Debates of March 27th, 2014

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The problem with the Liberal Party is that it was in power for a long time. This issue has been on the political agenda since 2001.

This is similar to the case of bilingual officers of Parliament. This year, the NDP managed to pass a bill requiring officers of Parliament to be bilingual. The Liberals were in power for 20 or 25 years. How did they not think it was necessary for these officers to be bilingual?

If I am not mistaken, they were still in power in 2001 when these negotiations started and they did not resolve them quickly, at least no more quickly than the Conservative government.

Workers in Canada and Quebec cannot count on any party other than the NDP to defend workers' rights.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the very great pleasure of rising to speak to Bill C-5, which does have weaknesses—some of my colleagues have already pointed out some of them—but which seems to have drawn a consensus on the part of the labour unions and the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is an extremely important issue. I have a union background myself, and as the official opposition labour critic, I believe that any progress that is made to help workers stay healthy and offer them protection and a safe work environment should be embraced and encouraged.

That is why in the NDP, we recognize that despite its weaknesses, Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction in an issue that should be above partisanship. I would like to point out that today is March 27. In one month and one day it will be the National Day of Mourning. Each year on April 28, we remember those who have lost their lives at work. It is an important day, the symbol of which is the canary, once used in the mines to indicate when the oxygen supply was failing. When the canary died, it was time to get out of the mine, and quickly.

Last summer, I had an opportunity to visit the mine in Springhill, Nova Scotia, and I have to admit that there was a good reason why the first union in Canada was founded in the mines of Nova Scotia, where people wielded their picks on their knees in the dark. If they were not killed in an explosion, they died of black lung, because their lungs were full of coal dust. Things are different now. Unions have been legal in Canada since 1872, but before that, they were not. It has only been a little more than a century. We must continue to see to it that conditions for those working on offshore oil and gas projects are as safe as they can be.

On April 28, we commemorate all those who have lost their lives at work. It has to be said that there are many more deaths than commonly thought. In 1993, there were 758 recorded deaths in the workplace. In 2004, there were 928. In 2005, there were 1,097. That is 1,097 individuals, nearly 1,100 people in a single year who left for work one morning and never came home. This is intolerable and unacceptable. As legislators, we should do everything in our power to put in place regulatory frameworks so that these terrible things never happen again.

Nearly 1,100 people losing their lives in the workplace. Given that the average worker in Canada or Quebec works 230 days a year, this means five deaths every working day. Five people dead from trying to earn a living. People should never lose their lives from trying to earn a living and support a family.

Offshore workers deserve our support, and our support at this stage for Bill C-5. It is based on three major principles that the NDP shares and wishes to promote. Workplace health and safety legislation should protect workers—in this case, offshore workers—at least as well as it protects onshore workers. It is a simple question of fairness.

We understand that resources have to be more substantial. My colleague has already pointed out that it is much more difficult to help someone at sea than someone in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who is within a 10-minute drive of three hospitals. Being far away at sea is no reason for a person not to receive the necessary emergency assistance and care in such situations.

Workers’ rights must be protected. This is extremely important. A workplace health and safety culture that recognizes a shared responsibility should be supported. Workers themselves obviously have a responsibility to take care. The employer has a responsibility to take every measure necessary to ensure that workers' lives and safety are not placed in jeopardy.

The government is responsible for putting legislation in place that will compel all parties to act responsibly so that when people leave for work in the morning, there is every chance that they will come home that evening. This is extremely important.

Unfortunately, this bill has taken a long time. It has been under discussion for 12 years. We are happy that it is moving forward, but it is moving at a snail’s pace. The Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party before it, could have done their due diligence much sooner.

Today, the government has placed this bill before us. Better late than never, but it has been rather a long time coming. Moreover, while the government is working with two provincial governments and the unions to improve workplace health and safety for offshore oil and gas workers, it is at the same time undermining health and safety rights in its own legislation, with Bill C-4. It is changing the definition of workplace danger that employees working for organizations under federal jurisdiction can use in order to exercise their right of refusal to work.

