House of Commons Hansard #89 of the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was justice.

Topics

(Return tabled)

Question No. 463Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

With regard to the use of the government-owned fleet of Challenger jets since September 2009: for each use of the aircraft, (a) what are the names and titles of the passengers present on the flight manifest; (b) what were all the departure and arrival points of the aircraft; (c) who requested access to the fleet; and (d) who authorized the flight?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 465Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

With regard to the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act enacted as part of Bill C-22, with particular reference to the government's decision to increase the absolute liability amount and mandatory insurance coverage for nuclear operators to $1 billion: (a) has the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) asked Ontario Power Generation whether removing the cap on operator liability, while maintaining the level of absolute liability and mandatory insurance coverage required under the Act at $1 billion, would increase its generation costs and, if so, what were the details of the response, including the estimated increased cost-per-kWh; (b) has the DNR asked Bruce Power whether removing the cap on operator liability, while maintaining the level of absolute liability and mandatory insurance coverage required under the Act at $1 billion, would increase its generation costs and, if so, what were the details of the response, including the estimated increased cost-per-kWh; (c) has the DNR asked New Brunswick Power whether removing the cap on operator liability, while maintaining the level of absolute liability and mandatory insurance coverage, would increase its generation costs and, if so, what were the details of the response, including the estimated increased cost-per-kWh; (d) in the scenario in which the limit on reactor liability is removed while the mandatory insurance coverage and absolute liability of the operator remain at $1 billion, what is the DNR's estimate of the impacts that removing the cap on liability would have on provincial electricity rates, (i) what additional impacts would there be if the mandatory insurance coverage and absolute liability of the operator were increased to $1.5 billion, all other things being equal, (ii) what would the additional impacts be if the mandatory insurance coverage and absolute liability of the operator were increased to $2 billion, all other things being equal; (e) does the government determine the amount of liability required of nuclear operators by estimating whether it will be within the capacity of insurers to provide insurance at reasonable costs and, if so, (i) did the government use the same criterion for determining the absolute liability and insurance requirement for offshore operators, (ii) how does the government define “reasonable costs” for insurance, (iii) what is the limit in cost-per-kWh for what the DNR considers “reasonable costs” for insurance, (iv) did the government use the same definition of “reasonable costs” for insurance for the nuclear and oil industries; (f) what are the insurance costs-per-kWh for the $1 billion in insurance that is currently required for nuclear operators under C-22, (i) what would these insurance costs-per-kWh be for the insurance requirement of $1.5 billion, (ii) what would these insurance costs be for the insurance requirement of $2 billion; (g) does the DNR determine the amount of liability required of nuclear operators by estimating its commensurability with the consequences of controlled releases of radiation and, if so, (i) what studies has the DNR undertaken regarding the consequences of accidents involving controlled releases of radiation, (ii) what is the estimated likelihood of such accidents, (iii) how has the DNR determined that the current amount of liability for nuclear operators under C-22 is commensurate with the risk of such accidents; and (h) has the DNR commissioned any studies to estimate the implicit subsidy per kWh that would be created by imposing a cap on liability since the time it commissioned an empirical analysis of the Nuclear Liability Act (Heyes, Anthony, and Catherine Heyes. 2000. An Empirical Analysis of the Nuclear Liability Act (1970) in Canada. Resource & Energy Economics 22 (1):91-101) and, if so, what were the results of any such study?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 466Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

With regard to Canadian international development assistance for each fiscal year 2007-2008 to 2013-2014: (a) what was Canada’s Official Development Assistance as a percentage of gross national income, using the same criteria used in Table A-2 “Canadian Historical ODA” of the 2006-2007 Statistical Report on International Assistance; and (b) is this information publically available in the same format?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 467Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

