Debates of Sept. 28th, 2012

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the timeline actually backstops the fact that our system does work. There is no endemic situation out there from E. coli. E. coli exists across the country on a daily basis. Having said that, this government is focused on food safety. We want to go beyond what consumers expect. We have done that by constantly reinforcing what the CFIA needs in the form of more inspection staff and more dollars to get the job done.

We will continue to focus on food safety. I wish the NDP members would help us do that by voting for our initiatives.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the system is so effective, why was it the Americans who notified us of the contamination?

Yesterday, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency admitted that it still has no plan to improve measures to prevent such contamination. Canadians are worried and are losing faith in the government's ability to make sure our food is safe.

When will the Conservatives make public health a priority and stop cutting food inspection?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, there are no such cuts. In the last budget we put another $100 million into the CFIA to give it the capacity to ensure that Canadian consumers can enjoy safe food on a daily basis. Of course, the NDP voted against that initiative.

We continue to build the capacity of the CFIA to get the job done on behalf of Canadian consumers.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the XL Foods contamination problem continues. The whole plant is now shut down. The company fell short of proper standards way back in August and the government's inspection system failed to be on top of it then. That is partly because government inspectors do not actually inspect much any more. They just monitor company inspections. Even worse, 12 days went by before Canadians were told.

Why did the science take that long? Is it because the government fired 90 biologists, the scientists whose job it was to do that science?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, that question comes from another ill-informed opposition member. If he would care to remember, the system that the CFIA is using now, called CVS, was brought in in 2005 under his government. If he does not like it, why did he not say so then? I do not understand what he is caterwauling about.

What we have done as a government is consistently construct a stronger CFIA to ensure it has the capacity to ensure consumers are safely served.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that complacency brought us Walkerton.

The United States, not Canada, first discovered the contamination issue at XL Foods. That is embarrassing.

Why did it take 12 days for the government to notify Canadians of the risks? Will the government admit that the delay happened because it fired 90 biologists?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely not true.

We will continue to ensure that food safety officials respond efficiently based on sound science and internationally accepted protocols to ensure the safety of food for Canadian consumers.

We are introducing important legislation to help the CFIA respond to food safety situations more swiftly. If the opposition is as serious about safety as it claims to be, I hope the Liberals will support Bill S-11.

Natural Resources

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, former Conservative minister Jim Prentice took the government to the woodshed yesterday over its mismanagement of pipelines. Canadian resources need access to markets, but the process for getting there is badly mangled by the government's failure to consult aboriginal peoples.

“There will be no way forward on west coast access without the central participation of the first nations...”, Mr. Prentice said. “The crown obligation to engage first nations in a meaningful way has yet to be taken up”, he said.

Why is that?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member opposite has it wrong. When the Canadian Council for Aboriginal Business estimates that oil sands companies do 1.3 billion dollars' worth of business each year with aboriginal-owned companies, I think that shows that consultation in energy development is working for those aboriginal communities.

An independent, comprehensive, science-based evaluation of the proposed northern gateway project is currently under way. First nations are being consulted extensively as part of that review.

The Environment

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, more and more Conservatives are criticizing other Conservatives. They cannot agree. Former fisheries minister Tom Siddon has already said that the Conservative plan for fish habitat protection is a disaster. And now, former environment minister Jim Prentice is criticizing his former colleagues who refuse to consult the first nations about pipeline projects.

The Conservatives do not listen to Canadians, first nations or other Conservatives. Who do they listen to? Do they listen to lobbyists?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member who we are listening to. We are listening to the 41 first nations that we are providing funding for so that they can participate in the northern gateway pipeline review. Those are the Canadians we are listening to.

As I mentioned, we have an independent, comprehensive, science-based evaluation of the northern gateway pipeline taking place. The only ones who seem to want to interfere with that science-based process is the opposition and its House leader.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the government is not consulting. I can understand why the minister is reluctant to engage in meaningful consultation with first nations. It is because he will probably hear an answer that he does not want to hear.

However, as Mr. Prentice warned his party yesterday, complacency is dangerous. The northern gateway carries enormous risks. If the Conservatives succeed in ramming it through, it is Canadians who will pay the price.

Will the minister take the advice of an old friend? Will he do his homework and will he actually consult with first nations?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the only ones who have made their minds up about this project are the opposition members. They have opposed every development project that has ever been proposed in Canada and they oppose our trade deals. Everything they talk about, including their $21 billion carbon tax, works against Canadians. It is time they set aside their ideology, join with us and start to create jobs for Canadians across the country.

