Debates of Nov. 24th, 2014

Agricultural Growth Act

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, the horticulture and the landscaping industries were talking about varieties of roses that we could develop here. There is no doubt that there is a whole lot that is good in the bill for Canadian farmers. However, it is only going to be good if the money is there for research. If we are going to have the research in our country and come up with new varieties, so be it.

There were many groups that came forward, and there were two items. One was that with global climate change and various things, we need to continue to have better varieties. Also, we are positioned well to be selling varieties of plants all over the world.

What I am concerned about is smaller farmers getting pushed around a bit and not having the legal advice or legal wherewithal to protect themselves. If there is one thing that I would like to see added to this, it is to have a kind of ombudsman, so that if a small farmer feels he is not being treated right and does not have the capacity to take on the big guys, that we step in. That is what I see is lacking here.

The proof is in the pudding. It is about how this is going to roll out. A lot of small farmers do not have the money to defend themselves. There is a part here for an ombudsman, or someone, so if they have a complaint if they are treated wrong about their seed issues, someone will take that up for them.

There was a lot of support from witnesses for that part of the bill.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend talked a bit about public research. I would like him to elaborate a bit more. The bill would allow public research with patented material up to a certain level, but not for commercial use. People could not actually commercialize it if they used it. If they could not actually make money from it, and there has been a decrease in public dollars actually going into public research, does the member have any fear or concern that the public research piece of the balance may actually decline? Where does he see it going? Even though they could get the material from a private company, they could not commercialize it, because it would be explicit that it was for non-commercial use.

Does the member see any threat to public research in the sense that there is a lot of stuff to work with but nothing to do? What effect would that have on farmers, ultimately?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Conservative government has a track record of cutting research. The other problem we have to watch, if the research is commercial, is whether the big companies are doing it and the government is ponying up money.

Recently I was at the agricultural college in Truro, and I saw the research being done there with public dollars. It was amazing. Just on the blueberry industry alone it was on spraying equipment, reduced pesticides, and varieties.

At the end of the day, we have to have a good research program in this country, one that is publicly funded. Not always is the best research commercialized, big-company research. A lot of research can be done. In Newfoundland, they have the cold-crops research place. Without public money going in, it would never happen. No matter where one is in this country, we need public research and public funds going into it, or we are just going to have big companies like Monsanto taking over all the research.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his thorough speech on this legislation. He is an expert, of course, on agriculture, with his background, and he brings a lot to this House in terms of that experience.

The member just spoke of the importance of research. I want to ask him a specific question about the research being done in the Annapolis Valley at the Kentville research station. In recent years, we have seen, through attrition, a reduction in the number of researchers working there. They are not being replaced at retirement.

Given the member's experience in horticulture, does he agree that regional, decentralized research is essential to the future of industries, whether it is the apple industry or the growing grape and wine industry? The research done in the Annapolis Valley is going to render a different result than that done in the Okanagan Valley or in Prince Edward Country in Ontario or in the Niagara region. As such, should we not be focusing more on regional research as opposed to centralizing it, which seems to be the trend with the current government?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Kings—Hants for that question. He has one of the nicest areas to visit at apple blossom time or any time of the year.

The first time I visited that research station, I was 19 years old. I was in agricultural college, and I was amazed, and I am still amazed by what the researchers do in Kentville. When I was there first, they were doing research on potatoes for the valley and the type of soil they had there. Ten years later, when I went there, they were doing research on apples, and they came out with varieties that transformed the whole apple industry in the Annapolis Valley, which was amazing. It brought the apple industry back. Now when I go there, they are doing grape varieties and other varieties of fruit and vegetables that are very important for the Atlantic region and the valley region. That is key.

We have two things. We have climate change and we have consumer tastes changing. It is hard to believe, but where all those potato fields could have been, where they were doing research, now we see vineyards all through the Annapolis Valley, and it has become one of the fastest-growing areas.

It is key to have that research. It is one thing to bring people in and invest money in agriculture in the area, but they need research and people to help them with varieties, soil tests, and whatever needs to be done. That is a very important point the member for Kings—Hants made. If we do not continue to have that, these pockets of our country are not going to have the environment for agriculture we have seen over the years. We are going to lose it, because research in certain areas is not applicable to other areas.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I would first like to say that my thoughts and prayers go out to Pat Quinn's family for their loss today. He was a great Canadian.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to express my support for Bill C-18, the agricultural growth act. This is a well-informed bill.