With respect to federal grant programs to assist small-business entrepreneurs commercialize and market their products: (a) what federal programs exist for this purpose; (b) for each year since 2006, how much has been spent on each of these programs, broken down by province; (c) for each figure in (b), what percentages of the amounts were reserved for marketing activities; and (d) for each year since 2006, how much has been spent on youth marketing positions or activities through the National Research Council’s Industrial Research Assistance Program’s Science and Technology Internship Program, broken down by province?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 469Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON

With regard to maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH): (a) in the answer provided to written question Q-208, (i) what services, key health and nutrition interventions are included in “scale-up integrated productive, maternal, newborn, and child health services”, (ii) what specific services and interventions are included in “family planning services”, (iii) what are the specific “commodities” referenced, (iv) what does “we are prepared to do more” mean, (v) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made or is considering, “to do more”, and in what Canadian and global forums, beyond the announced summit Canada will host on MNCH in Toronto at the end of May; (b) what consideration has the government given to a signature Canadian contribution to the post-2015 development agenda; (c) what consideration and diplomatic efforts has the government made or is it considering, and in what forums, to support the inclusion of a specific high-level goal in the post-2015 agenda to improve health and nutrition outcomes for women, newborns, and children; (d) what financial efforts has the government made or is it considering, and in what forums, to improve the health outcomes for (i) women, (ii) newborns, (iii) children, broken down by initiative; (e) regarding the Muskoka Initiative, what consideration and diplomatic and financial efforts, and in what forums, has the government given to (i) recommit to the investments made, (ii) extend and increase this Initiative or a similar one, beyond 2015 and beyond the $2.85 billion envelope, (iii) targeting the efforts of this Initiative to more effectively reach and provide health care to the most vulnerable mothers, newborns, and children, (iv) recommit to the vaccine investments made in this Initiative and to extend and increase the commitments made; (f) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made, or is it considering, and in what forums, to increase investments aimed at (i) strengthening local health systems, (ii) reducing the burden of infectious disease, (iii) improving maternal and child nutrition; (g) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made, or is it considering, and in what forums, to increase investments aimed at (i) prevention and treatment of neo-natal morbidity and prevention of neo-natal mortality, (ii) increased access to emergency obstetric care, (iii) prevention and treatment of childhood infectious disease; (h) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made or is it considering, and in what forums, to increase investment in reproductive and sexual health interventions, particularly regarding adolescent girls; (i) what consideration, and diplomatic and financial efforts has the government given to (i) broadening, strengthening and harmonizing the MNCH Accountability Frameworks, (ii) prioritizing universal birth registration, civil registration, and vital statistics, (iii) increasing investment in the collection, processing, and dissemination of data, especially at the local level; and (j) what consideration has the government given to the Lancet Global Investment Framework for Women’s (LGIFW) and Children’s Health, and the Lancet Commission for Investing in Health (LCIH), (i) to the Framework’s proposed two percent increase in spending, (ii) what diplomatic and financial efforts has the government made or is it considering, and in what forums, to start a discussion regarding the LGIFW?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

May 26th, 2014 / 5:25 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

Is that agreed?

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnsRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Notice of closure motionExtension of Sitting HoursRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

York—Simcoe Ontario

Conservative

Peter Van Loan ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, this morning we saw the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster speak for over half an hour on Government Motion No. 10 and yet not actually tell us anything about the NDP's position on it. To his credit, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville showed the way by speaking only as long as necessary to indicate that the Liberal Party will join with the Conservatives in working hard this spring. Then he resumed his seat, to the consternation of my friend from Burnaby—New Westminster.

Therefore, I must give notice that with respect to the consideration of Government Business No. 10, at the next sitting a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that debate be not further adjourned.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Agricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, after a long wait, I am rising to speak. I was prepared to speak at 3:15 p.m. It is now 5:30 p.m. I apologize for my nervousness and confusion. I have been thinking about this constantly, and I still have many questions about Bill C-18.

Bill C-18, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to agriculture and agri-food is yet another one of these omnibus bills. The Conservatives have practically admitted that it is intended to dazzle us while straying from the real objectives that should have been the focus of an overhaul of the agriculture and agri-food sector.