Public Safety

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be nice if the Conservative members would stop making things up about the opposition and tried answering some questions. Let us see if we can get an answer here.

Reuters reports a new computer security breach by a Chinese group, and Calgary-based Telvent was the target. If it were not for the company warning their customers, the public would have never known.

Could the government confirm foreign involvement in this attack? In light of this, could Conservatives tell us if national security is part of the criteria for the Nexen takeover review?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government takes cyber security seriously and operates on the advice of security experts.

Our government recently made significant investments of $90 million in a cyber security strategy designed to defend against electronic threats, hacking and cyber espionage.

Telecommunications carriers operating in Canada are certainly subject to Canadian law. We will continue to work to protect the interests of Canadians and protect them from cyber security threats.

International Trade

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all we hear from that side are more broken promises, and here is another one.

Canadians may be surprised to learn that Conservatives tabled a new trade agreement with China this week. Paul Wells from Maclean's reports that the agreement allows arbitration involving Canadian companies to be dealt with behind closed doors.

Why did Conservatives agree to have arbitration done in secret with no transparency? When will they bring the deal before the House for debate and a vote?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, improving access to high-growth markets in the Asia-Pacific region is a key part of our government's pro-trade plan. Our priority is to remove Chinese trade barriers and increase exports such as lumber, grain, beef and value-added Canadian products.

Our government's long-standing commitment is to provide public access to investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms. Canada's FIPA with China is no different. As we do with other investor-state disputes, this FIPA provides for Canada to make all documents submitted to an arbitration tribunal available to the public.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Conservatives, the NDP believes that we need clear criteria to assess trade agreements.

The Conservatives said that they were going to table any new trade agreements in the House of Commons for 21 days of debate and comments, but they did not say whether they would put such agreements to a vote. I am wondering if they are worried about the result.

In the trade agreement with China, a secret arbitration system has replaced the courts and, according to experts, this agreement is based on the Chinese model, which will certainly benefit China.

Will the Conservatives allow the House to debate and vote on this agreement without imposing a time limit?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our objective with this agreement is to ensure that for the first time Canadians have real protection for the investments they make in China. We think it is important to protect Canadian business people and investors.

Our government has introduced an unprecedented process for putting Canadian international treaties to the scrutiny of the House of Commons. That is why it was tabled in the House. That is why there is a period of time and a process set out.

If opposition members wish to see a vote on that treaty in the House, they can have it. In fact, they have an opportunity on Monday to have it debated and voted upon. If they do not like that, they can do it on Tuesday and have it debated and voted upon. It is up to them whether they want to do that.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in his speech in New York, the Prime Minister did not announce new cuts to seniors programs. Instead, he launched into a diatribe against international consensus.

Let us speak about the international consensuses that the Conservatives tried to scuttle: the consensus on the ban on asbestos, the consensus on the fight against climate change, the consensus on cluster munitions and the consensus on arms trade.

In these areas, the Prime Minister agrees more with the rogue states than with our allies. Is this something to brag about?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that Canada is not interested in arms trade treaties, cluster munitions treaties, is ridiculous. Canada has set some of the highest global standards on export control of munitions. Canada looks forward to new negotiations on arms trade treaties.

Foreign Affairs

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to walk even a few blocks to address the UN and promote Canada. Today, he is refusing to meet with Canadian media to answer questions.

While our allies are doing the hard work of diplomacy, Conservatives have put Canada on the sidelines. Does the Prime Minister think that a policy of self-imposed isolation is the best way of advancing Canada's interests?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the Prime Minister will be meeting with two world leaders later today in New York. However, under our government, Canada's policy is no longer to please every dictator with a vote at the United Nations.

We have taken strong, principled positions to promote freedom, human rights and the rule of law. In fact, the Prime Minister has delivered the UN General Assembly speech twice as many times as the two previous prime ministers of Canada.

National Defence

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only was the process to purchase F-35s a complete fiasco, but the actual decision to purchase them was made without key information. In a report presented to the government, the air force clearly mentioned that more information was needed on competing aircraft available to Canada.

If the Conservatives knew that important information was missing on other options, why did they blindly go ahead and pick the F-35s?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the National Fighter Procurement Secretariat is to ensure transparency and due diligence in the process to replace the CF-18s. No money has been spent to purchase new fighter jets and no money will be spent until the secretariat conducts an independent review of the cost of replacing the CF-18s.