A worker’s right of refusal means being able to say that it seems to him dangerous to go where his employer is asking him to go, because he believes that he could have something fall on his head, say, or slip and fall, or step on a live wire.

In a budget implementation act, the Canada Labour Code was amended to change the definition of the word “danger”, which must now be a significant and immediate threat. For example, if the employee is working with asbestos and he risks having cancer in 20 years, this is not immediate. So there may be some argument about this.

Furthermore, the threat must be significant, without any definition of what a significant threat is, or consultation with business, industry, trades or unions. This has all suddenly been presented to us like a rabbit out of a hat.

In parliamentary committee, questions were asked about what constitutes a significant threat. If I lose a finger, is this significant or not? If I lose a leg, is it significant? What piece of the body has to be lost or damaged before it is considered significant?

We asked about the studies the Conservatives relied on for changing the definition and whether there was a problem with the current definition. The answer was that 80% of cases of refusals to work for health and safety reasons were not justified. We asked to see the documents, and there were not any. Their estimates were based on internal discussions. This is what we learned in committee. That is really something.

In those discussions, apparently, they heard talk of situations where the claims were not justified or where there was some abuse of the system. They told themselves they would have to get tough.

In getting tough, they are likely to endanger the health or the lives of employees who work for an organization under federal jurisdiction, and, for us in the NDP, this is unacceptable.

We think it is a shame that, on the one hand, the government is working to improve the health and safety of some workers, which is a good thing and something we are supporting, and on the other hand, it is complicating the right to refuse work for tens of thousands of people.

Even if it were true that 80% of cases were not justified, that means that 20% of cases were indeed justified, and this is what counts. This is what is important for us. The job will perhaps have to wait an hour longer. That is not important. An inspector will come and look into the problem. The important thing is that no one is hurt and no one dies on the job.

We in the NDP are going to support Bill C-5. However, I think that we should have brought in recommendation 29 made by Robert Wells, who said, “I believe that the recommendation which follows this explanatory note will be the most important in this entire report”.

Recommendation 29 is the only recommendation that is not included in the bill.

Recommendation 29 calls for a new, independent and stand-alone organization to be established to regulate health and safety matters in the offshore areas of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. If that is not possible, Justice Wells recommended, in the alternative, that the government create a separate and autonomous safety division in that department with a separate budget, separate leadership and an organizational structure designed to deal only with health and safety matters, and that an advisory board be established, composed of mature and experienced persons who are fully representative of the community and unconnected with the oil industry.

That is very important indeed.

This is a bill that brings regulatory progress. For once, the government has worked in co-operation with the provinces, but once is not a habit.

However, one piece is missing, and that is a genuinely independent organization that would help us monitor the measures that are put in place and that is not connected to the industry or the government. In our minds, that is an essential recommendation, and we very much deplore the fact that it is not addressed in Bill C-5.

That will not prevent us from voting for the bill at this time, but we believe the government should make consequential amendments to it.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reinforce the point that both provinces have already given royal assent to their respective bills to enact these changes.

The member opposite talked about delays. I am asking him to stop delaying now. The provinces have been waiting patiently for Bill C-5 to pass through our Parliament so that this new regime that would protect workers can come into force.

Will members opposite now allow this legislation to finally come into force so workers do not have to wait another day without the extra safety measures that Bill C-5 would bring to them?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Blame the NDP, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleague for her question. However, the Conservative government has been in power since 2006, and this is 2014. I do not believe it is really the NDP’s fault that this bill has not previously been brought forward and introduced in the House.

If the Conservative government had been serious about this issue, it would have worked much faster to actually help workers. That unfortunately is not one of the Conservative Party’s priorities, and this is not the first time this government has attacked the bargaining rights of the federal public service, for example. It also attacks labour organizations, thus attacking the middle class.

The NDP therefore has no lessons to learn from the Conservative government regarding worker health and safety.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

It is a good answer, Mr. Speaker. I will say it again, as the hon. member may not have paid attention to my previous speech. Today is day one of the debate at report stage and third reading.

