Debates of June 16th, 2014

Agricultural Growth Act

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a little organization called Aidan's Gluten Free, which is in my riding. It uses seeds and grains from all over Canada, and probably from all over North America. They are combined in a way that makes bread that is tasty but has no gluten in it. Aidan sells this product, which is assembled in his little factory, to grocery stores and they sell it to the public because it is fresh. This bread is baked fresh every day in his factory, and it is delicious.

However, the CFIA has allowed the big commercial operators like Sobeys, Loblaw and Metro to now bake bread in Chicago, freeze it and ship it to the stores in Toronto. They take the frozen bread, put a best before sticker on it, put it on the shelf and call it fresh. They leave the bread frozen maybe for weeks, maybe for months.The CFIA apparently thinks that this is an okay practice.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sharing my time, so I was going to continue right until—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

More.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted, my point was that the CFIA does not have the resources to properly police material now and to properly keep things fair and honest in our system. We now have a system in which a bread manufacturer in the United States is allowed to ship frozen product into Canada, then have it labelled as fresh, put it on the store shelves and the CFIA says that it is okay. What I think is happening is that the CFIA is not paying attention. This is not a fair position to take.

We note that the biggest bread maker in Toronto was recently sold to a Mexican operation. We wonder if this is not the precursor. Instead of making the product in our own city, taking grain from the Prairies and from those farmers, grinding it into flower and baking bread in Toronto, we are going to start making the bread in Mexico, shipping it to Toronto and calling it fresh, even though it was frozen long ago.

That is the concern, but the CFIA does not seem to have the resources to manage even that operation—

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Can you tie the free trade agreement into that?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would just let the hon. member for York South—Weston know that in fact, at the end of the intervention by the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, we actually surpassed the five hours after the first round of debate on this particular question, in which case there are only 10 minutes for speeches and thereafter five minutes for questions and comments. We have had a couple of interruptions, so I will let the hon. member have another minute to finish his remarks, and then we will go to questions.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually have experience making genetically modified seeds the old fashioned way, by cross-pollination. Members may have heard of Funk's G hybrid. There are signs all over southwestern Ontario for Funk's G hybrid. As a youngster, for 90¢ an hour, I ran around pulling the tassels off two of the rows so the other 10 rows would be pollinated by themselves. It was an awful, back-breaking job, but 90¢ an hour was a lot of money in those days. That is what we did to make a grain that was capable of being a feed grain for the following season. It was a great system. I highly recommend farm work to anyone here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the extra time to continue to wrap it up.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It would appear that we do have time for at least one question and response.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is from an urban riding, so I would just like to ask a question on behalf of all the farmers in Edmonton Centre, and I do not say that totally facetiously. There are actually farmers in Edmonton Centre, or certainly farmers' markets.

We heard a lot of interesting chat, and it was entertaining. I realize that I am throwing him a lob at midnight. Does the member have one specific amendment he would like to make to the bill to make it better?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, our concern is that CFIA does not have the resources now to do the job properly, and there is nothing in the budget, nor in the bill, to indicate that CFIA would be given the resources to properly manage and monitor the implementation and the regulations required for the bill.

There are a lot of good things in the bill that we agree with and that we want to see continue, but if CFIA does not have the resources to manage the bill in the future, and the example I gave was on how it does not have the resources now, then there is nothing in the bill that can be done about that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We actually have time for one more short question. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very interesting speech. I learned a lot, and I would like to point out how important it is that we have a proper debate.

Since Bill C-18 was introduced, the hon. member for Welland and I have been holding many consultations on the bill. It is very important to consult people.

Bill C-18 will put more power into the hands of the minister so that he can make changes without consulting Parliament. Does my colleague have any concerns about that? Does he trust the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food?

I would like to hear his comments.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and the member for Welland for the great work they have been doing to keep all of us informed and to keep the farmers in our country on the right track.

Yes, I am very concerned any time power is concentrated in the minister. We have seen it over and over again with the Minister of Citizenship and the minister of human resources, and now we are giving direct power to the Minister of Agriculture.

We in Parliament think there should be proper parliamentary oversight of decisions like that.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Foreign Affairs

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, three months ago, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visited the Central African Republic, or CAR, and condemned the slow response of the international community. She asked, “How many more children have to be decapitated, how many more women and girls will be raped, how many more acts of cannibalism must there be, before we really sit up and pay attention?”

Thus far, over 140,000 people have been killed in CAR. Eighty per cent of the Muslim population has been driven from their homes or murdered. The fighting has left 2.5 million people, the equivalent of Vancouver's population, needing humanitarian aid. The children of CAR have witnessed and continue to witness terrible violence, maiming, killing. The number of children being treated for severe malnutrition in the capital has tripled since January. This year, UNICEF and partners have already secured the release of more than 1,000 children from armed groups, or more than five times the number of children released in 2013.

Throughout the country, violence has escalated in plain sight of diplomats, foreign observers, peacekeepers and the world's media. When speaking of CAR, a doctor from Médecins Sans Frontières noted that the people there “don’t die of bullets; they die because of a lack of will to help them.”

