then it too, as in the Australian experience, could be considered that such procedural motions are matters of confidence.

We are not there yet, but it could conceivably come to that. If members of the opposition continue on their current path, then the government could very well be in a moral and constitutional position to dissolve Parliament. In the Speaker's ruling of March 14, the Speaker noted that:

Since that time, appeals of decisions by chairs appear to have proliferated, with the result that having decided to ignore our usual procedure and practices, committees have found themselves in situations that verge on anarchy.

Since this ruling, the opposition members on the ethics committee overturned a perfectly sound ruling of the chair. They knowingly thwarted the authority of the House of Commons. We also have opposition members on the justice committee insisting on doing a similar thing which would allow them to conduct a witch hunt. As a result, the progress of the government's justice agenda is compromised. There are important pieces of government legislation before the justice committee, including private member's business.

We are talking about the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Here again the opposition majority is attempting to conduct a partisan one-sided study of a so-called in and out financing issue. The government, in response, offered a fair and sensible compromise. It proposed that the committee study the activities of all parties, not just the Conservative Party. It is a reasonable request. If that is all that is required to get the committee up and running, then what level-headed person would say no? We do not need a question of privilege. We do not need an election. We need common sense and a fair-minded settlement.

The opposition members should be using the instruments of Parliament that exist for the purpose of resolving a question like this and the pursuit of accountable government and the development of public policy. They should not be abusing their rights for self-serving partisan interests. Further, these misguided pursuits by the majority opposition are not within the rules of fair play. More importantly, they are not within the rules of this House. The government's tolerance for these anarchistic, irresponsible and illegal usages of the tools of Parliament is wearing thin.

I would like to conclude with a quote from an NDP member from a different generation. I say that because when members hear it, they will note the difference in attitude and approach from what we are facing in the current Parliament and it creates a stalemate which makes it difficult for the issue to be addressed in the fashion that it should be as it was raised by the hon. member. The statement refers to the opposition in a minority situation. The same would apply to a government in a minority situation. Just substitute the word “opposition” with “minority”. The hon. Stanley Knowles said:

The opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the authorities on parliamentary procedure emphasize the greater importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the protection of the rules. Only by according such rights to the opposition is it possible to achieve anything even approaching equality of strength between the two sides--

Mr. Knowles was right. Rules are important and following the rules is equally important. We cannot let the House slip and fall into chaos and anarchy. We need to follow the rules and I urge the majority opposition to follow the rules and get back to work.

What we are hearing from the hon. member is essentially a submission that asks you, Mr. Speaker, to take the place of the committee on procedure and House affairs, to stand in its place and do its work. That is not a proper question of privilege. It should not be put in that fashion because that is a question that is for all of Parliament to decide and for Parliament to decide through the vehicle that exists for that purpose, which is the committee on procedure and House affairs.

Of course, as I said, if the political parties, including the party of the hon. member who raised the issue, and those who are concerned about the code, would cooperate in such a fashion that the committee could function as it was intended, it would have the ability to address the very questions he is attempting to raise and seek a resolution to here in a different context where it does not belong. He should be raising them in that context. If he wishes to see them resolved in a fashion that addresses his concerns, he should implore his colleagues within his party who sit on that committee to allow that committee to function so that the questions can be addressed.

However, Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, it is not for you to do in your role as Speaker on a question of privilege.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene just briefly to add a few words to the question of privilege my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River put forward. I thank him for raising this issue.

Even though he rose on a point of personal privilege, it is a matter involving the privileges of all members of the House that may be infringed upon, not deliberately in any way by the Ethics Commissioner, but inadvertently by her ruling. In her ruling she points out that it may in fact be an unintended consequence of her ruling that some members may feel that their privileges were infringed upon by this, and I certainly do agree.

