On a Parliament Hill panel awash in biofuel enthusiasts, boosters and beneficiaries, Ken Sigurdson was the voice of gloom.
The former National Farmers Union co-ordinator from the Swan River, Man., area told the House of Commons agriculture committee Feb. 12 the NFU considers government support for biofuel development a policy disaster.
“We say ethanol and biofuel are a costly misadventure and probably the most misguided public policy introduced in Canada today,” Sigurdson said as the committee held hearings on Bill C-33, a bill that would lead to a mandated five percent ethanol content in fuel by 2010 and two percent biodiesel content in diesel fuel by 2012.
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
At the table with the NFU representative were ethanol boosters from the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, Grain Growers of Canada, Canadian Canola Growers Association and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture.
“Biofuel is the biggest change to take hold of agriculture in at least a generation,” CRFA president Gordon Quaiattini said in a typical statement of praise. “I think it is becoming more and more clear that the biorevolution taking place today will prove to be every bit as fundamental and far-reaching as the information revolution which began in the 1980s.”
Sigurdson insisted promoters of biofuel development underestimate the cost, overestimate the environmental and economic benefits and ignore the point that the $1.5 billion in federal subsidies will produce a limited number of costly jobs in rural Canada.
Government support for the industry through Bill C-33 “achieves no public policy objective and that should be the objective of your committee, to serve some policy objective,” he said.
“It’s not going to drive our cars down the road. It’s not going to do anything for the environment. The tailpipe emissions are no better, maybe worse.”
With a few exceptions, MPs on the committee generally ignored Sigurdson’s arguments and directed most of their questions to the industry supporting witnesses.
However, Conservative MPs were hostile to his remarks.
Ontario rural Conservative Larry Miller complained he had been unbalanced.
“I’m not just sure how many days or weeks you spent trying to drum up every negative thing you could find on the biofuel industry but I would just suggest that as a farmer myself, maybe you should concentrate on the whole approach for your members,” said the MP.
“Farmers have to be diverse and learn to change and adapt with the times. I’d suggest that would be a more balanced approach.”
Sigurdson later complained about his treatment before the committee. “I certainly got interrupted a lot more than other people and distracted from what I was …”
He was interrupted before he could finish the sentence.