I really empathize with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, as we sometimes see major changes included in totally unrelated bills. For example, Bill C-4 made fundamental changes to labour legislation and justice. I would like the member to comment on this.

Bill C-4 also included two sections amending the Supreme Court Act, presumably to clarify the intent of the law. We all know the fate they met. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

Could he also comment on the change that would require the Transport minister to recommend occupational health and safety regulations? This is a 270-page bill filled with details and references to regulations, and we are well aware of the government's tendency to hide things. Could my colleague also share his thoughts on this?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Gatineau raises an excellent point.

Just because the government dragged its feet and introduced a bill way too late in the game does not mean we should not debate it with care and diligence. We must do things properly. The bill is almost 300 pages long. It is quite complex. We need to take the time to weed out its flaws and improve the bill. That is our job as parliamentarians.

I do understand, however, why our Conservative colleagues would not want to debate it; they are loath to debate anything. The Conservatives have now imposed 58 gag orders since 2011, and perhaps they are fantasizing about issuing one more. Who knows how many more gag orders we will have before the next elections.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I believe we have cleared 60.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

It seems we are past 60, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we will reach 100. We, in the NDP, believe that it is useful to discuss, to analyze and to amend bills in order to improve them.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his impassioned speech.

In his view, why is it that both the previous Liberal government and the current Conservative government have failed to focus on the right priorities, including workers, health and safety?

Both have focused on big business profits and on a wide variety of other things, including the deregulation that sadly led to the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his question. Indeed, the previous and current governments are like two peas in a pod. For many years now, the Conservatives have been serving the interests of the same groups, who do not happen to be families and workers. However, the NDP is here to stand up for them.

The Conservatives would rather subsidize oil companies and give tax cuts to the banks, although banks made around 34 billion dollars in profits last year. Since the population of Canada is 34 million people, this means that every single one of them—every person, every citizen, every senior citizen, every baby—gives $1,000 a year to the Royal Bank of Canada, CIBC and Scotiabank. This is unacceptable.

An NDP government would definitely have other priorities. An NDP government would work for the people.

Bill C-22—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-22, An Act respecting Canada's offshore oil and gas operations, enacting the Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, repealing the Nuclear Liability Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

Bill C-24—Notice of time allocation motion

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-24, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage of the bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am certain that the members appreciate the notice given by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

We will resume debate, but before giving the floor to the member for Sherbrooke, I wish to inform him that he has three minutes left for his comments. He will have the rest of his time when the House resumes debate on this issue.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise today even though I only have three minutes. I will try to be as concise as possible and speak clearly during the time I have today.

This bill is of interest to me and must surely interest all my colleagues, even though we have not heard many members from other parties speak to this issue today.

In all my discussions, the issue of protecting workers comes up often. This is an important issue for me and, I am sure, for the people of Sherbrooke as well. The protection of workers will always be a priority.

My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord talked about the reality of offshore workers. There are many difficult aspects to this work, because the conditions are unbelievably tough. They are not the kind of conditions we have on dry land. Conditions are extremely dangerous in offshore areas, which are located hundreds of kilometres from shore.

Simply getting to an oil platform is a difficult, perilous undertaking. Then, once you are on the platform, it is even more dangerous, not only because of the activities that go on there, but also because of weather conditions.

A bill like the one we are discussing here today is therefore crucial. Overall, it is rather positive, despite a few shortcomings. My colleagues have already talked about them.

This bill is extremely important. I must say, it is the result of excellent work that was done by various provinces. They managed to find some common ground in order to come up with this bill, although it was a long time coming. Indeed, the work began in 2001, and it was not until 2014 that it finally came to fruition. The process was extremely long. I understand that discussions with the provinces are not always easy and that reaching an agreement can be tough, especially when several provinces are involved. It took 13 years to finalize such a bill. That is a little much. I am happy to see that it is such a priority for the government—a priority in the sense that we are debating it here today.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House resumes debate on this motion, the hon. member for Sherbrooke will have 17 minutes for questions and comments.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Promotion of Local Foods Act

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

moved that Bill C-539, An Act to promote local foods, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to finally speak to my buy local bill. I have worked on this bill for at least two years, in partnership with stakeholders from across the country, including farmers and many other inspiring people.