I would like to clarify the government House leader's point when he said that was not for you, Mr. Speaker, to usurp or undermine the jurisdiction of the procedure and House affairs committee. He said that was something that you should not do. The point is that given that the procedure and House affairs committee is unable to deal with the issue because it is logjammed, then it should be up to the House of Commons, not the Speaker, to get together and deal with the collective privileges of all MPs.

I predict and I caution that we might be facing an increased flurry of similar lawsuits that have the effect of silencing a member of Parliament and making that person unable to do his or her job. I do not belive we can allow that to go on. We could see such a flurry of lawsuits flying around here that we would think we were in a snow storm with slapp suits going every which way and silencing good members and making them unable to do their job.

The problem lies with the code of conduct for members of Parliament as it is interpreted by the Ethics Commissioner. We need to change the code of conduct to make it abundantly clear that a member of Parliament is not in a conflict of interest just because he or she is being sued.

We are not saying, as the government House leader would have us believe, that we are advocating that members of Parliament should never be sued if they say something libellous outside the House. No one is arguing that. It may well be that somebody could trip up and say something libellous that they should be sued for, but that does not mean they should be silenced for the entire duration of that lawsuit and barred from raising any of that subject matter in the House or in committee during the 18 months or 2 years that it takes for that lawsuit to trickle through the courts.

Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, I tried to move that motion at the ethics committee. I felt that it was such an urgent matter that we could not wait for the logjam in the procedure and House affairs committee to be cleared so we tried, knowing full well that we were outside our jurisdiction. The chair of the committee, the member for Mississauga South, actually ruled it out of order but we challenged the chair and we overrode his ruling. The majority of us on committee felt so strongly that our colleague from West Nova was being silenced by the interpretation of the Ethics Commissioner that it had to be dealt with at some committee.

However, that was not possible because you, Mr. Speaker, ruled that the committee could not deal with it. We have nowhere else to go but to appeal to you now to let the House deal with it. If the procedure and House affairs committee cannot, then the House of Commons should make it abundantly clear that no member of Parliament is in a conflict of interest just because they are being sued. Otherwise, we cannot do our jobs properly.

The Speaker

I think I have heard enough on this point for the time being as I have another matter I want to deal with.

The hon. member for Mississauga South, very briefly.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find in your research that the issue of a contingent liability constituting a private interest did not come up.

Furthermore, there is a consideration that should another case come up, we could have a situation where anything directly or indirectly relating to another issue would in fact be the subject of a recusal, which could be very broad indeed. That causes me some concern.

Finally, obviously the member has risen on a matter of privilege which is of significant importance. He is asking for a finding of a prima facie matter of privilege, at which time, if that should be found by you, he would be seeking to table a motion. I think the House wants an opportunity to deal with this matter and I hope you will rule favourably on it.

The Speaker

I thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for having raised this matter and the government House leader, the member for Winnipeg Centre and the member for Mississauga South for their interventions on the matter. I will take it under advisement and return to the House in due course.

The Speaker

The Chair has notice of a request for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, who now has the floor.

Ms. Paule Brunelle (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52 of the House of Commons, I request that an emergency debate be held on the sharp increase in the price of petroleum products.

Gasoline prices have increased by over 30% since the beginning of the year. In the Montreal region, the average price has gone from $1.08 in January 2008 to over $1.28 in April 2008. In the Trois-Rivières region, the price has even hit $1.39

The price of crude oil is also skyrocketing. Last January it was $95 U.S. per barrel: at 4 p.m. on May 14, 2008 it had gone over $120 U.S. There is therefore a concern that this trend will continue. In the July 2008 futures market, it is possible that the price per barrel might exceed $130 U.S.

This is the time of year when people are making summer vacation plans. The endless rise in gas prices is really disruptive to the tourist season and we have serious concerns for more remote regions like Gaspé and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

Since this situation has repercussions on all sectors of our economy, it has a heavy impact on consumers and families. I therefore deem it essential for this House to debate this important matter without further delay, in an emergency debate.

I would also like to add that there is currently no other procedure I can use to request a debate on this important issue.