The proposed legislation is the result of extensive consultation with Canadian farmers, producers, and the organizations that represent them. In my view, this is the mark of a progressive, responsive, and responsible government. It is one that identifies, reviews, and establishes laws, policies, and programs in collaboration with the citizens most likely to be affected.

I support Bill C-18 because it would foster the continued growth and maturation of this country's agriculture and agri-food industry. One of the ways the proposed legislation would achieve this is by supporting the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's modernization and transformation agenda.

To fully appreciate the last point requires a good understanding of the larger context.

The CFIA is dedicated to safeguarding our food supply, along with animals and plants that contribute to that food supply. Ultimately, the CFIA serves to enhance the health and well-being of Canada's people, environment, and economy.

The Government of Canada established CFIA in 1997 as the federal agency responsible for the regulation and enforcement of key food and agriculture legislation. Prior to that time, several departments and agencies shared responsibility for this legislation.

Since the agency's inception in 1997, almost 20 years ago, there have been many significant changes in the agriculture and agri-food sectors across Canada and around the world. These changes include dramatic increases in crop yields due to advances in science.

In general, farms are getting larger, and economies of scale continue to grow. Land that produced enough to feed only 10 people a century ago can today feed more than 120. That is a dramatic increase.

Another significant change is the growth of international trade in agricultural products. Today Canadians regularly eat foods produced in countries around the world. In Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry, the focus is more and more on international markets. Last year, in 2013, the value of Canada's agriculture and food exports set a new record, topping $50 billion for the first time in our history.

The legislation now before us would modernize existing statutes and support the CFIA's transformation so that it could provide the best and most efficient and effective service possible.

The next step is up to us in Parliament. By endorsing the legislation before us, members of this House can help make sure that Canada's legislation remains in step with modern processes and practices. Here is why.

Some of the laws Bill C-18 proposes to amend date back to the 1950s. Although they have served Canada well, they must be updated to support further progress to help our home-grown entrepreneurs harness innovation, add value, and create jobs and growth right across this country.

According to stakeholders who appeared before the House standing committee, Canadian farmers spend as much as $4 billion each year on fertilizers. That is more than they spend on any other crop input. It is estimated that without fertilizer, crop production in Canada would decrease by half.

The Feeds Act and the Fertilizers Act provide the legal basis for the regulatory framework that govern the use of fertilizers. During his testimony in committee, Mr. Clyde Graham, acting president of the Canadian Fertilizer Institute, had this to say about the current state of the regulatory framework:

The federal regulatory system has served the industry well for 50 years. It has ensured a science-based and consistent regulatory environment for fertilizers and supplements, which emphasizes the principles of safety and efficacy for all products.

...That being said, the fertilizer and supplement industry supports new provisions in the bill that would enable tools such as incorporation by reference, licencing, export certificates, and acceptance of foreign equivalent scientific data.

Bill C-18 includes the provisions and tools Mr. Graham referred to in his comments. The proposed legislation now before us proposes new, broader controls on the safety of Canada's ag inputs through the licencing and registration of feed and fertilizer manufacturers.

I would like to share another relevant comment from a stakeholder who appeared before the committee. Reg Schmidt is with the Feeder Associations of Alberta, and this is some of what he told the committee:

When the Feeder Associations of Alberta was first notified last fall of the new set of amendments, we were not anticipating this exceptional amount of change that is being proposed. We were thinking more of a lipstick and makeup approach. Instead what we got are a very well thought out set of amendments that bring another round of comprehensive updates to an otherwise excellent program

As Mr. Schmidt pointed out, Bill C-18 involves a series of improvements. Among other things, the legislation proposes to authorize CFIA to license or register fertilizer and animal feed operators along with facilities that import or sell products across provincial or international borders. This would enhance the current system under which feed and fertilizer products are typically registered. Adding the provision to license or register facilities and operators would provide a more effective and timely approach to verifying which agricultural products meet Canada's stringent safety and other standards.

This approach would allow for better tracking and oversight of production processes and the products being produced, a more efficient system that identifies issues early, and a faster response if and when a product recall was required.

To license or register feed fertilizer facilities and operators, regulations would have to be developed. The government would work closely with stakeholders to design an effective regime.

It is important to recognize that the new requirement 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 borders.

It is also important to note that the proposed amendment would better align Canadian legislation with that of our international trading partners and would help our feed and fertilizer industries maintain their export markets, especially in the U.S.

Bill C-18 also proposes to address international trade in agricultural products in another way: by strengthening border controls for agricultural products.