One of those people was Jack Layton, our first leader, who was a great source of inspiration for me. I spent a lot of time working with the member for British Columbia Southern Interior to develop a pan-Canadian foods strategy that did not exist then, but that exists now or will soon, I hope. I have had a lot of support and advice from two members, our agriculture critics, namely the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and the member for Welland.

The NDP feels it is important to support farmers and buy local because they work the land and grow the food that helps us meet our basic need to eat every day, three times a day. This is essential; it is vital. Farmers receive very little recognition for the work they do. Their work is demanding and takes a lot of time, energy and investment. They do it with passion and they work the land with their own hands. Their work deserves day-to-day support from the federal government, as we have seen with provincial governments and municipal councils.

I became aware of the lack of support for farmers because my riding is primarily agricultural and rural. Of the 31 municipalities in my riding, 29 are rural. Like most MPs, one of the first things I did after being elected was meet local people and key people. I met many farmers. I learned about the Circuit du paysan, a self-guided tour in Quebec that gives people an opportunity to connect with business people and individuals who want to help us discover local products. The Circuit du paysan includes restaurants, hotels and farms in many Quebec ridings where people can stop in and taste local products, wines, farm-raised meats, fruits and vegetables. That was when I started becoming more and more aware of how important it is to recognize the work these people do.

I also started thinking more about buying local when I realized that I did not even know which of the products available in local markets and grocery stores were home-grown. You can find all kinds of products in Montreal at places like the Jean Talon market. I learned all kinds of things from talking to farmers. I talked to people, folks my age, kids, older people. When I asked children where they thought the meat on their plates came from, many of them said it came from the grocery store. They did not realize that all kinds of people were involved. The meat went through a whole process before getting to the grocery store and onto our plates. The same is true of fruits and vegetables.

It is both funny and sad to see that people lack so much information. I really want this bill to become law so that farmers can receive full recognition for the hard work they do.

More and more people are making an effort to look at where the food they buy at the grocery store comes from, to see whether the apples are from the Franklin orchard in my riding or from Chile. Did the apples travel 10,000 kilometres or just 30 kilometres to get to our grocery store shelves? This has an impact that goes beyond economics. It has an impact on health because there are different food safety requirements for Canadian products than for products from other countries.

It has an environmental impact that I will get into later. To buy locally is to buy products nearby that were cultivated and grown by local people that we know.

It seems like a simple concept to buy locally, but when you dig a little deeper you see that there are a number of obstacles that farmers have to overcome before they can have direct contact with consumers. It could be the cost of transportation. For fruits and vegetables to leave the orchards or the fields, they have to be transported by truck, train, or boat. That costs money. Labelling and packaging also cost money.

There are distribution challenges. There are a number of organizations that try to set up farmers' markets and organize drop-off sites for basket delivery in order to make it easier for people to access local products.

There is also a lack of public awareness. One of the realities in Canada is that we have a winter season. Our farmers cannot really provide food to the major supply chains throughout the year, which makes it more difficult for them to get their products into the major supermarket chains, for example. We have to think about that.

The federal government must do more to raise awareness about what fruits and vegetables grow in Canada, in which regions and in which seasons and to promote eating seasonally. People should know which fruits, vegetables and meats are available in winter even though farmers and market gardeners are not working their land during this season because of the cold. There is a great deal of information that needs to be made available to the public.

People who have contacted me via email, Facebook and social networks and those I have met at local markets have told me that they support this, that they agree with the principle and that they want to encourage farmers, but that they do not know where to start.

Grocery stores are making more efforts to develop buy local policies, but there is still work to be done. We could create sections in convenience stores, we could have more farmers markets and more drop-off locations where farmers could sell their goods. At present, accessibility is a problem.