The Speaker

This is the second time that the hon. member for Trois-Rivières has raised this matter. In my opinion, she has raised some good points in this connection. We shall therefore, at the ordinary time of adjournment this evening, hold an emergency debate on the matter she has presented.

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to speak to Bill C-33 and the amendment, and I offer my support for the bill but not for the amendment.

I might say that it is important in this debate, regarding the amendment, because everything relates to the bill, so I will be fairly broad in my remarks.

It is interesting to see the reactions of some of the party leaders in this House since this bill was first debated at first reading and at committee.

At one point in time, all parties seemed to be in favour of increasing biofuel production for several reasons: one, to develop greater economic opportunities for rural Canada; two, to offer alternative crop opportunities and better returns for farmers in rural Canada; and three, to provide for a move away from fossil fuels, which would mean reduced greenhouse gas impacts on Canadian society. This is at a time when the environment is a huge issue.

However, now, because of changing circumstances in the global food supply and a few other issues, in an almost knee-jerk reaction, we are getting some saying that ethanol is almost solely responsible for the global food shortage and therefore some party positions are switching.

I will put it to members this way. Whether we pass or reject Bill C-33, it will, in neither case, impact the global food shortage or surplus to any great extent. Let us be realistic here. Regarding ethanol in Canada, in terms of this bill, will we be in the modern world or will we stay behind the times? It is time we get up to speed.

However, I can say that if we reject this bill we will send a very negative message to those investors who took all parties' words and who based their investment decisions on plants that are already being built and on farmers who will put crops in the ground on the basis of those initial discussions at committee which had basically all parties supporting Bill C-33.

If this bill is defeated, somebody had better take responsibility for that lost investment opportunity and that lost investment out there for those people who actually took the word of the various representatives of the parties that this bill would actually go through Parliament. They took our word that we would implement regulations and increase the content of ethanol and biodiesels in fuel by regulations.

Simply put, investments have been made both on the farm in terms of the production of alternative crops and in plant capacity to build plants for the current feedstocks and, in their minds as well, for future feedstocks for ethanol production from more cellulosic feedstock, et cetera.

If we reject this bill, we will have killed an economic opportunity for great numbers of Canadian and international investors and we will have certainly killed an economic opportunity for a great number of Canadian farmers.

For those who say that we will be using good quality wheat and other crops for fuels, that is not necessarily so. Yes, sometimes they will be but not always.

Sometimes there is frost. There is always a frost in some area. Sometimes there is too much rain and the quality of the grain goes down. Sometimes there is drought, which affects the quality. Sometimes there are surpluses.

It is those products, which are not always top quality bread wheat or top quality cereal grade corn, that are going into the production of these particular fuels. There are these other lower quality crops that are often used as well.

I say, especially to the leader of the NDP, who seems to have a knee-jerk reaction against ethanol now although he had it in his policy platform for the last election, for heaven's sake, that he must not kill that gleam and that spark in the eyes of those farmers out there. I ask him to allow economic opportunities to develop in rural Canada. I ask him not to hamper this investment in economic opportunities by the farm community.

This 5% really will not take a whole lot of crop, but it will make a huge difference in terms of price returns for primary producers. The interesting thing about farm production is that if we have a 2% or 3% surplus, especially in the potato industry, it is not just that 2% or 3% surplus for which we get paid low returns: it kills the price of the whole 102% and 103%. This will assist in terms of that economic development and economic opportunity for the farm community as well.

The Canadian Renewable Fuels Association has some information on this, and I will quote the association a little later, but I can say that by being a player, by having the production base taking place right now with the current feedstock, it will encourage research and development in the newer feedstocks that are not so much food for our consumers as others. That is where we have to get to.

We cannot jump over this step. We are not ready to go there yet in terms of the cellulosic and the research and development required in that area. This step cannot be jumped over. We have to go to this step with that production and fuel stock base right now.

