Debates of Oct. 26th, 2012

Food Safety

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member and the House that the CFIA acted immediately to contain the products beginning on September 4, and has been acting ever since.

The CFIA notified the minister that it will be reissuing a licence to this facility once the minister is assured that all product leaving this facility will be safe.

As a last comment, every time we have attempted to give the CFIA more resources, like new inspectors or additional funding, this member and his party have voted against these measures.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from the start of the XL Foods crisis, the Minister of Agriculture has claimed that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency does not have the authority to force XL Foods to provide the information needed to prevent and manage the crisis. Yesterday, though, the minister said that the agency should have been more forceful and demanded information from XL Foods and that it would have gotten what it needed.

Why this about-face? What has changed?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that the CFIA acted appropriately and responsibly with respect to XL. What is also clear is that the member is not conversant with what is in Bill S-11.

We have a superior food safety system. This has been recognized in a report on OECD countries.

Bill S-11 takes our superior system and makes it better. The member is asking about the authorities that the CFIA has. If he would only read Bill S-11, he would see where we are headed.

Foreign Investment

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, critics of the Conservatives are coming out of the woodwork. The Wall Street Journal has criticized the Conservatives' strange actions regarding foreign investment. It has pointed out that there is no basis for the government's decisions. There is still uncertainty over the meaning of net benefit, while the November 9 deadline for a decision on the Nexen deal is fast approaching.

Enough is enough. Can they tell us whether changes will be made before the decision is made, by midnight on November 9, at the latest?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the government will follow the Investment Canada Act and all of its provisions in determining the net benefit to Canada of proposed reviewable acquisitions.

We will ensure that whatever decision is made, it will be done in the national interest of Canada.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, nowhere in the Investment Canada Act is there reference to flipping a coin at midnight on a Friday night, after leading a company to believe it is going to be accepted. After promising a new net benefit test for two years, Conservatives may or may not actually do their work, creating total uncertainty. Markets want certainty. Canadians want to have a say.

The Calgary Chamber of Commerce says the NDP is right. The Globe and Mail and The Wall Street Journal say the NDP is right. The Conservatives are keeping Canadians in the dark with this irresponsible way of decision-making.

Will there be changes to the net benefit test before the Nexen deadline on November 9?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentions the flipping of coins. Canadians will not have any coins left to flip after that $21.5 billion NDP carbon tax. They are asking for change, but the reality is that Canadians will not have any change left in their pockets when the NDP carbon tax is through with them. Our energy sector, our workers, our consumers all agree. The NDP carbon tax would bankrupt this economy and turn back the clock. We will not let it happen.

Food Safety

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when challenged about what he would have done differently in handling the XL Foods recall, the agriculture minister replied, “CFIA would have been a lot harder-nosed”. Finally, we have an admission of complacency, yet still nothing to take responsibility, nothing to reverse food safety cuts, nothing to reassure Canadians that our inspectors are protecting our food.

Now Canadians have learned that unregulated in-house tenderizing processes could also be making them sick.

What is the minister going to do to ensure that the CFIA addresses the problem of the contamination from meat tenderizing?

[Leona Aglukkaq, Conservative, Minister of Health and Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, Health Canada is always reviewing new science and new information to ensure that the safety of Canadians is protected. That is why the department has started a review of the science around mechanical tenderization. Any new information will be communicated to Canadians.

While this review is ongoing, we will continue to recommend that Canadians take steps to protect against food-borne illnesses, such as cooking their food and washing their hands.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from axing the Canadian Wheat Board to cutting AgriStability payments, the Conservatives have made it clear they are not interested in helping farmers. Changes to the Canadian Grain Commission tucked away in this monster budget would undermine the integrity of Canada's internationally renowned grain system. Discarding the present bonding requirements would hurt farmers and the industry.

Would the minister explain why these half-baked changes are being forced through this budget?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the member does not understand the challenges facing farmers.

Our government was elected by farmers on a platform to modernize the grain sector in Canada and to keep our economy strong. We have brought in marketing freedom. The next step is to renew the Grain Commission, something that has not been done in 40 years. These changes would eliminate about $20 million in unnecessary costs in the grain handling system, costs that are ultimately borne by the farmers.

The member must stand up for farmers.

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this monster budget also repeals the grain appeal tribunals. The changes are throwing up roadblocks for farmers who disagree with decisions made regarding the weight or quality of the grain they bring to market. The farmers are the ones who will suffer from these poorly thought-out reforms.

Instead of abandoning farmers, does the minister have another solution to propose in cases of conflict?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, our government was elected by farmers on a platform to modernize the grain sector in Canada and to keep our economy strong. These changes will eliminate about $20 million in unnecessary costs in the grain handling system, costs that are ultimately borne by the farmers.