Bill C-18 would authorize CFIA inspectors to order imported shipments of feeds, fertilizers, and seeds out of Canada if they failed to meet legal requirements. This would be similar to the provisions already in place that authorize the CFIA to order imported plants and animals removed from Canada if they do not meet legal requirements.

The CFIA already takes action now and sometimes seizes illegal products related to animal feeds, seed, and fertilizers. Under the current process, after seizure the CFIA assesses the ability of the importer to bring the products into compliance. Where this is not possible or where the importer refuses to fix the non-compliance, the CFIA may have to destroy or dispose of the product, sometimes at taxpayers' expense. In some cases, court proceedings may be launched. While this process works, it sometimes leaves Canadians paying the bill for the disposal of illegal products that have been seized.

Bill C-18 would give CFIA inspectors the ability to allow the importer to fix the problem in Canada but only if it was not a matter of safety and if they could be sure that the issue would be addressed properly and in a timely manner.

The legislation would also provide the agency with even stronger tools to protect Canada's plant and animal resource base. It would also provide additional reassurance that imported agricultural products met Canada's strict requirements. For Canada's farmers it would mean that they would compete on a level playing field.

Now I would like to again touch on the issue of UPOV '91. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency consulted broadly on plant breeders' rights. The agency conducted formal consultation sessions across Canada and received valuable feedback from plant breeders, farmers, horticulturalists, seed dealers, and the general public.

The feedback led directly to a series of proposed amendments that would increase investment in plant breeding in Canada and would encourage foreign breeders to protect and sell their varieties here. The amendments would also align the rights of Canadian plant breeders with those of their counterparts abroad.

This would effectively level the playing field for Canadian farmers and give them greater access to innovative new varieties bred to enhance crop yields, improve resistance to disease and drought, and meet specific market demands. It is what farmers want. In other words, the amendments would support the continued success of Canada's agricultural producers.

Amendments in the proposed legislation would also explicitly recognize the traditional and popular practice known as farmer's privilege. The practice involves saving, conditioning, and replanting seed generated from protected varieties grown on Canadian farms.

As members will be aware, a further amendment has been brought forward on the issue, one that makes the language in the act explicitly clear that storage of seed is included in farmer's privilege. This amendment, once again, shows that the government listens and responds to farmers.

Canada's farm community is very supportive of the reforms proposed in Bill C-18. For instance, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Canada's largest farm organization, posted a page on its website entitled, “C-18 is Good News for Farmers”. Indeed it is. The page includes a quote from federation president Ron Bonnett, as follows:

The proposed changes reflect a number of recommendations made by industry over the years and showcase the government has been listening. We're pleased the government has taken action and followed-up in a concrete way with legislative changes and formal consultations on these proposed amendments.

That is a certainly a ringing endorsement. The federation's web page also points out that the proposed legislation will boost innovation in the agricultural sector and inspire more farmers to plant new crop varieties. The bill is designed to modernize Canada's agricultural legislation and encourage innovation in the sector.

Joe Brennan, chair of the Canadian Potato Council, said the following about Bill C-18 and what we did as a government at committee stage:

The proposed amendments will encourage the development and availability of superior potato varieties that will further enhance the competitiveness of the Canadian potato industry.

Keith Kuhl, president of the Canadian Horticultural Council, emphasized that the proposed legislation would make Canadian companies more competitive internationally. He said, “Ensuring that our plant breeders' rights regulations are aligned with our global trading partners is imperative”.

We heard more of this support from witnesses at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The Agricultural Marketing Programs Act was enacted more than 15 years ago. The act requires that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in collaboration with the Minister of Finance, review the effectiveness of the legislation every five years. The last review was completed nearly two years ago and a report on the review was tabled in the House in November of 2012.

The review included a series of activities during the spring of 2011. For instance, stakeholders participated in a series of nine engagement workshops held in communities across the country. The sessions attracted a cross-section of Canada's agriculture industry, producers and administrators, along with representatives of producer organizations and financial institutions.

During the sessions, the stakeholders freely expressed their views on both the act and on the program that it authorized. Participants discussed program relevancy, performance, operations and delivery. They outlined specific strengths and weaknesses, and provided suggestions for potential improvements.

The review also involved a targeted survey. Questionnaires were sent out to approximately 3,000 producers who participated in the advance payments program, also known as APP, in 2008. These engagement sessions and questionnaires led directly to many of the proposed amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act included in Bill C-18.

