Andrew Kania

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, in addition, I have similar questions with respect to the use of antibiotics in animals.

When people go to the grocery store, they will see some producers advertise specifically “no use of antibiotics”, but other producers use them. I am wondering what the most recent scientific evidence that we are relying upon as Canadians happens to be in terms of what is safe or not safe, whether we should be allowing these antibiotics, and whether there is some form of deleterious effect that is occurring in the population with respect to perhaps humans not having the benefit of these various antibiotics because we are getting them in our food. So perhaps we are not able to get the same medical benefits from them.

I am not a scientist, I am a lawyer, but I am wondering whether we should be considering this.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I want to discuss the health of food items, and specifically animals with respect to hormones. In Canada, we allow the use of bovine growth hormones, which are banned in the EU. My question is, what is the most recent scientific information that the Canadian government has in terms of the use of growth hormones in animals in Canada and specifically how they relate to food consumption and health issues?

Subject to what the minister might tell the House in terms of what the most recent studies are, my next question will be, will the minister commission a recent study to actually show, based on the most recent scientific evidence possible, and frankly, capabilities, what is healthy, what is not healthy and what we should be allowing at this stage by way of growth hormones in any type of animal for consumption?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, continuing with organics, I am also interested in making sure that there is meaningful supervision to ensure that people do not just slap labels on products and call them organic.

What I would like to know is whether the minister thinks what we currently have is adequate and what might be considered for the future.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Avalon and the member for Malpeque.

I would like to review four areas with the minister. The first one is organic food.

As the minister is aware, there are divergent standards between what Canada requires and what the Americans require. I am wondering if the minister has any plans to do something about that to bring some form of harmonization so that first of all, we know that what is coming into our country is actually certified as organic and second, that we are able to export and help our producers bring those products to the United States.

[Marine Liability Act, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I think that it was voted against simply because of politics. From what I saw in the committee, there was an agreement that they would simply vote against all Liberal amendments. I do not think they actually considered it.

When I was able to sit down with some of the members of the committee afterward, I believe many of them were actually supportive, in theory, of this extra protection but I think politics trumped what was right on behalf of Canadians. That is why I am here and that is why I am asking the Conservatives to consider this and to do what is right on behalf of Canadians, rather than simply focusing on what their political objectives might be in trying to defeat Liberals no matter what.

[Marine Liability Act, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for supporting my amendment and recognizing immediately that additional work was required to make this legislation better.

I am always concerned when somebody puts something down on paper that sounds good and looks good but does not actually do something, which is what the government has done with respect to this maritime lien in clause 139. The average person will not be able to use it or will choose not to use it because the amounts of money that we are talking about, generally speaking, that Canadians will seek to go after are quite small in relation to what they will need to pay a lawyer. On a practical basis, they may not even have the opportunity because these vessels may leave Canada. Some may come back and some may not come back.

I believe that to make this maritime lien an actual right that will work, we need to do more. Why put it in there if it is not going to work? I would encourage the government and members of the committee to reconsider this for the benefit of their constituents.

[Marine Liability Act, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Newton—North Delta.

I have the honour to speak today to Bill C-7, An Act to amend the Marine Liability Act. I will restrict my comments to the maritime lien that is proposed in clause 139.

I am not a member of the transport committee but I have attended four different meetings. I was a substitute at the first meeting and I noted a serious problem in the legislation, so I came back for three other meetings to see if we could fix it. I proposed amendments specifically with respect to this maritime lien and those amendments were discussed on May 7. I am disappointed to say that the government voted against them so I am here today to explain the situation and ask the Conservatives to reconsider them. However, at a minimum, Canadians need to know that they voted against these proposed amendments and why they did.

Specifically, clause 139, the maritime lien, which is what we call a right, states:

A person, carrying on business in Canada, has a maritime lien against a foreign vessel for claims that arise

(a) in respect of goods, materials or services wherever supplied to a foreign vessel for its operation or maintenance, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, stevedoring and lighterage; and

(b) out of a contract relating to the repair or equipping of a foreign vessel.

It is a lot of language but, in short, it means that if a foreign vessel comes into Canada and a person supplies services to it, the person has a right to get paid and attempt to exercise that right against the actual ship.

The next question is whether this right actually does anything for the person. The problem is that it does not because, in most circumstances, that right would be meaningless. Although the person would have the right to get payment, how would the person actually do it because, generally speaking, people will have extreme difficulty trying to get the money?

We need to look at this on a very practical basis. If people are owed $200, $500, $2,000 or whatever it may be, how will they get their money? Although this proposed maritime lien would give people the right to try to get the money, what do they need to do? With the way the current system is written, which has a gap in terms of the remedy, people must sue. Therefore, if there is a foreign vessel in a port that owes people money and it is about to leave, there is nothing people can do about it. If it is from a foreign country, people will need to hire a lawyer and try to sue somewhere even if a judge will accept jurisdiction in a foreign country. This is not a practical right because there is no way to exercise this.

