Debates of April 21st, 2016

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to three petitions.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on changes to the Standing Orders.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to the motion adopted on Wednesday, April 13, regarding the main estimates 2016-2107.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-262, an act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Mr. Speaker, I am greatly honoured to rise in this House to introduce this bill to harmonize the laws of Canada with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

As members know, a central component of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action is to use the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the framework for reconciliation. Therefore, if this bill is adopted, that would provide the legislative framework for a national reconciliation that is long overdue in this country. This would entail a collaborative process to ensure that federal laws are consistent with the declaration, and a national plan of action.

I am deeply honoured to introduce this bill.

In the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations and calls to action, call to action 43 states that governments should adopt and fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and that is what this bill sets out to do.

I remember the first question I asked in the House of Commons. It was addressed to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs. She thanked me for the work I have done on this bill over the past four years.

She also asked all members of the House to help with the work of reconciliation. Today, I am showing how I can help.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Procedure and House Affairs

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, if the House will give its consent, I move that the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House today, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

(Motion agreed to)

Physician-Assisted Dying

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I present, on behalf of the Archdiocese of Winnipeg and many of the Catholics of Manitoba, a petition to this House. I am very proud to have talked to Archbishop Gagnon. Even though I am not a Catholic myself, I believe it is important that all citizens have the right to have their voices heard in this chamber, and I represent all citizens of Winnipeg.

The petitioners bring attention to the House that vulnerable people and people with disabilities, such as seniors, and all people must be protected from the abuse and practice of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia, as now allowed pursuant to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Carter versus the Attorney General of Canada. Further, the rights of conscientious objection on behalf of the health care providers in Canada must be safeguarded. All citizens in Canada should be able to avail themselves of quality palliative care.

I am very proud to present this very large and thick petition on behalf of the Archdiocese of Winnipeg and my fellow citizens.

Justice

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that I think touches just about anyone who has read about it.

Members might remember a tragic story that happened to Cassandra Kaake. She was 31 weeks pregnant when she was murdered in an area close to me in Windsor, Ontario.

Tragically, there will be no justice for Cassandra's pre-born child, a little girl named Molly, who was also killed in this violent attack. Because our criminal law does not protect the pre-born child, it is not recognized as a separate victim in attacks against its mother.

This petition comes from across Canada, and basically Canadians are asking that we start to consider justice for victims like Molly.

Democratic Reform

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have a two petitions. The first is from a number of Yukoners who feel that, when the number of MPs a party's supporters elect does not reflect the number of voters who cast ballots for that party, they would like the House of Commons to undertake consultations across Canada to amend the Canada Elections Act. They want to ensure that voters are governed by a fairly elected Parliament and they can live under legitimate laws approved by a majority of elected parliamentarians representing a majority of voters.

Genetically Modified Foods

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from a number of Yukoners who feel that, whereas transparency is a goal of the Liberal government, it should make mandatory the labelling of genetically modified organisms, GMOs, in Canada.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 70 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 70

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

With regard to the National Energy Board’s review of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project and the interim measures for pipeline reviews announced by the government on January 27, 2016: (a) how many Canadians applied to participate in the National Energy Board’s review of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project, broken down by (i) individuals, groups, and authorized representatives, (ii) province and territory, (iii) whether they wished to participate as a commenter or as an intervenor, (iv) whether they were “directly affected” by the proposed project or had relevant information or expertise; (b) of those Canadians identified in (a), how many were accepted by the National Energy Board to participate as intervenors, broken down by (i) individuals, groups, and authorized representatives, (ii) province and territory, (iii) whether they wished to participate as a commenter or as an intervenor, (iv) whether they were “directly affected” by the proposed project or had relevant information or expertise; (c) of those Canadians identified in (a), how many were accepted by the National Energy Board to participate as commenters, broken down by (i) individuals, groups, and authorized representatives, (ii) province or territory, (iii) whether they wished to participate as a commenter or as an intervenor, (iv) whether they were “directly affected” by the proposed project or had relevant information or expertise; (d) of those Canadians identified in (a), how many were rejected by the National Energy Board from participating either as a commenter or as an intervenor, broken down by (i) individuals, groups, and authorized representatives, (ii) province and territory, (iii) whether they wished to participate as a commenter or as an intervenor, (iv) whether they were “directly affected” by the proposed project or had relevant information or expertise; (e) of those Canadians identified in (d) who were rejected from participating by National Energy Board, will their applications be reconsidered as part of interim review measures for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project announced by the government on January 27, 2016; (f) of those Canadians identified in (d) who were rejected from participating by National Energy Board, will they have an opportunity to apply to participate in the interim review measures for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project announced by the government on January 27, 2016; (g) of those Canadians identified in (d) who were rejected from participating by National Energy Board, will their views and expertise be solicited by the “Ministerial Representative” appointed by the government to “engage communities, including Indigenous communities potentially affected by the project, to seek their views and report back to the Minister of Natural Resources”; (h) of those Canadians identified in (b) who were accepted to participate by National Energy Board as intervenors, will the government provide funding for these individuals or organizations to present evidence and cross-examine as part of the interim review measures; (i) do the interim review measures alter, in any way, the current legislated time limit of May 20, 2016, for the National Energy Board to issue its report on the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project to the Governor in Council; and (j) as a result of the interim review measures, can any amendments be made to the National Energy Board’s final report after it has been issued to the Governor in Council?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Canadian Dairy Industry