In general, the amendments would reduce the administrative burden that producers and producer organizations must bear to participate in the program. More specific, the amendments would provide additional ways for participants to repay their loans. They would also broaden the criteria used to determine eligibility in the program and foster multi-year advance guarantee and repayment agreements, with administrators to streamline delivery.

I now wish to talk about the consultations with stakeholders that took place to inform the proposed amendments in another key part of Bill C-18, the Plant Breeders' Rights Act, administered by the CFIA. These stakeholder views are positive and tell only part of the story of Bill C-18. This is because the proposed legislation will inspire further consultations as resulting regulations are readied.

This government remains committed to consulting in order to determine the best path forward for farmers. Should the legislation now before us receive royal assent, some changes will come into force almost immediately, while others will be phased in or require regulatory amendments.

The overarching goal of the agricultural growth act is to strengthen Canada's agriculture and agri-food industry in a way that protects our food supply and promotes economic growth. Bill C-18 proposes to achieve this goal by ensuring that Canada's legislative framework is effective, innovative and nimble enough to deal with 21st century realities. Updated, streamlined and harmonized legislation would benefit Canadian farmers and industry, support the Government of Canada's and CFIA's modernization initiatives, and meet the interests of Canadians and Canadian farmers.

I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-18.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments put on the record by the member opposite, but I have a question with regard to an issue on the Prairies. Other colleagues of his have made reference to Manitoba's pork industry. This legislation deals with the exportation. There are great opportunities in Manitoba's pork industry, but there have been some issues with the federal government in being unable to get support with respect to temporary foreign workers, in particular, the Brandon plant.

There is a need in Canada within our agricultural community to look at seasonal workers. When we talk about the importance of the agricultural community and how productive it is for our economy, could the member provide some feedback on what he believes the government's agenda is, going forward, with regard to the temporary foreign worker program and the agricultural industry as a whole?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although we have not studied that issue in depth at agriculture committee, the issue of TFWs, as it relates to the agricultural industry, is an important one.

From our perspective on this side of the House, we absolutely want to ensure that every Canadian is employed before any temporary foreign workers get jobs in our country. We want to see Canadians get these jobs first and foremost.

That said, there are areas that have needs, but again, we hope Canadians respond to the job opportunities that are there on the Prairies. If they need a job, we need them on the Prairies.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on so many bills, we have made proposals to enhance them to ensure that we have protections for the different entities they affect.

On this bill, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food had indicated:

I've also heard some good suggestions about providing more clarity, making the bill's language more useful, and as you alluded to, Mr. Chair, we will be passing some amendments to that end...

Yet here we are. We did propose an NDP amendment that would have required the intent to infringe on patent protection be proven first. This would have protected producers from being sued for patent infringement due to accidental reasons, while continuing to ensure that deliberate patent infringement would be pursued.

Could the member opposite explain why the government defeated this proposal, given the fact that we wanted to ensure that the proper protection would be in place?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, being a long-standing member of the agriculture committee, certainly we have our differences when it comes to UPOV '91. We see predominantly that the world and most Canadian producers want to see UPOV '91 introduced into Canada and really played out on the Prairies.

The member alludes to the fact that members of her party made amendments and they were not supported. The fact is that it is democratic place, it did pass as it was. Although it was extensive, debate was there.

I, for one, supported the bill as it was and wanted to see it go forward. We heard from many stakeholders that wanted to see UPOV '91 and the modern things that really would give plant breeders the protections, while protecting the rights of farmers by using their own seed.

For us, it is good the way it is, and that is why it went forward and passed democratically.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is important agricultural legislation. I want to make a general comment and look forward to his response to it.

Most of the rural areas and most of the farming areas in our country are represented by Conservative members of Parliament. There are, on the other side, though, a few members who certainly represent farmers and who have an interest in the issue.

I want to make that comment and ask for the member's thoughts on the assurance farmers can take, knowing that they are represented by Conservative MPs who have had a careful look at this legislation and have determined it to be something they are willing to operate under.

Many of us are involved in farming operations and still depend on rules that would allow us to continue to farm, particularly after we get out of politics. We want rules that will work. Would the member respond to that?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I happen to be sitting beside another member in the House who is a farmer.

I found this a little interesting, too. In dealing with marketing freedom for farmers in past legislation, farmers from the west actually sat on the panel, making these decisions and supporting some of these motions. The bill we are putting forward today is not just a bill by some politicians. It is a bill for farmers, by farmers and passed by farmers.