Oh yes, there is a number out there, and this debate is rather interesting, but there is quite a debate by some who would blame the world's food shortage on the production of ethanol. Nothing could be further from the truth. Is there some impact? Yes, there is a marginal impact, but ethanol is not the cause. The real cause, in my view, is the speculation in the commodities market, which has no relationship to costs or real crises on the ground.

As well, certainly, global trade has an impact on the food shortage. The food for which there is greatest shortage at the moment is rice. Rice is not used in the production of ethanol. However, some countries that have become dependent on rice imports have seen the exports from some other countries frozen. We are seeing speculation, hoarding and all these kinds of things.

That is the real reason there is a problem in terms of global food supply. It is due more to market exploitation, market manipulation and market speculation than it is to the production of ethanol itself.

I have what I think is a very good paper that certainly opens up a good debate. It is a policy brief by the Oakland Institute and I believe it was written in April although it does not have the date on it. It has this to say at one point:

In fact, it is the traders and middlemen who stand to gain most. Speculation in world commodities is driving prices upward, from global futures commodity trading to traders and hoarders in West Africa, Thailand and the Philippines.

The institute goes on to say:

The payments made by the Canadian Wheat Board show--

And we know that the Canadian Wheat Board maximizes returns to primary producers.

--that the farmers were paid between $260-$284 a ton for various qualities of non-durum wheat, while the global price for wheat peaked to over $520 a ton. In India, farmers were paid Rs.850 [their currency] a quintal while wheat was imported at Rs.1,650 [their currency] a quintal.

What this is showing is that prices on the ground are one thing, but it is the market speculation and the middlemen that are really causing those prices to go through the roof. The farmers are not feeling the benefit of those prices on the ground to anywhere near the extent of what prices are in the marketplace.

The Oakland Institute paper goes on. I do not necessarily agree with everything that is said, but I think they are interesting points. It states:

Various causes for the current food price crisis are being cited by policy makers and the media--most common among them being the increased demand from China, India, and other emerging economies, whose increasing per capita growth has whetted appetites, as well as the oft-cited rising fuel and fertilizer costs, climate change, and impact of biofuels production. What is missing in the discourse is analysis of the failure of the free market, which made countries vulnerable in the first place; ironically, it is being promoted as a solution to the current crisis.

The Oakland Institute is saying that there are a lot of causes of the food crisis, and it is certainly not just the production of ethanol and biodiesel causing it, as some would portray.

I want to turn to a comment that I think is right on the mark. Larry Hill, now chair of the Canadian Wheat Board, stated in an article:

Commodity prices have risen dramatically in the last two years. There are many factors that have contributed to these increases. Supply-side issues have been the most dramatic, with...production problems plaguing all five of the world's top wheat-producing exporting regions over the past two years.

This ranged from drought in Australia to the heavy rains at harvest in Europe, poor winter wheat conditions in Kansas, frost in Argentina, and heat damage in western Canada.

He continued:

On the demand side, the world population continues to grow. In some of the world's most populous nations, improvements to living standards have created more demand for a wheat-based diet and for livestock fed with grain.

He went on to say:

Until this year, grain prices in real dollars were so low that they were on par with what farmers received in the Dirty Thirties. Not surprisingly, these values caused many farmers to rethink their future in agriculture. Some walked away, others tried to diversify into other types of enterprises, while still others were forced to subsidize their farms with one if not two off-farm jobs.

The fact of the matter is that if we bring it into real terms the price of the wheat in a loaf of bread now is about 16¢ for a 16-ounce loaf of bread. That is not a great deal when the price of a loaf of bread is $2 or thereabouts.

My point is that the farmer's share is still not really any more than what it should be. When we hear Mr. Hill's comments, we have to recognize, as I am certain this House does, the kinds of difficulties that producers have faced over the last eight years in Canada, when farm incomes were at record lows in this country.

This ethanol and biodiesel industry is creating a spark in the eye for many. It is creating economic opportunity.