Of course, our legislation needs to be modernized and updated, but we also need to look at the resources we have and consider the environment and the economy. I will talk about the environment and climate change a bit later.

This bill is proposing changes to nine different laws, seven of which fall under the responsibility of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. The other two are under the purview of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. We are talking about nine different laws in a sector that is absolutely vital to our economy. It was once the pride of our economy from coast to coast. It is a critical part of the mix of prosperous activities that feed millions of people, not just in Canada, but also around the world.

This is a complex sector that generates hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefits. It is the lifeblood of regions across Canada. Even the most knowledgeable are confounded by this bill. All the issues addressed in Bill C-18, from plant breeders' rights to the consolidation of border security mechanisms, as well as increased access to the advance payments program—the famous APP—certainly deserve debate and a very thorough analysis. We shall see what twists and turns the bill will take. It does deserve special attention.

With respect to plant breeders' rights, the NDP believes that a more orderly and balanced approach is required. We all want to protect our Canadian farmers and public researchers. This sector of activity generates what is known in economic jargon as value-added, as well as hundreds of thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars.

Although we understand the vital role of intellectual property rights in encouraging innovation—and Canada has always been a leader in innovation—we want to ensure that Canadians have access to their extremely important agricultural heritage and that they can benefit from it. Various stakeholders across the country will be affected by the proposed changes in Bill C-18. For that reason it is important to consider its repercussions and to follow the normal process for studying this bill.

We must not let our farmers and researchers become ensnared in a bureaucratic maze that is already too cumbersome for them.

What is the purpose of the bill? It would amend the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act in order to change various aspects of the plant breeders' rights granted under the act, including the duration and scope of those rights and conditions for the protection of those rights.

In many countries, such as the United States, and even in Europe, the term of the grant of rights may be up to 25 or 30 years. This bill proposes to make it 18 to 20 years. We shall see what impact that will have.

Let us move on to the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act and the Plant Protection Act.

The bill would amend the Feeds Act to authorize inspectors to order that certain unlawful imports be removed from Canada or destroyed, authorize the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food to take into account information available from a review conducted by the government of a foreign state when he or she considers certain applications, and authorize the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to issue certificates setting out any information that he or she considers necessary to facilitate certain exports.

Farmers just want to prosper and develop in a healthy environment.

I talked about climate change. In some regions of Canada and elsewhere in the world, but particularly in Canada, these changes are making livestock and crop production more and more difficult. We might have to start importing livestock and wheat and canola, which we have had in Canada for decades. I have not even mentioned floods or drought.

I also talked about the economic environment. At the beginning of the tough winter that Quebec went through, when the temperature started to drop, the price of propane, which is essential to the pork industry and for quick backup heating, went from 39¢ a litre to 72¢ a litre. Up to a certain point, propane was inexpensive. Overnight, heating costs doubled on hog farms throughout Quebec and Ontario. The pork industry is already very fragile. Producers need a prosperous, healthy and economical environment. They need new money.

There is talk of advance payment programs. That is nice. It is certainly useful, but the pork producers in my riding are deep in debt. Their parents and grandparents earned their living raising pigs on ancestral lands. Their families have been there for 100 or 150 years. Now, they no longer have this healthy environment in which to prosper and adequately support their family. They are so deep in debt that they can pay only the interest. They cannot pay down the principal. What are they going to do? They need new money. Bill C-18 makes no mention of new money.

The government says it wants to facilitate free trade. That is nice, but pork producers still need to be able to successfully bring their pigs to market. The same goes for cattle farmers.

For farmers, the cornerstone of the food system is earning a decent living by producing quality food. Above all though, they have to own the means of production.

Seeds are now infertile and sterile. Genetically modified organisms are a serious problem. For large-scale production, that might be a solution. In Quebec, particularly in the Eastern Townships, hundreds of farmers are now farming organically. That segment has seen the strongest growth and has the greatest export potential. However, the government is not doing anything to help them or make their lives easier. There is plenty of demand but not enough supply.