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

moved:

That, since the government is signing trade agreements that are undermining supply management and that will have a negative impact on the Canadian dairy industry, the House: (a) recognize the magnitude of the economic losses to Canadian dairy producers from the importation of diafiltered milk from the United States, which totalled $220 million in 2015; (b) recognize that each day of government inaction contributes to the disappearance of a steadily increasing number of family farms across the country; (c) recognize that the entire industry is standing together to call for the problem to be resolved immediately; and (d) call upon the government to keep its election promises and honour the commitments made since the start of its mandate by immediately enforcing the compositional standards for cheese for all Canadian processors.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Salaberry—Suroît.

I am always proud to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the people of Berthier—Maskinongé. It is an honour. It is also a real honour to move such an important motion on diafiltered milk. As everyone here knows, I often ask questions about this issue. I have been asking the government about its failure to act, and that is why I am so proud to debate today's motion in the House. I really hope I have the support of all my colleagues in the House. I also want to acknowledge the many farmers who are here with us today. Farmers work seven days a week, 365 days a year. They are passionate and dedicated individuals, and we are extremely proud of them.

I want to acknowledge the farmers here from Montérégie-Ouest, the Laurentians, the Outaouais, Lanaudière, and Mauricie. There are here for the debate in the House, and I hope they will also stay for question period.

I will briefly sum up the situation. Diafiltered milk is a concentrated milk protein from the United States. It was created to get around Canadian law, as no U.S. processor uses it. Because the Liberal government and the Conservative government before it have been slow to address the issue, this diafiltered milk, which is in gelatinous form, is being used instead of fresh milk from our farmers. This has been going on for two years now.

In 2015, imports of this product increased significantly, resulting in economic losses of $220 million for Canadian dairy farmers. This issue alone is causing each of our farmers here in Canada to lose on average $15,000 a year. This situation is disastrous for dairy farmers. They need a party that will stand up for them, and that party is the NDP.

The farmers are at the end of their rope. I think it is important to share some of their stories. We get many phone calls about this at our office. I meet with farmers daily and it is truly important to share some of their stories. I will start with that of Jean-François Allié from Saint-Léonard-d'Aston. He wrote:

“Mr. Prime Minister and dear Liberal government.... My farm is at risk. The standard price of milk of $68 per hl and $70 per hl is making me consider selling everything. My farm is my life, it’s all I have. The agreement with Europe, the TPP and the import of diafiltered milk in recent years are at the root of our losses…. I have been losing nearly $2,000 per month since May 2015. It has been a year, so that means $24,000. Please help us and address these three factors. The outlook is bleak. The Jean-François Allie farm, with 40 heads of cattle in Saint-Léonard-d'Aston, will soon disappear.”