Yes, we know there is price pressure on the livestock and hog industries, but we have to find a way of making one agricultural commodity complementary to the other. We cannot have one industry such as the hog and beef industry built on cheap feed grains, because those producers have to survive too. We must have policy done in a complementary fashion such that farmers can make a living off the land in this country regardless of the commodity produced.

If I may turn to the bill for a moment, I want to come to the fact that the protection is already in the bill in terms of what I think is being asked by the amendment. The bill allows the government to regulate renewable content in fuels. It allows the federal government to implement regulations requiring 5% average renewable content in gasoline by 2010.

Subsequent regulations will also require 2% average renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012 on successful demonstration of renewable diesel fuel use under the range of Canadian environmental conditions, meaning fuels made from renewable sources such as agriculture crops and other organic matter.

This gives the government the authority to make regulations. I believe that the government will be sensible in that. Perhaps the government will be sensible on this particular issue and make reasonable regulations. We cannot say the same for the government on all issues.

New subclause 2(8) amends the bill to add a provision for periodic and comprehensive reviews by a parliamentary committee of the environmental and economic aspects of biofuel production in Canada. That is important. The committee put that in there. Parliament is not going to be hamstrung, but this is sensible.

The amendment that we are talking about now is not sensible. It basically stops the ethanol and biodiesel proposal in its tracks.

This review allows us to monitor the situation, to determine the environmental and economic impacts of biofuel production in Canada, and to do it in a sensible way. It is extremely important.

I think the amendment that the members are calling for is already covered by the work of the committee itself.

I would encourage Parliament to pass this bill. Investments are already being made. Primary producers are looking to the future with the current crop regime, yes, but they are also looking for and hoping that the government will put in place the research and development.

I know that research and development is taking place south of the border into other alternative crops such as wheat and barley, straw, stalks and cobs from corn in Ontario and Quebec, and vegetable and fruit residues from across Canada. In Prince Edward Island, there is a very small cold press biodiesel operation in place using canola.

There is the possibility of using forest and wood waste and also municipal solid waste. There are other alternatives down the road, but we have to get there. In order to get there, I ask Parliament to support this bill and let this economic opportunity succeed.

Hon. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, knowing my hon. colleague over many years, I know his heart and soul are with Canadian farmers, and I agree with him totally.

The whole perception of biofuels being bad and causing a world of food shortage has been blown out of proportion. I really think it is essential for Canadian farmers to have the bill passed, that it be carried by all members in the House of Commons.

We have to look at the shortage of food in the world for many different reasons. There have been drought and frost. Western Canada has gone through years of drought. There have been storms, and we only need to look at China and Burma lately. There are many factors.

I would like to give the hon. member a few more minutes to state his case because he has done it very well so far.

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be in agreement with the member opposite. We not always are, but I think our objective is to have policies to benefit the farm community and society in general. We may not agree on the road to get there, but we do want to get to the same place.

In answer to the member's question, I would turn to what the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture had to say recently because it hits the mark with respect to food prices and ethanol. I will quote what the president of the CFA said in a recent press release. He said:

Biofuels have been unfairly implicated as a primary cause of dwindling food stocks and high grain prices. Other market forces have a strong influence on grain prices, such as market speculation, changing dietary trends in emerging economies, and recent global weather patterns. Furthermore, it should be noted that only a small amount of Canadian grain is produced for biofuels, about 5 percent.

Growing for the biofuel industry has been an excellent option for farmers looking to diversify, and they shouldn’t be disparaged for making a smart move. These farmers have been lauded by the public and politicians alike for being leaders in the development of alternatives to fossil fuels.

Many farmers invested heavily to meet surging demand. What is often left out of discussion is the risk that a large-scale disaster (such as drought or a major hail storm) could leave them on-the-hook for escalating expenses.

Looking at the international scope of this issue, we've long known that inadequate food distribution and accessibility is hurting the world’s poor. This problem is not new. As an active member of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, CFA is joining the call for governments to develop policies that address food insecurity.