There are seniors who do not have a car or who have limited mobility and would like to have a grocery store or a pick-up location in their neighbourhood. This does not yet exist. We know very well that seniors are vulnerable, that their health is fragile and that they need to eat nutritious fruits and vegetables.

People often tell me that they do without this kind of food because they cannot afford it. It is not right that a 2-litre bottle of Pepsi costs less than a litre of fresh juice, that junk food is less expensive than healthy food. Why is food that is grown locally so expensive?

We need government action to help everyone to eat well and have access to this food.

Despite these obstacles, more and more Canadians are buying local and have consciously decided to support local farmers. This is not only because it is good for our health, but also because the agriculture sector accounts for 8% of Canada's GDP every year. This means that one out of every eight jobs in Canada is created in the farming sector.

This all translates into $101 billion added to government coffers every year. Imagine how much we would have if everyone dedicated $5 more to buying local every time they went grocery shopping. That number came from a farmer in my region, a market gardener named Denys Van Winden.

He told me that spending just $5 to buy local would make a big difference. It would allow farmers to live better and not simply get by. It would also create more opportunities for consumers to buy directly from farmers. Since 2006, we know that over 8,000 family farms have shut down because of cuts in the agri-food sector. They are having a hard time finding people to take over their farms, because the business is so precarious, harsh and difficult. We need to fix this situation and the federal government needs to do its part to help farmers, whom we need so much.

This bill is the result of two series of consultations held with farmers, distributors and people who have developed food policies across Canada. I could talk about my own consultations. I do not wish to name everyone, however, among those people, both nationally and locally, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture supported this bill. The UPA, Farm to Cafeteria Canada, the Coalition pour la souveraineté alimentaire, several independent retailers, supermarkets, major food chains and many Canadians also answered the call. They are saying that this is important and that they want the federal government to get more involved.

My bill is twofold. First, it demands that the federal government implement a pan-Canadian strategy in co-operation with the provinces. We want the federal Minister of Agriculture to sit down not only with his provincial and territorial counterparts, but also with farmers and distributors. We want all these people at the same table to discuss, among other issues, a common definition of buying local, because right now there is no such definition. All the provinces have slightly different definitions.

Then, we want them to set up a forum for discussing and sharing information on best practices. Currently, each province does certain things, but farmers are not necessarily aware of what can be done, what works and the tools that could be put at their disposal. It is important that people can sit together, face each other and have meaningful discussions.

Second, my bill asks the government to develop a local foods procurement policy in federal buildings. There are 28,000 federal institutions across Canada, namely agencies, departments, prisons and hospitals. This means that some 28,000 cafeterias could make more room for local foods produced by our farmers. This would make a huge difference and I hope we can get that far, because it would show a clear political will on the part of the federal government.

We must help producers overcome many challenges. There is also the workforce, which is currently very hard to find because the agricultural sector requires long hours of manual labour, especially for certain specific periods. Therefore, we must make a difference. If we do not buy locally, who will? We must really get involved and put our shoulders to the wheel.

In Canada, there are already over 2,300 local initiatives that the government could help promote and develop across the country. It is important that the Government of Canada do its share and that we can encourage our farmers to continue to innovate. It is not easy right now. They are so squeezed that they find it difficult to just survive. In order for farmers to continue feeding us and help reduce our environmental footprint, we must support them in their work. That is why this Canadian strategy makes so much sense.

I hope all members will support my efforts and vote in favour of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member coming forward with this bill. As a farmer and a big proponent of local produce, I think it is a very good bill.

I have some questions. I realize that the minister has to engage and talk to his provincial counterparts, which is very important, but in order for the bill to succeed, we have to be talking to all institutions, especially grocery stores. We have only two or three chain stores in the country, and almost 80% of people buy their products from them. What does the member suggest the minister or the government do to put things in place that would ensure that the grocery stores follow suit and are involved with the process to make sure her bill is successful?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions.

