Legislation establishing a national biofuel mandate is stalled in the House of Commons after once being considered a fast-track item headed for quick passage.
Bill C-33 sped through second reading agreement-in-principle and through the agriculture committee in days, but now an NDP motion to expand a proposed review of the bill in two years has bogged it down in debate.
The government may not call the bill again for debate until May, and once it wins Commons approval, it still has to go through the Senate.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
NDP MP Alex Atamanenko supported the bill in committee once a clause was added to hold a review after two years, but deputy energy critic Dennis Bevington from an Arctic riding has now moved an amendment that is holding up the bill, drawing sharp criticism.
“I am really tired of seeing the NDP members consistently standing up for their cheap food policy in Canada,” Alberta Conservative Brian Storseth said in April 10 debate.
“When is the member going to finally stand up and support our farmers and support putting good prices and rising commodity prices in place for them rather than a cheap food policy?”
Bevington said a broader review of the regulations to be created is needed because the debate about biofuel is changing from the enthusiastic endorsement of just months ago to more questions about the implications.
Soaring food prices around the world and the link by many developing world leaders to competition from biofuel plants are leading to doubts.
“Concerns are mounting around the world about the nature of the directions that countries have taken with the development of biofuels and with the promotion of ethanol from corn, sugar cane and soybeans,” he said.
“This movement, albeit having good intent, the process has shown and is showing a very detrimental impact on the food supply across the world.”
The longer the parliamentary debate goes on, the more skepticism grows in the Commons.
Initially, agriculture critics took the lead on the ethanol issue, enthusiastically supporting it. Now, environmental and development critics are weighing in with more critical comments and questions.