Farmers are in good hands with us. We want to ensure that we do what is right for Canadian farmers across the country, and we are doing that in this bill.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, although my riding has some urban areas, it also has many rural areas, and there are a large number of farmers in my area, so farmers are not just represented by Conservatives. They are also represented by New Democrats.

I had the good fortune to rise on a number of occasions in the House to present petitions with regard to the right to save seeds. They were signed by members from my riding and many people throughout British Columbia. They were signed by farmers and non-farmers, just to be clear.

In part, the reason the New Democrats do not support the bill is because we proposed some very good amendments that looked at the right to save seed. In particular, one of the amendments had to do with protecting access to public and heritage seeds, as well as the issue of transparency and consultation required when seeds were made inaccessible.

Could the member comment on the fact that there is widespread opposition regarding the changes for farmers around that right to save seeds?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, being a member of agriculture, we have heard many of the arguments stemming from one particular organization when it comes to plant breeders' rights and the use of seed. It stems from one organization that really perpetuates the myth that farmers cannot use their own seed for their own use on their farms. In the agriculture committee we asked over and over again whether it was a myth. Over and over again, it was stated that was a myth propagated by the opposition and this one particular organization. This is on the record many times.

I would challenge the member across the way to check her facts, read the bill and read the positive comments on the fact that rights of farmers are protected in this bill. Check the facts and please state them in the House.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciated the opportunity to listen to the member as he spoke. He is certainly passionate about agriculture.

We did hear many near unanimous comments in support of the bill, except for the one group that the opposition seems to continually put forward here. It always seems interesting as to why the support from that group would be against the position the Quebec farmers had as they presented their positions and their great support. It must be difficult for them to play those two sides together.

Could the member talk about the fact that there has actually been an increase in research dollars into agriculture? Again, this is something contrary to what we have been hearing from the opposition.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is another colleague on the agriculture committee.

Absolutely, we always get this falsity or inaccuracy stated, and it seems to be from the opposition, that innovation and research dollars have gone down. However, they have actually gone up by 10% since we formed government in 2006. The simple fact is that we believe in innovation and research, and protecting breeders' rights is even more of an enhancement of that and more of an encouragement for breeding seed in Canada.

It is clear that we are for farmers on this side. We want to see this bill passed and see more benefits for western Canadians and all Canadian farmers.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with our member for Compton—Stanstead, whose remarks I look forward to.

As members will know, my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River is fact at the beginning of the Prairies. I always find it interesting that when Conservatives stand to talk about the Prairies, they do not talk about northwestern Ontario as the beginning of the Prairies. However, we have a lot of farmers in my riding, we have a lot of farmers in northwestern Ontario. Indeed, we have a lot of farmers in northern Ontario. I think many people seem to forget that farming takes place right across this country, not just in the Prairies.

This is an interesting bill. There are some good things in the bill, but I do have some concerns. They revolve around two areas. The first is what Conservatives are calling “farmers' privilege”, which we prefer to call “farmers' rights”. The difference between “rights” and “privilege ” some may say is not that important, but I think there is an important distinction to be made.

The other area concerns the seven amendments that we put forward that would have clarified a number of grey areas in the bill. The problem with grey areas being in a bill is that things are not then spelled out, which means, almost for certain, that there will be some litigation down the road and that the judges will not have a lot to go on because the bill is a little too grey. I was disappointed that the government was not interested in putting those amendments forward, which will try to outline as I go forward.

There is another issue in that regard. When there are grey areas and a bill gets passed, any changes that need to be made are made by regulation. They are not made by coming back to the House to be done in legislation. What that will do, in essence, is give the minister, whoever the minister will be at the time, very wide discretion as to how he or she proceeds.

Those two things were not really addressed in the bill, although we made every attempt to do so.

We have always believed that it is essential to have a balanced approach when talking about plant breeders and plant breeders' rights, and this bill simply would not get us here.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to continuing after question period.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member will have seven minutes to complete his speech after we resume debate.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this fall I joined the co-chair of the all-party oceans caucus, the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, in hosting a breakfast where parliamentarians heard from a leading ocean scientist on the issue of ocean acidification. It is a phenomenon that is harming, for example, the shellfish industry in the Pacific northwest, an industry providing an outstanding product, but also valuable jobs and business opportunities for rural coastal communities. Shellfish farmers are working hard to adapt their operations by incorporating water monitoring and treatment practices. It is innovative work to improve knowledge and ultimately help ensure the continued success of this industry for the future.