This would require the federal government to sit down with its provincial counterparts and with distributors. Most major food chains already have local buying policies, and all they are asking for is to sit down with federal and provincial elected officials to establish best practices and to ensure that local products are marketed and that people are encouraged to buy them. Farmers would jump for joy if they could sit down with these people. That is what they would like to do.

I have spoken to people from the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, with people from the UPA and with people from Équiterre. I also spoke to many people in the field. They all hope that this meeting will happen, so that we can move forward and set clear guidelines and criteria. Nothing exists at the moment, so they are anxious to get going.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the member's notice that there is such a thing as an Agreement on Internal Trade. That AIT applies to all food procurement that exceeds $25,000 and requires that the federal government not discriminate against Canadian suppliers. I wonder if she could comment on how her bill would conflict with the agreement on internal trade.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member just said, there are procurement thresholds for contracts over $25,000. I asked that question to Public Works and Government Services Canada representatives. The government has awarded a number of contracts for food products. In 2012-13, it awarded nine purchasing contracts totalling $112,494. That is still not at the maximum. Those nine contracts are under $25,000. I think we can increase the number of these contracts that comply with international agreements because they are under the $25,000 threshold. I think we can continue in this way. A number of governments around the world do this, including the United States, the European Union and Nova Scotia. A number of governments already do this, so I do not see why Canada could not encourage its own farmers.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent bill.

She mentioned several things, including the health of our fellow citizens. As she said, we are living in an era of junk food, and we can clearly see the impact of poor nutrition on the young and old. I think it is important to point that out in the House.

I have a question I would like to ask her about her bill and the provisions she has included in it. She spoke of economic benefits for the agricultural community, which seems to be dwindling. There is a shift in population to urban centres. How will the bill help maintain and even boost the economy of those regions?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my NDP colleague for her question.

This bill is designed to encourage government institutions to sign local procurement contracts, which will help people eat better and help put more money in our farmers' pockets. That way, farmers can keep expanding, hiring young people, creating small family farms and, I hope, supplying farmers' markets that are close to home. This bill would also contribute to people's health because the local food movement provides more affordable food and seeks to deliver a greater number of healthy products through all short distribution channels.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry for starting this important debate on supporting local food production.

Canada is a truly fortunate country. We have a robust agricultural sector that is able to meet the needs of local, national and international consumers. We have land and natural resources that foster a diverse agricultural sector. Our agricultural sector employs one out of every eight Canadians and plays a significant role in the health of our economy. As Canadians, we can certainly say that we are lucky.

With this in mind, our government recognizes the good intentions of this bill. However, in a practical light, we question whether Canadians would truly support legislation that would only add a layer of bureaucracy to the local food movement, a movement that is already succeeding in many regions across Canada. Do we really want to add red tape, regulations, and complications to our farmers' markets, community gardens, and co-ops? Do we want to compromise the livelihood of farmers who depend on international markets to sell their crops? The answer is no.

Across different levels of government in Canada there is already strong support for locally grown food. Our approach at the federal level is to focus on national efforts to increase consumer awareness and knowledge of Canadian agriculture, such as through funding initiatives like Farmers' Markets Canada, which is a national organization representing farmers' markets across the country.

While our government wholeheartedly supports the purchasing of locally grown food by citizens and residents, we recognize that provincial governments have a key role to play in defining what local foods are. We will continue to work with interested provinces, because we are committed to keeping the playing field fair by not favouring one farmer over another or one region over another. Together we want to break down the internal barriers to trade in this country.

The bottom line is that our government will ensure that farmers who market locally have the same opportunities as farmers who export to world markets. In fact, many farmers do both.

While the idea of a pan-Canadian strategy for local foods is well-meant, we must remember that trade accounts for a large portion of our farmers' sales. Canadian farmers export to 189 countries around the world. Our agriculture and food exports have been on a growth curve for a number of years. For 2013, all signs point to another record of close to $50 billion.