Even if the ship were to remain in Canada, people would need to hire a lawyer, which means money. Whatever the bill may be, whether it is $400, $500, $800 or more, people need to hire a lawyer in order to sue, pay a filing fee and then try to get an order to stop the ship or sell the ship in order to get their money. People would then need to prepare motion material, which means a notice of motion, an affidavit or two and a documentation order, that is assuming they could even find a lawyer who can get it into court. Even if they do find a lawyer who can get into court, they then have to wait. It could be a number of hours and the lawyers charge by the hour. Assuming they could even find a lawyer and even find a judge, they may end up spending a few thousand dollars trying to enforce a debt of a few hundred dollars that is owed. People will not do it.

Once again, I am not on this committee but I kept coming back because I thought this would be better for Canadians. Sections 128 and 129 already have a provision for a designated officer to direct a ship to stop and to issue a detention order if it looks like something untoward has occurred. What that would really mean is that some problems would be solved. First, a ship escaping or leaving Canada would be stopped. Once it is here it would not be able to go anywhere, which means we are preserving that right and that lien.

Second, if a detention order were issued, part of it would say that the foreign vessel must pay a certain amount of money before it could be released. It just keeps the status quo. It keeps it there. The owner can pay the money and go or go in front of a judge, which puts the onus on the foreign vessel owner to actually do something. At least Canadians would be protected.

With the amendments that I proposed, which I am disappointed to say that the Conservatives voted against, ships would be kept in Canada and they would either have to pay or go before a judge. That would skip the first layer of having to actually hire a lawyer and spend all that money.

The Canadian Bar Association had a representative who said that he was opposed to these amendments. I understand that because I am the former secretary of the Ontario Bar Association representing approximately 17,000 lawyers. The job of the Ontario Bar Association and the Canadian Bar Association is to represent lawyers. I am particularly disappointed with the parliamentary secretary, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca, who is also a lawyer. He said that he knows how a court works, and I believe him, but he was supporting lawyers. In essence, he said, “You can hire a lawyer, you can pay a lawyer and you can get into court and we'll leave things the way they are”. That means that people who cannot afford a lawyer or people who have very small claims will not have any fair redress. I am very disappointed with that because our job is not to represent a particular constituency group, but Canadians in general. Although I am lawyer, I am here to represent the people of Brampton West and Canadians. I am very disappointed with the government for this.

I would like to read some specific quotes by the parliamentary secretary when he was at the committee on Thursday, May 7. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure gave examples and said, “You've got a large, expensive ship...with a small bill, whatever it may be, owed to Canadians, and I just don't see that as being appropriate”.

In essence, he was siding with the foreign vessels and with the lawyers over Canadian citizens who may be owed money but, for some unfair reason, the foreign vessel has refused to pay them. I do not see that as appropriate for a member of Parliament.

A second quote by the parliamentary secretary reads, “I believe lawyers can be called on a phone--I know I was available most nights until midnight--and can do a lien and find a judge in time to do it, even after hours”.

What he is saying is that we will not be changing the system, we will not be making it better for Canadians and constituents. We will keep it with lawyers. We will keep this as an expensive system even though the amounts in question are so small that either people will not bother and, therefore, will be treated unfairly, or they will not be able to afford to exercise their right. I find that quite disappointing.

The legal counsel for the Department of Transport acknowledges that this change would be something that would be added to the legislation. He says that it would be an element to the way in which a maritime lien is enforced and a positive step to help Canadians and our fellow constituents.

Despite that comment, the parliamentary secretary and the government, for whatever reason, just voted against all of this to defeat what I think would be a very positive change for Canadians.

Although this may seem complicated, it is not. It is as simple as this. There is a new right, a maritime lien under clause 139. There would be no way to practically use this unless there is a substantive change. It just would not happen on an everyday practical basis.

I proposed a substantive amendment that would create a remedy so Canadians could enforce and use this maritime lien. It would help Canadians, who we should be focusing on, and innocent service providers, not advocacy groups, such as the owners of foreign vessels or lawyers. There is nothing wrong with lawyers making a decent living but we can cut out the first step for the benefit of Canadians and still require a court as a second step. This would save money and protect the rights of Canadians.

[Petitions, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are understandably very concerned about the war taking place in Sri Lanka. Canadians would like the Conservative government to do something to actually intervene and get the attention of the Sri Lankan government to have a ceasefire.