For too long, the international community has sat idly by and watched atrocities unfold in CAR rather than assisting and supporting this failed state and making a long-term commitment to create a functioning, responsive and accountable security sector, a proper army and police force, and building a functioning justice system alongside other essential public institutions.

On April 10, 2014, the United Nations Security Council at last adopted a resolution to authorize the establishment of a UN peacekeeping operation of almost 12,000 by September 2014 to build on the work of the African Union-led international support mission in CAR, French forces and the EU forces that have joined them.

I ask the government, is the number and kind of peacekeepers enough? Is September too late for these forces to make a significant difference? Where has Canada's voice gone on the responsibility to protect?

For five months, I have repeatedly asked the government what more it could do to provide humanitarian aid, reduce the violence, rebuild civil society and support peace and reconciliation in CAR. We have repeatedly asked about Canada's potential participation in the UN peacekeeping mission in CAR.

On May 16, when I again asked in Parliament whether the government would provide peacekeeping support in line with our capabilities, the parliamentary secretary seemed to signal movement, but remained troublingly vague in saying, “Canada has been contributing, and we will continue to contribute, to the United Nations for peacekeeping forces for the Central African Republic”.

Will the parliamentary secretary confirm tonight whether Canada will provide such peacekeeping support, and what kind? Blanket statements of support are not helping the children of CAR.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here early in the evening like this.

The situation in the Central African Republic is deeply disturbing for Canada and for Canadians. The Central African Republic is a country where religions once coexisted in peace and mutual respect. It is troubling to see how quickly this situation has deteriorated into conflict and violence.

To this day, the looting, rapes, and indiscriminate killings continue. Sadly, more than one million people have been forcibly displaced as a direct result of violence.

This situation must stop. Canada has strongly condemned the violence in the Central African Republic, and urged all parties to exercise restraint and to end the cycle of violence. The government has supported international efforts to stop the conflict, promote the protection of civilians, and to help the most vulnerable have access to life-saving assistance.

For example, last December, our country was the first country to contribute to the UN trust fund in support of the African Union peace mission in the Central African Republic, or MISCA, as it was called. The government gave $5 million to support African Union troops with vital communications equipment to enable them to accomplish their missions and help the people of the Central African Republic.

Since the start of 2013, Canada has contributed over $23 million for humanitarian assistance. This assistance is providing food, water, sanitation, health care, and protection services to those most in need. We are also funding air transportation, so that humanitarian workers are able to get safely in and out of remote and insecure regions of the CAR where people are in the most desperate need of help. In sum, through our financial assistance, Canada has been making a difference, especially in the lives of those most vulnerable.

As colleagues in the House are aware, the United Nations Security Council agreed, in April, to create a UN mission to replace MISCA in September 2014. My colleague was speaking to that. This new mission, called MINUSCA, has a broad mandate, which includes the protection of civilians, support for a political transition, support for humanitarian assistance, and the promotion and protection of human rights and the rule of law.

The UN team was recently on the ground in the Central African Republic to finalize the operational planning for MINUSCA. Based on this recent assessment, the UN will begin to ask member states to support the specific needs of this mission. Based on these needs, our government will decide on how Canada can best contribute to that mission.

As we have already stated publicly, Canada will not be sending companies or infantry troops of the Canadian Armed Forces. However, there are other ways in which we can and will support the UN mission and the overall objective of ending the conflict in the Central African Republic. As we did when the EU mission was established in December, the government will respond expeditiously in support of the new UN mission.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to hearing how the government will support the United Nations peacekeeping mission in a substantial way.

Will the government provide additional non-budgetary assistance beyond its assessed and financial contributions? Will the government provide airlift assistance, as it provided to efforts in Mali, and other resources, as these could make a substantial difference on the ground?

Our allies, and not just France, but the U.K. and the U.S., are stepping up by taking a more active role in the CAR. For example, Germany has authorized the deployment of up to 80 troops, air transport, and a hospital plane to support the EU efforts. It has ruled out the use of German forces in combat.

Will Canada send specialized military assets, and will it help to build the capacity of francophone African peacekeepers as we did in Mali? Will Canada uphold the responsibility to protect?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I know everyone in this House is concerned about the situation in the Central African Republic. While the roots of this conflict are not religious, rebel groups and rival factions have been able to use religion to promote inter-communal hatred and violence.

The rampant human rights abuses and the extrajudicial killings must stop. The Government of Canada has not been silent. We have taken action. We have condemned the violence. We have been an important source of humanitarian assistance, and we have supported African troops under the MISCA banner.

The member opposite will be glad to hear that we will continue to support international efforts to stop the violence in the Central African Republic, and I am sure that we can count on the support of every member of Parliament.

The Environment

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, climate change denial is deeply embedded in the Conservative government's DNA. This explains the government's inertia on the issue at a time when our major trading partner, the United States, is signalling its intent to seriously address climate change. But I will not discuss GHG emissions this evening. I will not be talking about the causes of climate change and the need to do our part to address them. Rather, I will be talking about the impacts of climate change and the urgent need to mitigate or adapt to those impacts by upgrading our municipal infrastructure.