However, trade is a two-way street. That is why we have to be very careful about federal policies that legislate local foods and about rules related to government procurement, as advocated in this bill. We cannot expect our trading partners to play by the rules if we are not prepared to do so as well.

Canada has made a commitment to follow the non-discriminatory rules contained in various multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. For example, the North American Free Trade Agreement requires Canada to treat suppliers of our trading partners no differently than they treat local suppliers. The problem with this bill is that the proposed measures could be inconsistent with Canada's international commitments. This would send the wrong message to our trading partners.

Our government understands the need to respect our international and interprovincial trade obligations, because we need to keep markets open for Canadian agricultural products. Our government understands that trade is important, and we understand the needs of farmers. That is why, through our cost-shared programs, under Growing Forward 2, we are empowering the provinces and territories to support locally grown foods through market development initiatives in their jurisdictions.

Our commitment to farmers and our investments in science are helping to ensure that Canada's food comes from the best farming practices right across the country. For example, in Quebec, our researchers are currently working on helping farmers meet the emerging demand for foods with probiotic benefits. In Atlantic Canada, we are developing more varieties of value-added crops, such as short-season soybeans. New varieties like these could increase farm revenues by an estimated $100 million.

In British Columbia, field and lab studies are helping to minimize the environmental impact of nitrates in surface and groundwater. Groundbreaking research is helping to protect the environment while maintaining optimum crop production.

Work is also under way to build upon the challenges of producing food in the north. This means developing traits that can thrive in colder climates and creating new economic opportunities all the time. In Yukon, for example, our investments are helping farmers to sell their products by promoting local food production and increasing public awareness of Yukon-grown food.

Our government has also partnered with the Province of British Columbia to deliver a pilot project that will give ranchers the opportunity to process and market their beef locally. This will bring more dollars into their businesses while boosting the local economy and respecting our international trade obligations.

Provincial and territorial governments play a direct, growing role in initiatives that support, promote and market local food products. Several provinces are implementing local food production strategies, including Ontario, which recently passed the Local Food Act, 2013.

The need for a national strategy was not a major issue during federal-provincial-territorial meetings. To be honest, a pan-Canadian strategy could be seen as federal interference in provincial or municipal affairs.

Bill C-539 would also undermine Canada's credibility on the international stage. If we do not apply the rules, our trade partners will. We need to be very careful with policies that favour local food production or that restrict government contracts, as this bill is designed to do.

According to the North American Free Trade Agreement and other international trade agreements, Canada must treat its trade partners' suppliers the same way it treats its local suppliers. We are also addressing the objectives set out in Bill C-539 by supporting local food production through our funding for growing forward 2.

In light of all these considerations and with all due respect, we cannot support Bill C-539.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I am not shocked that the Conservatives are against this bill. Well, I am shocked, because what better bill could there be for farmers and consumers in this country? I am not saying that some of the initiatives the government has for local produce are not good, but we cannot be cherry-picking certain areas. What we are looking at in this bill, if I can repeat what the hon. member over here said, is more of a Canadian strategy in working with the provinces.

What gets me is when the Conservatives say other countries might get angry with us or call it a bit of a barrier. I have some articles here out of the U.S., and here are some of the programs the United States has. One initiative is called “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food”. This is right out of the United States, one of the trade partners that is going to have a big problem with our promoting local food. It states:

In 2009, USDA launched the “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative, an agency wide effort to create new economic opportunities by better connecting consumers with local producers. As part of the initiative, several funding efforts and programs were announced to assist farmers, help consumer's access nutritional foods, and support rural community development.

The Americans are going to be really mad at us on this one.

Here is another program that the USDA has in the United States. It is called the agricultural marketing service program. It states:

USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service administers several grant programs supporting local food initiatives across the country. The Federal State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP) provides matching funds to State agencies to assist in exploring new market opportunities for food and agricultural products, and encourage research to improve the performance of the food marketing system. In 2009, 8 out of 23 grants awarded went to projects supporting local foods, such as funding to improve the effectiveness of Colorado MarketMaker.