The second story I want to share with hon. members of the House is that of Ana Maria Martin, from Lorami farm in Henryville, Quebec

“Dear Prime Minister, how disappointing for me to see that I believed in you during the election and now you are abandoning us! Doing nothing about diafiltered milk at this time is cowardly and it is destroying supply management in an insidious manner by destabilizing the market. My husband and I are milk producers and have a family farm. We bought it from his parents in 2013 and, in 2014, we invested in robotics in a barn where the cow's comfort is the priority. The goal was to be among the top elite producers of milk of excellent quality and become effective entrepreneurs and managers. Last year, we lost around $60,000 because of diafiltered milk. This factor is beyond my control, but it is not beyond yours. You are destroying our Canadian dairy industry because you do not want to upset our precious neighbours across the border. While giants send their money to tax havens, we reinvest in our region. I am the mother of four boys and it is essential that something be done before it is too late for many of us.”

I would like to read another account, that of a farmer from my region. Here is what Jean-Félix Morin had to say:

“Our farm is losing over $3,000 a month, which is more than my income.... My friends were losing even more than that and they had to sell their farm this fall. I find that really hard. Would I change careers? I would have to go back to school. It is upsetting that this is all about politics and that the government is not getting involved. No one wants to be a millionaire. We just want to make a living.”

That is important to remember. I could share other people's stories with the House, but I encourage members to go and meet with the farmers who are outside, and who will come in later to participate in the debate, and to chat with them. They are going to talk to us about how important it is to do something and to do it now. Everyone knows what the solution is.

In addition to these accounts, our online petition, which calls on the government to solve the diafiltered milk problem, was signed by over 4,500 people in less than 48 hours. All of these people are really disappointed, frustrated, and angry, and I am too. I think that many members understand the situation, but it seems that they lack the political will to do something about it. The current government is not doing anything. The Liberal government is still not taking action.

After asking a number of questions in the House, we still have no response and no action from the Liberal government. However, during the election campaign, the Liberals made a commitment to solve the diafiltered milk problem. Even the Minister of Agriculture told milk producers in February that there was never any suggestion that diafiltered milk would be used as milk. More than two months later, he is not even enforcing the existing standards.

If I were in the government’s place, I would be really embarrassed. Even worse, two departments of the same government put diafiltered milk in two different categories. Border services allows diafiltered milk to enter as milk protein concentrate, or MPC, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency allows processors to use diafiltered milk instead of milk in their cheese. Such a flagrant lack of consistency is unheard of.

If the government were unaware of the situation, and if the problem were not urgent, I might have been able to understand. However, everyone knows about the diafiltered milk problem, which has been going on for more than two years. We are asking questions, in the House. We even had an opportunity to conduct a brief study in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food has had many meetings with industry stakeholders, such as Quebec dairy producers, dairy producers across Canada, and even the processors. Everyone is on the same wavelength: the government must enforce the existing law and regulations.

The situation is pressing. What is at stake is this: lives, the economy, family farms and regions. The solution is simple: the government must act. Through the debate on the diafiltered milk problem that we will have today in the House, in which a number of members will participate, I am very hopeful that we will reach a consensus, that the government will support our motion, and, most importantly, that it will take action. We are now getting a lot of pressure from the Americans, and we are wondering whether the Liberal government is going to stand up for Canadian producers or capitulate to the Americans.

I am very hopeful that we will find a solution.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. I can reflect on the number of occasions that the Minister of Agriculture was afforded the opportunity to provide comment on the issue of supply management and reassure members that the government has been fairly clear in recognizing the importance of supply management to Canada's economy. That obviously affects our dairy farmers.

Something I had to come to grips with when I was an MLA was trying to get milk into northern regions, particularly northern Manitoba at that point. I wonder if the member could provide some comment in regard to the breakdown of those milk components. To what degree would we be able to see milk at more affordable prices in northern regions, particularly northern Manitoba?

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

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

Today we are discussing diafiltered milk and the government’s inaction on this issue.

The member is speaking a lot about supply management.

I would like to refer to a comment, since somebody needs to walk the talk. Two years ago, the House passed a motion on the subject of compensation for dairy producers in connection with the trans-Pacific partnership and the free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union.

In the latest budget, no money was allocated for compensation. The Conservatives had announced a large amount of money for compensation for the dairy industry, but the Liberal government has done nothing.

It is all very well to say nice things and look good, but what we are asking for today is concrete action. We have nothing, just some nice words. The Liberals say that they understand the situation and are behind the dairy producers, but we want concrete action to be taken.

Today we are talking about the diafiltered milk problem.