Mr. Christian Ouellet (Brome—Missisquoi, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has a lot of experience in this House in terms of agriculture. But, I am taken aback to hear him say that Canadian farmers have already invested heavily to meet the demand. I do not believe that the plants are ready yet.

However, I will ask him a question, a question that very capable people in the field have also asked. Why would we not sell the surplus corn to the United States, given that they have ethanol projects that require much more corn than they are able to produce? That is my first question.

Next, many people who are very knowledgeable about these matters have come to Ottawa and said that it may be true that ethanol is no longer the main cause of rising prices. Rather, it is more our past reserves that drove up prices.

Darrin Qualman, from the National Farmer's Union in Saskatoon, told us that five years ago there were 115 million tonnes of various grain reserves around the world, but now there are 54 million tonnes, and that it was industry that lowered this quantity in order to be able to force prices to go up.

My second question is this: why could we not sell the corn produced here in Canada to rebuild the food stocks around the world?

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Speaker, the reason why I do not think we would want to grow corn here and ship it to the United States is we need that plant capacity in Canada. We need those jobs created in Canada. The part that people do not often relate to is the need for R and D in this area. The byproduct that comes out after the corn goes through ethanol production, is feed for livestock there. As of yet it is not a good feed for hogs, but it is, under the right characteristics, a decent feed for beef. Therefore, more R and D needs to be done into that feedstock development. However, the bottom line is we need that plant capacity and that investment in this country, not south of the border. We want to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians, not for Americans.

Regarding the second part of the question, it is true that ethanol has not had a huge impact on prices, but it has had some. It is true with the feedstock we use, there is not a tremendous positive benefit in terms of reduction in greenhouse gases. It is nothing near where it is in Brazil, where one unit of input and maybe seven units of production out. We are about 1 unit to 1.2 units. There is greater greenhouse gas reductions with sugar cane in Brazil.

However, as we move to new feedstocks, we may be able to get those better productions and we have to go through this step. The Canadian Renewable Fuels Association has said that the passage of Bill C-33 is critical to the development of the next generation biofuels in Canada. Its members would know because they are at the pinnacle of the industry.

Ms. Louise Thibault (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Ind.)

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague say that he agreed with the member opposite. That means he will not agree with me; I will tell him that right off the bat.

The cost of basic foods has gone up 48% since the end of 2006. I am not the one saying this. According to the director of the World Food Programme, a “silent tsunami” is threatening to plunge 100 million people into hunger. The IMF estimates that the use of biofuels and the rather considerable subsidies granted to producers account for 70% of the increase in corn prices.

What does the bill we are debating today do? It requires gasoline to contain 5% ethanol. Where is the logic in setting this requirement, when we consider the international assistance that needs to be provided, the fact that people should feed themselves, the fact that we should respect our environment, and the fact that this bill would require a 5% biofuel content?

In fact, I do not agree with this term. It could perhaps be called “agro” but it is far from being “bio”.

Hon. Wayne Easter

Mr. Speaker, if the member goes back to my remarks, she will note that for one to believe ethanol is responsible for the food shortage is absolutely wrong. It may have a marginal impact, no question about that, but the land base is there to feed a hungry world.

The problem in terms of the hungry world, as I said earlier in my remarks, is more so markets commodity speculation where there is huge profit taking in some of the trade relationships and the power of some of the multinational corporations around the world. Some countries that were exporting rice, for instance, have frozen those exports in order to hoard supplies in their own countries. Is it market speculation or food security for their own people? I do not know, but it is other factors more than ethanol in the food difficulties around the world.

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ)

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

Let us make it clear right at the start that the purpose of this government bill, which in itself contains no standards whatsoever, is to authorize the government to enact regulations governing the Canadian production of biofuels. In other words, the bill would allow the federal government to regulate renewable content in fuels in order to require, for example, a certain percentage of biofuel in gasoline.

