Debates of Nov. 8th, 2018

Criminal Code

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, kidnapping is kidnapping is kidnapping. I do not think anyone reasonable on a police force would describe grandparents having a child for an extra day as kidnapping or even be in a position to lay those charges. We are talking about kidnapping, where there is the option of getting them a much lighter sentence.

The Liberals say that they are going to be tough. The other day, we had the apology in the House for the terrible situation of the MS St. Louis, and the Prime Minister said that this kind of intolerance and bias should never be allowed to happen again, yet one of the Liberal government's very first actions was to eliminate the Office of Religious Freedom and bring in Bill C-51, which tried to take away protection for religious freedom for those who practise it.

On the one hand, the Liberals talk a good line, but when we watch their actions, it is a whole other thing.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member's comments regarding kidnapping. There is a significant difference, and to try to marginalize one or play up another is wrong. Let me give a different example.

Within the legislation, there is going to be a reduction in pretrials. Imagine being a sexually assaulted woman. As opposed to having to go through a pretrial, because of this legislation, that pretrial could be avoided. She would not have to relive that horror, that nightmare, because of not having to go through a pretrial.

Does the member not see that as a good thing? If someone is a victim, why would the member want to obligate her to go perhaps through a pretrial, when it is just not necessary?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of ways those kinds of situations have been dealt with successfully and sensitively in the past. What the bill would do in allowing so many of these very serious crimes to be hybridized is download them to the provinces. In many cases, the provinces are already overburdened. Their justice systems are loaded.

The minister herself has said that this bill would speed up the process at the federal level. Of course it would, because they would just be shifting the workload to the provinces, which have neither the time nor the capacity. That is going to help the federal stats, but it is not going to do anything to fight gangs. It is not going to do anything about gun crimes. It is not going to punish those or act as more of a deterrent to those who commit the very crimes the Liberal government says it wants to fight the most. It would not do that. In fact, it would reduce, in many cases, these very serious crimes to a slap on the wrist, to be handled by someone else, instead of the federal government taking responsibility for what it should be responsible for.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-75.

Throughout the day today, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side in terms of what Bill C-75 would actually do. We have heard that this is progressive legislation. It would protect victims, it would strengthen the Criminal Code, it is reflective of what Canadians want to see, and it would create safer communities. However, the bill would actually reduce the penalties for many offences. Over 25 offences would be reduced with the introduction of the bill. I will speak a little more on that later.

Some of the objectionable parts of what is happening today relate to the process that brought us to where we are today. During the campaign, I remember sitting in many all-candidates debates and being told that if the Liberals were elected to government, they would not use time allocation to limit debate on important bills, but here we are today with I do not know how many dozens of times the government has implemented closure.

We were also told that omnibus bills were something to be avoided at all costs. However, here we have a bill that deals with three substantive issues that were actually part of three previous bills. It is over 300 pages long and lumps together all kinds of reforms. Some of them we support, but this omnibus bill is impossible to support in its entirety, and I will outline my reasons for that as I proceed.

This proposed piece of legislation, as we have seen time and time again in the actions of the Liberal government, would actually do very little for victims of crime. It would actually reduce the potential consequences for criminals. It has become a pattern with the government to put the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of victims.

Thankfully, today one of the government's failures has had a positive resolution, with the re-incarceration of Tori Stafford's murderer, Terri-Lynne McClintic.

When Tori Stafford's father found out that Terri-Lynne McClintic was being transferred to a healing lodge, he raised objections through a number of contacts with individuals and he organized protests here on the Hill, which I was able to attend to hear the concerns of Rodney Stafford and his family and how they had been impacted by the relocation of Terri-Lynne McClintic to a healing lodge. They were very concerned about that, and many Canadians joined them. They showed their concern by coming to the protests here on Parliament Hill. Last Saturday, hundreds of people in the Woodstock area joined together in front of the Woodstock courthouse to register their concerns about the fact that Terri-Lynne McClintic was being housed in a healing lodge, way before the time she was due to be released.

We agree that we need to have rehabilitation, but to have someone put in a healing lodge more than 10 years before their eventual release is certainly an inappropriate way to be treating our criminals and especially to have concern for victims.

I am still disturbed by the government's continuing soft-on-crime soft spot for criminals. Currently I am dealing with the issue of the prison needle exchange program at the Grand Valley Institution for Women in the Waterloo region. This program puts needles into the hands of hardened criminals so they can use illicit drugs in their own prison cells. We are not talking about EpiPens or insulin syringes administered by nurses. We are talking about needles being handed to prisoners to administer drugs to themselves in their own cells.