I will read a quote from Doug Robertson, the president of the Western Barley Growers Association. He said, “This announcement is a very positive one in the evolution of our grain system in Canada.”

Food Safety

[Ruth Ellen Brosseau, NDP, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives claim that Bill S-11 is crucial to preventing other problems related to E. coli. Yesterday, however, the minister admitted that his department did not impose strict rules when it comes to food safety. If the inspectors are not doing their jobs and do not have the resources they need, new legislation will not change anything.

The minister has admitted that his system does not work. Will he now allow the external review of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that the NDP has been calling for?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, I was at that same meeting. I do not know whether this member was paying attention, but what the minister was saying is that Canada's food safety system is a superior food safety system, not as rated by us. This is the conclusion of a report on OECD countries. The minister spoke about additional resources that he gave the CFIA: 700 net new inspectors; hundreds of millions of dollars in new funding for the CFIA, all of which this member and her party have voted against.

Public Safety

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has provided Canadians with more details on the Conservatives' dismal failure on cyber security. Out of the $980 million of approved spending that was supposed to go to cyber security, the Auditor General was able to identify only $20.9 million that was actually used for cyber security. No wonder the Auditor General found that progress has been slow at protecting our national infrastructure against cyber threats.

Can the minister explain to this House why the money allocated for cyber security is not being used for that purpose?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has acknowledged the positive steps that our government has taken to defend against electronic threats, hacking and cyber espionage through our cyber security strategy. We are taking action on the Auditor General's recommendations and we will continue to enhance cyber security in Canada. In fact, just last week our government announced significant additional funding to strengthen Canada's cyber security system.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one has to wonder what planet the Conservatives are living on. In their world, cyberpirates will hopefully wait and launch their attacks only during office hours, because the centre is not even open 24/7. Unbelievable. And now we have to ask them to be patient, because the money was not managed properly.

How can the Conservatives explain that only 2% of the money set aside for cybersecurity was actually used for that purpose?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is clearly confused. At all times experts from the Canadian Cyber Incident Response Centre are available to deal with emergency situations. In fact, the Auditor General said, “[T]he government has made progress in securing its systems against cyber threats, in improving communications, and in building partnerships with owners and operators of critical infrastructure.”

We just ask that the opposition get behind our endeavours to crack down on criminals, including those who are trying to hack and interfere with our cyber security.

Democratic Reform

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Prime Minister suggested that changes should be made to the electoral process.

One of the most important reforms was to have been made seven months ago. The Conservatives promised to give the Chief Electoral Officer more power to examine in detail the financial statements of parties. The Conservatives promised to take action within six months. That deadline passed several weeks ago.

They have introduced nothing and so the NDP is doing their job instead. Will they support our bill?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, voters made this decision, and that is the way democracy is supposed to work. We have already promised to look at some reforms to our election laws, and a proposal will be coming in due course. As for the Supreme Court of Canada's decision, it states of the Liberal candidate: “[W]e reject the candidate’s...attempt to disenfranchise entitled voters and so undermine public confidence in the electoral process”.

Budget Implementation Legislation

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is tokenism to divide the budget bill for study but not for voting. It is like a thimbleful of respect for Parliament in a sea of contempt. If it is possible for the Conservatives to divide the budget bill for study, why is it not possible to divide the budget bill for voting? Why can we not apply the same principle, if in fact the Conservatives have any principles when it comes to respect for Parliament?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, here we have the Liberal Party asking for yet again more delays when Canadians are impatiently waiting for measures that will in fact help them.

We have had measures in our economic action plan over several years that have helped create 820,000 net new job since July 2009. There are measures in this bill that would extend the job creating hiring credit for small business, expand tax relief for investment in clean energy and improve registered disability savings plans.

We will not listen to the Liberals as they attempt to delay for the sake of delay. We will get this through so that Canadians can benefit.

International Trade

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister went to great lengths to claim that tabling the Canada-China agreement meets new standards of transparency. However, the government's promise was not about tabling such agreements in the House. In fact, the 2006 Conservative platform stated that they would place “international treaties before Parliament for ratification”.

The term “ratification” means that there will be debate and a vote. Therefore, let us debate and vote.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway]

Mr. Speaker, this treaty provides greater protection for Canadians against discriminatory and arbitrary practices. Despite the misinformed rhetoric of the opposition parties, the obligations of the parties are fully reciprocal.

The hypocrisy of the Liberals is astounding. Not only did they not have a policy for tabling treaties in this House, but when they chose to table treaties, it was years after they were ratified and already in force. So much for transparency.

On this side of the House, we are delivering real benefits for Canadian businesses.