In order to have a better understanding of legislative developments in the biofuels file, let us begin by reminding hon. members that the proposed measures, except for a few key details, were included in Bill C-30 from the previous session. I would remind the House that this bill, known as the clean air act, was amended by the opposition parties in committee and that the measures concerning biofuels still appeared in the amended version of the bill.

It would be a good thing to remind hon. members at this point that the government had already announced that an amended Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 would allow the government to implement regulations to require an average of 5% renewable content in gasoline by 2010. Subsequent regulations would also require an average of 2% renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012 upon successful demonstration of renewable diesel fuel use under the range of Canadian environmental conditions.

I would point out that the Bloc Québécois has been concerned since the beginning about the environmental and social consequences of the use of corn ethanol. It therefore submitted amendments in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food specifically intended to better monitor biofuel regulation. These amendments would, for instance, have enabled committee members to keep abreast of technological advances in the field of renewable biofuels and also to evaluate the appropriateness of the measures proposed by the government.

Renewable fuels are one way for us to reduce greenhouse gases, but not the only way. Such fuels can also help us reduce our dependence on oil. However, not all renewable fuels are equal. That is very important to realize. A study by the committee of the federal government's regulations could have looked further into biofuels, their sources and their potential consequences. Unfortunately, the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois were all rejected by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

In light of this, the Bloc Québécois then moved, in the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, a motion that asked:

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

The adoption of this motion would have kept the current proportion of land seeded with corn for use in ethanol production. For example, if 15% of Canadian corn production is currently being used to produce ethanol, the motion would have ensured that 15% of that production continued to be used to produce ethanol.

Unfortunately, by rejecting the motion, the Conservatives have sent a clear message: they have no intention of developing the biofuel industry in a balanced manner. The regulation that will result from Bill C-33 may be conducive to excess. I cannot stress that enough.

We are in favour of renewable fuels but, in our opinion, this bill, which allows the federal government to regulate the level of biofuel in gasoline, diesel and fuel oil, must be passed in order to ensure sustainable development.

The federal government cannot try to find a measure that reduces both greenhouse gas emissions and our dependency on oil while at the same time it risks bringing about social and environmental consequences by increasing the proportion of corn production currently dedicated to ethanol production. If it adopts this contradictory approach, it risks completely eliminating any of the benefits it is trying to create through this bill. The Bloc Québécois cannot endorse such action.

This is one of the reasons that we are in favour of the amendment we are debating today, which asks that Bill C-33 be sent back to committee to be further studied in the context of the most recent scientific, environmental, agricultural and international developments.

For us, in terms of a biofuel substitute for oil, the most interesting prospect at present is ethanol made from cellulose. This technique, still in its experimental stage, uses an inexpensive raw material and, more importantly, would recycle vegetable matter that is currently unusable. It would also provide new markets for the forestry and agriculture industries.

Given the environmental and economic problems posed by the production of ethanol from certain crops, support for raw materials that could be produced more readily is gaining ground.

Research is being increasingly focused on the production of ethanol from non-food crops and materials rich in cellulose, that is, fibres. The development of an efficient process for converting cellulose to ethanol could promote the use of raw materials such as agricultural residues and straw as well as forestry residues, primarily wood chips, and even trees and fast-growing grasses.

Iogen Corporation has built a pilot plant and has been producing ethanol from cellulosic materials for a few years.

A pilot plant in Sweden, for example, is producing ethanol from wood chips. The process produces three co-products that can be burned directly or dried and sold as fuel, carbon dioxide gas and ethanol.

The Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec has already asked the federal government for assistance to conduct a market study to determine whether constructing a biodiesel plant would be feasible. A very profitable market could be developed in which animal oils and animal product residues could eventually be turned into biofuel.

We think that ethanol made from cellulosic materials such as agricultural and wood waste, and other types of fuels still in the experimental stage look like a very interesting possibility.