Rightly, the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers has come out against this, as it puts their members in danger. They were not consulted at all on the implementation of this pilot project that is being carried out at the Grand Valley Institution for Women. They have held protests outside the offices of the health minister and the Minister of Public Safety, but it seems that the government is just turning a blind eye to this illegal substance problem in our prisons.

Not only do I stand with the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers on this issue, I am also very concerned about my community in Waterloo region. These prisoners who are using the prison needle exchange program can maintain an addiction throughout their entire sentences, and their participation in the exchange program will not even be shared with the Parole Board when their application is made for parole. Therefore, it is quite probable and possible that we will have cases of criminals returning to our communities still addicted to substances that may have played a role in the behaviour that led them to commit their crimes in the first place.

I hope my colleagues in the Liberal Party will realize how we in the Conservative Party have a hard time believing that they are tough on crime when they encourage these types of programs in our prisons.

As a Conservative, I believe that the safety of Canadians should be the number one priority of any government. On this side of the aisle, we will always work to strengthen the Canadian criminal justice system rather than weaken it. We will continue to stand up for victims.

That is why today the leader of my party was in Brampton laying out the Conservative plan that cracks down on guns and gangs. This plan has five proposals.

The first is ending automatic bail for gang members. Right now, even the most notorious gang members are entitled to bail. That means dangerous criminals who are known to police often go right back out on the streets. This is a dangerous risk to our communities and wastes valuable police resources. A Conservative government would change that and make sure that arrested repeat gang offenders would be held without bail.

The second is identifying gangs in the Criminal Code. Every time prosecutors go after gang members, they must first prove to the court that their gangs are criminal organizations. This includes well-known gangs like MS-13 and Hells Angels. This makes no sense. It is another huge waste of resources. A Conservative government would create and maintain a list of proven criminal organizations, which would help law enforcement prosecute gang members more quickly.

The third is revoking parole for gang members. Parole is a privilege, not a right. Currently, paroled offenders are required to abstain from drugs and alcohol and promise to keep the peace. A Conservative government would also require those on parole to cut ties with gangs. Statistics show offenders are more likely to reoffend on parole if they are part of a gang. For those who associate with gangs while on parole, the message would be simple: they go back to jail.

The fourth is tougher sentences for ordering gang crime. Right now, gang leaders who order others to commit crimes can receive very short sentences in prisons, often served alongside other gang members. A Conservative government would bring in mandatory sentences in federal prison for directing gang crime, sending a strong message to gang members that they belong behind bars.

The fifth is new sentences for violent gang crime. Gang-related murders, assaults, robberies and other violent acts are steadily on the rise and pose the biggest threat to Canadians' safety. A Conservative government would create new offences for committing and ordering violent gang crime and attach mandatory sentences in federal prison for each.

Conservatives understand that a strong criminal justice system must always put the rights of victims and communities ahead of special treatment for perpetrators of violent crime. The Prime Minister is failing to take seriously criminal justice issues. Reducing penalties for serious crimes sends the wrong message to victims, law-abiding Canadians and criminals. As such, we are concerned with the Liberals' proposal to eliminate consecutive sentences for human trafficking and to eliminate the victim surcharge introduced by the previous Conservative government to help victims of crime.

The Liberals are breaking yet another promise. They committed to keep full protections in place for religious officials under section 176 of the Criminal Code. Assault on officiants during a religious service is a very serious crime and should remain an indictable offence. We have serious concerns with other elements of this bill as well, including the number and types of offences that could result in lighter sentencing, including fines, for what are very serious crimes. Under the proposed changes, several serious offences could be prosecuted by summary conviction and, therefore, could result in lighter sentences.

I want to outline, for the benefit of anyone watching this today, some of the changes in Bill C-75 that would result from the passing of this bill. It is quite probable that the penalties for these indictable offences, among many others, would be reduced. On this list are prison breach, municipal corruption, influencing municipal officials and obstructing or violence to or arrest of an officiating clergyman. I mentioned that earlier in my speech. When there is a rise in many of these crimes across North America, this is not the time to be reducing sentences. There are many others on this list.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member for Kitchener—Conestoga a question with respect to the constituents he represents who are members of the LGBTQ2 community. Those constituents are directly affected by this bill in two important regards. We have removed the vagrancy and bawdy house provisions, which brings the bill into conformity with constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. It would allow the expungement of records that existed for the violation of those Criminal Code provisions that were inherently discriminatory.