Climate change's bottom line is its devastating impact on water. It is becoming increasingly obvious to anyone who follows the news headlines that climate change is wreaking havoc, through more frequent and intense floods and droughts, on communities, the economy, and the environment. Our municipal storm sewer systems are not necessarily equipped to absorb the torrential rains we are experiencing on a more and more frequent basis. They were not built to receive such large quantities of water over such short periods of time.

Many of our older storm sewer systems are not separate from sanitary sewer systems. Both systems are combined. This means that when too much rainwater enters the system, it can cause raw sewage to overflow into nearby bodies of water or into home basements. The cost of such flooding can be enormous. For example, one three-hour rainfall event in August 2005 in Toronto produced over 160 millimetres of rainwater and led to 13,000 flooded basements, representing $500 million in damages. In fact, storm sewer runoff is the number one cause of urban water pollution. There is a clear need to invest in new dedicated storm sewer systems and to create catchment basins to capture overflow during heavy rainstorms that would otherwise spill into waterways.

We know, however, from the last Conservative budget that the federal government in the next three years will not be spending enough on municipal infrastructure renewal and expansion so that it can register a balanced budget in time for the next federal election. According to the 2014 budget, the federal government will spend, on average, only about $300 million per year on new infrastructure projects across Canada. How can the government properly help upgrade storm sewer systems and other municipal infrastructure, including other water infrastructure, on such a budget?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why my colleague opposite would not want to talk about GHG emission reductions, because we actually led the United States two years ago. We put our reductions in place in order to deal with coal-fired power generation.

In terms of municipal infrastructure, I think he is well aware that we have the largest municipal infrastructure program that has ever been put in place by a government of Canada.

I want to talk a bit tonight about adaptation. Our government is committed to helping Canadians make any necessary adaptation, and as such, we have taken action to better understand what is happening in relation to climate change and to help Canadians prepare for the potential impacts by making investments in priority areas. Since 2006, our government has invested $235 million in domestic adaptation initiatives, which support decision-making in key priority areas, including human health, the north and rural communities, and economic competitiveness. I would like to talk a bit tonight about some of the examples of these activities.

Through Environment Canada's climate change prediction and scenarios program, the government continues to provide updated information about observed and projected changes in climate. Part of this foundational work will be to allow the government to provide credible, scientifically sound information to support adaptation planning and decision-making in Canada.

Through the Standards Council of Canada, with support from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, we are providing funding to update critical codes and standards in the north to adapt new and existing infrastructure as well. By equipping Canadians with the information, knowledge, and tools they need to make more informed decisions, we will be better able to manage risks associated with changing climates and better positioned to take advantage of new economic opportunities that emerge along the way.

This government is also making relevant investments in disaster mitigation and infrastructure. In budget 2014, the Government of Canada announced $200 million over five years to better protect Canadians and their homes through a national disaster mitigation program. The program will support investments such as infrastructure to control floods.

The government is also committed to working with first nations groups and provincial and territorial partners to help first nations become more resilient to natural disasters, such as flooding and forest fires, which often threaten the health and safety of their communities. To that end, economic action plan 2014 proposed to provide $40 million over five years for disaster mitigation programming on reserves.

In addition to these investments, disaster mitigation projects are eligible for federal funding under the $14 billion new building Canada fund, which was also announced in budget 2014. We would certainly welcome the member's support for our budget.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to highlight some of the many specific actions we have taken and investments we are making to help protect Canadians and Canadian infrastructure.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a study of stormwater management strategies in three U.S. cities with high rainfall revealed that it is between 7.5 to 200 times cheaper to invest in watershed improvements than building more catch basins, storm sewers, and engineered waterfalls.

Will ecosystem restoration and climate change adaptation projects be eligible under the new building Canada fund? Given the relatively small amounts the government has put aside for new infrastructure projects in the next few years, would these kinds of low-tech investments in climate change mitigation not make sense?

I should mention that the City of Beaconsfield in my riding of Lac-Saint-Louis recognizes the value of ecosystem restoration for protecting water courses. This past May, Mayor Georges Bourelle, on behalf of the Beaconsfield council, called on the Quebec government to legislate wetlands protection in the province in recognition of the fact that, “Wetlands are well known for their critical role in water purification, their capacity to absorb flood water, and the natural habitat they provide for several threatened species”.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is well aware of how well we work with provincial governments and municipal authorities in order for them to be able to access our infrastructure programs. That includes the $14 billion in the new building Canada fund.

Going back a couple of years, budget 2011 included $148.8 million in funding between 2011 and 2016 for ten adaptation programs from nine federal departments and agencies. The member opposite should know that these programs focused on four areas: science to inform adaptation and decision-making, human health and wellbeing, north and aboriginal communities, and economic competitiveness.

Prior to this, our government had made an investment of $85.9 million in adaptation between 2007 and 2011.

Combined, our government has invested $235 million in specific domestic adaptation programs and activities since 2006.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 27, 2014, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until later this day, at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:17 a.m.)