In addition, the Government of Quebec has announced that it will not promote corn ethanol further because of the environmental impact of intensive corn production. It seems that the Varennes corn-based ethanol plant will be the only such plant in Quebec. In fact, during my tour of the Varennes facilities over six months ago, the CEO, a particularly visionary leader, told me that future development of his plant would be based on second generation ethanol production using household waste.

Before the regulations are implemented, the Bloc Québécois wants to see some thoughtful deliberation concerning the environmental record of the alternative fuels the federal government will propose. We must not lose sight of the fact that the original intention of this bill was to try to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our oil dependency.

If the Conservative government really wanted to make a difference in this area, it would choose the path proposed by the Bloc Québécois, including a plan to reduce dependency on oil, among other things, rather than trying to go against the current and scuttling Quebec's efforts with its inaction in the fight against greenhouse gases.

It could also, as proposed by the Bloc Québécois, require automakers to substantially reduce the fuel consumption of all road vehicles sold in Quebec and Canada, like the reduction proposed by California, which has been adopted by 19 other American states and the Government of Quebec.

However, we know the Conservative government's position on this matter: rather than adopting a standard supported by those who have shown leadership in the fight against greenhouse gases, it chose to go with that of the Bush administration, which is less stringent and seems to be designed specifically to spare American auto manufacturers.

However, although there is no consensus on the environmental record of an alternate fuel, it is definitely responsible to have some reservations about it. Thus, in a letter last May about Bill C-33, the Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec wrote:

The federation agrees with the objective of the bill. However, this objective cannot be attained unless certain conditions are fulfilled. On the one hand, the industry cannot develop fully without adequate government support in terms of human and financial resources. On the other hand, we have to ensure that the life cycle of the renewable fuels chosen offers true environmental and energy benefits compared to oil products.

Furthermore, if it potentially worsens troubling social and environmental problems, elected members must make the responsible and appropriate decision, must refuse to continue in that direction and must attempt to propose alternative solutions.

That is exactly what the Bloc Québécois is doing. Although we initially supported the principle of the bill, we proposed significant amendments, which sought, among other things, to shed light on the environmental record and to ensure oversight of the potential negative effects of choosing one type of replacement fuel over another. I would remind members that these amendments and motions were defeated in two separate committees by the Conservative government with the support of the Liberal Party. This point is central to our position.

When the government commits more than $2 billion of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers' money to a bill of this scope, it is important to ensure that all the objectives of this bill will be reached and that the medium- and long-term negative effects are balanced and reasonable.

In closing, I would like to say that this is a complex bill. As an MP, I have had a number of calls and letters from producers urging my colleagues and I to vote in favour of this bill, while a number of citizens have called on us to vote against it. This bill concerns me ethically, personally and emotionally, since I represent an agricultural riding. I am very familiar with the situation facing many farmers who are trying to make ends meet, who are fighting to develop new markets, who are trying to build a better life and who want to keep doing their share to protect the environment.

After our discussions, a vast majority of the people I spoke with understand our position and admit that it is balanced, reasonable and responsible, and that it is important to make the right choices and reach one's objectives as well as possible. I will conclude by saying that it is important to pursue ethanol development from a variety of sources. In this sense, the Bloc Québécois motion, which was rejected by the Conservatives, and from which the Liberals abstained, was a step in the right direction. It is important to make informed decisions that take different parameters into account and that meet the environmental, social and economic objectives.

Mr. Guy Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her comments, but I have to say that I am a little confused. I know that the Bloc has been powerless for 18 years here in the House, but I thought that the Bloc supported farmers.

My confusion stems from the fact that Bloc members all seem to have different ideas. The member and her colleague suggested sending our corn to be processed in the United States. I do not understand why we would want to give our jobs to the United States. I would like the member to comment on that suggestion.

I am confused about something else as well. Her two colleagues, who are members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the members for Richmond—Arthabaska and Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, supported this bill while the committee was studying it. Now they have changed their minds.

I would like to ask the member why the Bloc has reversed its position and no longer supports Quebec producers.