In conclusion, I would say that the bill is not good enough and needs our attention. It is a step in the right direction, but there are serious problems, such as the Monsantos of this world. We absolutely have to take the time to protect our food supply. It used to be 100% Canadian. Today, our farmers own only about 15% of it. That is unacceptable. We have to save our agriculture.

Agricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

NDP

François Choquette NDP Drummond, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with my hon. colleague's speech. He has done good work and did a great job explaining the situation our farmers are dealing with.

This is also about the difficulties that family farms are facing. I have met quite a few farm families lately, including some that are part of the new expansion at Ferme des Poiriers, which I visited last week while we were in our ridings. They told me about how hard it is for family farms to survive, which is a serious problem.

This is an omnibus bill that makes a lot of changes, some of them good and others pretty troubling in some ways. I can talk about that in my speech.

My hon. colleague has worked very hard on the survival of family farms and their importance to Canada, Quebec and our ridings. Can he tell us about why family farms are so important and why it is important to keep supporting them?

Unfortunately, as I said, this omnibus bill covers nine different laws. Why is the Conservative government not interested in supporting family farms across Canada?

Agricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond, who does remarkable work for his riding and our party.

Family farms are the backbone of so many regions, which is why they are so important. Our ancestors left us fertile land all over Quebec and Canada that they began working over 100 years ago. Generations have worked this land. Now, young people are saying that family farms are not an ideal environment for their personal and professional development.

What is more, family farms mean the organic market, traditional agriculture and the diversity and survival of our regions. In my riding, there are areas where 60% of the economic spinoffs come from agriculture and family farms. Those farmers are proud of that.

For example, in the Coaticook region, over half of the economic spinoffs come from the agricultural sector. The family farms there survive because they banded together. These people still believe in their land and assets, and they want to protect them.

We need to have a little more debate on all the ins and outs of Bill C-18, and above all, we need to inject new funds into our family farms to help them survive.

Agricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Rosane Doré Lefebvre NDP Alfred-Pellan, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for his extremely personal and interesting speech. I know that this issue is very dear to his heart and that there are many farmers in his riding.

He spoke a little about the environment in his speech. I come from a Montreal suburb on the island of Laval, and 80% of the area that I represent is agricultural. We have some of the most beautiful arable land in the St. Lawrence area. We have farms such as the Vaillancourt, Turcot and Ouimet farms. All of these people really want to keep their land, to keep this greenbelt around Montreal intact and to make sure that Quebec has rich and fertile farmland.

What kind of standards and regulations does my colleague think we should implement in order to ensure that our agriculture is more sustainable and healthy and that the industry is fairer and greener?

Agricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Jean Rousseau NDP Compton—Stanstead, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who also does a fantastic job.

There are environmental measures, such as removing phosphorus from fertilizers. This extremely important measure has been a big help to Quebec and other areas of Canada.

We also need to adapt to climate change, particularly by buying local and modernizing transportation and equipment. This also requires dedicated people, such as my colleagues from Alfred-Pellan and Drummond, who are prepared to do anything to save agriculture in Quebec and Canada.

Agricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Fletcher Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the great member of Parliament for Brandon—Souris.

I am pleased to speak today in support of the agricultural growth act. This legislation would modernize and streamline nine different statutes, seven that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency uses to regulate Canada's agricultural sector, and two that are administered by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. I will list the nine statutes quickly: the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, the Agricultural Marketing Program Act, and the Farm Debt Mediation Act. Together, these acts and regulations are critical to the strength of our farming economy and the growth and safety of our agricultural products.

Some of the acts we are proposing to amend date back to 1950. I do not think you were even born at that time, Mr. Speaker, though the member for Brandon—Souris definitely was. The acts have served us well, but it is time for change.