I welcome all hon. members to join us today after 4:30 p.m. in room 216-N, as our oceans caucus joins with the World Wildlife Fund in presenting our third Oceans on the Hill event for this year on the topic of ocean acidification.

Drug Awareness Week

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the 27th edition of Drug Awareness Week was held recently.

This was an opportunity for the Centre d'intervention le Rond-Point in Sept-Îles to raise awareness of the problem of drug use among 10- to 24-year-olds and to promote the support, assistance, shelter and social reintegration services it provides to people with substance abuse problems.

Services are also available for family members and friends, and prevention activities are held at schools and workplaces. I have personally seen the work this organization does and have had the opportunity to talk about the harmful effects of industrialization on the social fabric of the north shore.

I would like to point out to the House today the importance of the work done by social services organizations across Manicouagan, work they do despite receiving little support from the government.

Natural Resources

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick Premier Brian Gallant had a very simple message during this year's provincial election for anyone wanting to frack natural gas in New Brunswick: “You're not welcome here”. Now, after just two months in office, the Liberal premier's clear message is not so clear. Donald Arsenault, the minister of energy, now says that he will allow “some” fracking. Premier Gallant now says there are different “types” of moratoriums he will consider. This is unbelievable double-speak.

New Brunswick will succeed by allowing the development of its God-given natural resources. I stand in the House today to tell the premier that it is time to eat crow, admit he was wrong about fracking, and signal to the rest of the world that New Brunswick is open for business. My constituents want a better New Brunswick, full of good, well-paying jobs, and a strong economy. That industry can deliver that, so let us get on with it.

Michel Paquette

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was supposed to give a member's statement to honour Michel Paquette on October 22, the day he retired. Because of everything that happened that day, my member's statement was obviously postponed.

I would like to recognize Michel's achievements. He is a warm and helpful man who has always been committed to a job well done. He retired last month after working for the House of Commons for 38 and a half years, mainly as a messenger.

Being a messenger on Parliament Hill is an important job given the rapid, steady and sometimes stressful pace of our work environment. Rain or shine, Michel's smile and cheerful attitude made him a veritable institution in his division.

Michel was always kind and pleasant, and we were always happy to welcome him into our offices when he had a letter or parcel to deliver. I would also like to note that he began his career in the House as a page in 1978.

Happy retirement Michel, and thank you for your excellent years of service.

Foreign Affairs

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Canada-Cyprus parliamentary friendship group, I have learned of a great escalation in Turkey's aggressive attitude toward the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey recently deployed a research vessel escorted by warships into the exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Cyprus, where key resource projects are being explored by Cyprus with great potential for all Cypriots. This resulted in a suspension of the negotiations between Cyprus and Turkey. As agreed at the Commonwealth heads meeting last year, Canada expresses full support for, and solidarity with, the Republic of Cyprus and its sovereign right under international law to explore resources in its exclusive economic zone. Canada calls for an end to provocations that threaten stability in the eastern Mediterranean and for resumed negotiations toward a lasting solution that will bring stability to Cyprus and the entire region.

Deportations

[José Nunez-Melo, NDP, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although we have been closely monitoring the outcomes of immigration cases in my riding of Laval, there have been more than five cases of family separation as a result of deportation measures taken by the Canada Border Services Agency. I should point out that these cases involve children who were born or who grew up in Canada.

Florentino Morel, the mother of two-and-a-half-year-old Laéticia, born in Quebec, was forced to leave the country with her husband and daughter. The Munoz Gallegos family received an order to leave the country within 25 days. That is 25 days to liquidate their assets, cancel follow-ups for medical treatment, take a child out of school—the child also has to leave—and leave the country where they thought they had found refuge.

These devastating separations are forced on young children and their parents, and these families are increasingly facing unrealistic timelines. Where are the values of humanity and justice? What is worse, the processes at the Citizenship and Immigration Canada and at the agency are completely incompatible and work in completely different ways.

What happened? What about the children's rights?

Municipal and Regional Elections in Kootenay—Columbia

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on November 17, the people of British Columbia went to the polls to elect mayors, municipal councillors and directors for the next four years.

In my riding of Kootenay—Columbia, that included 14 municipalities and 3 regional districts. They are tasked with everything from water and sewer service to snow removal, road maintenance, and recreational facilities. They are the front-line politician. They cannot walk through their local grocery store without being told how to do things better.

I want to wish the best of luck to all the municipal and regional politicians elected in the riding of Kootenay—Columbia. I look forward to working with them in the near future.