This petition calls on the Conservative government to do something to help in peaceful negotiations: oppose economic sanctions, withdraw the high commissioner, raise this matter in some manner by ensuring it gets raised at the UN Security Council, and isolate Sri Lanka by having it removed from the Commonwealth of Nations. The petitioners are asking that something be done to get the attention of the Sri Lankan government in order to stop the fighting so that innocent people are no longer losing their lives.

[Committees of the House, April 22nd, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations in relation to the exercise of bylaw-making powers by Indian bands pursuant to the Indian Act.

[Secure, Adequate, Accessible and Affordable Housing Act, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak to this issue. I clearly support this bill going to committee.

I would like to review the preamble of this bill and its objectives. It specifically states that this bill is to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians. Frankly, I am shocked to hear that the Conservatives would not support that and would vote against this bill. I cannot understand that as a Canadian.

How can anybody argue against at least studying the establishment of a national housing strategy? That is all that would occur if the bill went to committee. Canadians need to know that the Conservatives do not even wish to study the establishment of a national housing strategy. That is unbelievable.

It has been proposed in clause 5 that there be a conference between the federal government and provinces within 180 days. How could anybody vote against that? Why would we not try to come up with some ideas?

There is a major problem with this bill: It should be a government bill. That is the problem. The government should be concerned about social housing and alleviating poverty in Canada. It should not be up to a private member to put this forward. I find that shameful.

I have a letter from Peel Poverty Action Group, dated March 18, 2009, which talks about:

the need for affordable housing in Peel Region, which has the largest waiting list (13,500 families) and the longest wait (more than 10 years) of any municipality in Canada;

On behalf of the 13,500 families in the region of Peel that are waiting for affordable housing, I say shame on the Conservatives for not even wanting to study the possibility of a national housing strategy. They will not even let it go to committee to consider it. How is that reasonable? Canadians need to know that they are opposed to even thinking about helping people who need housing in Canada.

Poverty and housing are related. Obviously if people were not living in poverty they would not need affordable housing. So the first question is, how do we fix that?

Before I get to that, I would like Canadians to know that not only do the Conservatives currently oppose studying this issue and trying to fix it, but they made it worse. Canadians need to know about all their cuts.

In budget 2006, the Conservative government cut $200 million of the $1.6 billion the Liberals had committed to affordable housing. Imagine how much better Canadians would be now if that had not happened.

On September 25, 2006, the Conservative government cut $45 million in the administration of CMHC programs.

On May 8, 2006, the Conservative government cut $770 million from one of Canada's most popular, efficient and effective programs designed to fight global warming, the EnerGuide program.

I know it is unbelievable, but there is more.

The Conservatives later reversed their decision to cut EnerGuide in February 2007 but did not restore the $550 million to help low-income households.

There is more. In December 2006, the Conservative government announced that it would also cancel the SCPI program. After all that, Conservatives pretend that they are actually trying to help. Yet they will not even study this issue in committee if they have their way.

If Liberals had been elected last fall, things would already be better. The Liberal government had committed to the alleviation of poverty. It had a 30-50 plan, a well thought-out plan, to alleviate poverty by reducing by 30% all Canadians living below the poverty line and by 50% all children. People would be better off. There would not be the same need for affordable housing going into the future if Liberals had been elected.

There were additional tax measures such as the guaranteed family supplement to help 500,000 needy Canadians, giving them each $1,225 more per family per year. We are not seeing the Conservatives help people in that measure.

In addition, income supports would have increased in areas such as public transit, child care and social housing. This is right from the Liberal platform.

If the Liberal Party had been elected, this is exactly what would happened. We care. A Liberal government would tackle the housing crisis by helping to provide for 30,000 new social housing units and refurbishing another 30,000 existing units to make them more livable.

As part of this commitment we would also expand subsidies for dedicated units for low-income Canadians in federally funded cooperative housing. The Liberal Party would have renewed the residential rehabilitation program and the homelessness partnering initiative. A Liberal government would help low-income families with their energy bills. This would have the double benefit of alleviating poverty and helping the environment.

With the platform that we ran on, if we had won the election, suffering would already be in the process of being alleviated and when we win the next election, that is what will take place. We will work toward helping the people who need it.

In the interim, I am proud to state that I will be supporting this private member's bill. It should go to committee. I do not understand how any responsible Canadian, regardless of political affiliation, would not wish at least to study the issue, to bring in anti-poverty groups and other experts to hear what they have say, and make some form of meaningful recommendations to the House for the benefit of Canadian society. I find it shocking that the Conservatives will not even let us consider making people's lives better.

On behalf of the people in the region of Peel, on behalf of all Canadians living below the poverty line, I am proud to state that I will be supporting the further study of this issue in committee. I challenge all colleagues in the House to put aside their political affiliations and recognize that this is a serious problem for all Canadians and that the issue should at least be studied in committee.