As new agricultural production techniques and new developments in science arrive, the legislative tools for agricultural products must keep pace. This is especially true since some of our international trading partners have already innovated and modernized their approaches.

The agricultural growth act proposes amendments that would reduce the regulatory burden for industry, promote trade in agricultural products, and strengthen the safety of agricultural products, which are the first link in the food chain.

With this act, we would be building a more effective, innovative, and nimble legislative framework that reflects what is needed in the 21st century. We are bringing these laws up to speed with modern science and technology, innovation, and international practice in the agricultural industry on an international basis. We need to keep pace with the modern world, and we need to help our farmers grow their businesses.

On December 10 of last year, in a news release praising our government's efforts to bring in this legislation, Doug Robertson, president of the Western Barley Growers Association, summarized the bill as follows:

This Bill is good news for farmers. It encompasses many changes that farmers have been asking for, and will help modernize our grains and regulatory system. It will help create an environment that fosters innovation which our farmers need.

By doing this, we will enhance the competitiveness of Canadian business and ensure consistent regulatory approaches while aligning our legislation with that of our international trading partners. Updated, streamlined, and harmonized legislation will benefit Canadian farmers and industry while supporting the government's modernization initiatives.

The agricultural sector depends on a nimble legislative framework that is able to adapt to a changing industry landscape while providing a constant and effective approach. If Canadian farmers, along with the agriculture and food sector, are to keep their competitive edge on the global stage, they need 21st century tools to do so. We want to help these entrepreneurs harness innovation, add value, and create jobs and growth right across Canada. The agricultural growth act would do just that.

To illustrate, I would like to focus on the Feeds Act and the Fertilizers Act.

The agricultural growth act would propose new and broader controls on the safety of Canada's agricultural inputs through the licensing and registration of feeds and fertilizing manufacturers.

The proposed amendments would provide the CFIA with the ability to license or to register fertilizer and animal feed operators and facilities that import or sell products across provincial or international boundaries. This would be in addition to the current system, where feed and fertilizer products are registered product by product.

Licensing or registering facilities and operators would provide a more effective and timely approach to verify that agricultural products meet Canada's stringent safety standards. For this approach to work, we need to allow for better tracking and oversight of production processes and products being produced, a more efficient system to identify any issues that may come up, and a faster response if and when a product recall is required.

Licensing or registering feed and fertilizer facilities and operators would require regulations. Prior to any new requirements, the government would work closely with stakeholders to design an effective licensing or registration regime.

This amendment would not apply to farmers who make these products for use on their own farms. It would only apply to businesses that sell their animal feed and fertilizer products across provincial and international boundaries.

This amendment would also align Canadian legislation with international trading partners and help our feed and fertilizer industries maintain their export markets, especially in the United States.

The agricultural growth act was written to provide for new and stronger border controls for agricultural products.

CFIA inspectors will be able to order imported shipments of feeds, fertilizers and seeds out of Canada if they do not meet legal requirements. This is similar to the way in which imported plants and animals may be ordered removed from Canada if they do not meet legal requirements. The CFIA already takes action now, and does seize illegal products related to animal feed, seeds, and fertilizers. However, the act would propose updates on the way that we do it.

Under the current process, CFIA negotiates a solution, or there may be a court proceeding after the seizure of illegal products relating to animal feed, seeds, or fertilizers. This process works, but at times Canada must pay to dispose of illegal products that are seized.

The Speaker has given me the one-minute signal, which means that I have less than one minute to end my remarks. Though I could go on about how wonderful this act would be, the Speaker is shaking his head, suggesting that I do not.

Although what I have to say is very profound, I will leave the Canadian population with bated breath.

However, I will say that the legislation would be an improvement. It would bring Canada into the 21st century.

Just think, some of these bills have not been changed since 1950. That was before rock and roll.

Agricultural Growth ActGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Joe Comartin

I must say to the hon. member that 1950 does not seem that far away.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.