Second, and most importantly, a provision has been changed whereby section 159 of the Criminal Code has been removed. The impact of that would be to treat a consenting sexual relationship between a heterosexual couple aged 16 and 17 and a LGBT couple aged 16 or 17 exactly the same way. I wonder if the member would indicate his support for those types of changes because of the important impact they would have on the LGBTQ2 community in his own riding.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will always stand for any protection that is included in the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, regardless of sexual orientation.

It is not good enough to hide behind that when we look at the long list of other offences here that are very serious offences that my constituents have concerns about. I have been contacted directly by my constituents about some of this. In fact, I just happened to be working today on my responses to a number of letters I have received. One of them clearly said we need to be clearer on the consequences for serious crimes that are being committed in our area. One of them referred to the use of drugs. That is a big concern, and I am very concerned that not only are we lightening these sentences, we are now giving the tacit message to our population that the use of drugs is okay by the legalization of marijuana. It is not appropriate.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past few months and years, there has been a lot of discussion about crimes involving sexual violence, especially against women. We have shown just how ineffective the justice system is at dealing with these cases and how badly a different approach is needed. We want to keep victims from being traumatized by their experience in the justice system.

Does the bill before us today solve the problems in the justice system concerning cases of sexual violence, or does it fail to make any concrete improvements for victims?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this gets to the heart of one of the problems with dealing with an omnibus bill that incorporates so many different aspects to these reforms. I support some of the aspects of the bill, in fact the one that deals with intimate partner violence. Absolutely, we want to make sure that the message is given that this is absolutely inappropriate and must be rooted out.

When we have this omnibus bill with so many other elements introduced into it, it makes it impossible for us to support that initiative because there are so many other initiatives in it that are totally wrong-headed.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Kitchener—Conestoga went through a list of offences that the government is watering down. One he did not highlight that I would be interested in his comments on is a breach of the long-term supervision order. These orders involve the most serious sexual offenders. These are individuals who are so dangerous that following the conclusion of their sentence they are subject to an order for up to 10 years, administered and overseen by the Parole Board of Canada. When these individuals breach these orders, it is a clear sign that they are returning to their cycle of dangerous criminal behaviour.

I would submit this is just another example of why Bill C-75, in terms of reclassification, is so badly thought out, so badly drafted and puts public safety at risk. I wonder if the member would agree.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not pretend to have anywhere close to the knowledge that the member has of the legal justice system. I certainly agree that we need to do everything we can to give a strong message that any of these breaches will not be tolerated.

I want to come back to my earlier point that there is such a long list of lightening of sentences here that it gives me great concern for my entire community, and in fact for the whole country.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be here to talk about Bill C-75.

I think that the House now knows that I was a diplomat for 15 years. I was assigned to Argentina first, then to Salvador, and finally to Dallas, Texas. I also had the opportunity to work for my colleague from Thornhill when he was Minister of State of Foreign Affairs for the Americas. I found it very interesting, since we had the strategy for the Americas.

There we had three major principles that we followed in everything that we did.

The first was the idea of democracy. As shadow minister for democratic institutions, democracy is very close to my heart.

The second principle was that of prosperity, promoting free markets. I remember the Brazilians did not like this. They said we thought everyone should be rich but that was not our way of thinking at all. Rather, we chose to promote free markets abroad.

The third principle was justice, and this bill flies in the face of the principle of justice. Is this really the example that Canada wants to set for the world in terms of what would be established as a result of Bill C-75?

When I was consul for Canada to San Salvador in El Salvador there was a very unfortunate incident whereby a Canadian was found with narcotics. The individual was in a taxi. The cab was pulled over and unfortunately the narcotics fell out of some tissue paper. The individual was brought to jail and put on trial. As the consul for Canada at the time, I was asked to attend the proceedings. This was a very difficult situation for me. It was probably the most difficult that I had as a diplomat. I received a speech from the judge who indicated that fighting narcotics in his opinion at that time, in 2006, was one of the primary tenets of the western world.

My point is this. It is not this situation specifically but it goes back to the point that I am trying to make in regards to the deficiencies in this legislation. This legislation would not only cause delays but would propose lighter sentences. Is this really the example that Canada wants to set for the rest of the world? I absolutely think not.

I will go through some of the lighter sentencing items that my colleagues have gone through, some quite extensively. The bill would reduce penalties for crimes that include, but are not limited to, participation in activity of terrorist groups, leaving Canada to participate in activity of terrorist groups, punishment of rioter and concealment of identity, and breach of trust by a public officer.

Let me go back to participation in activity of terrorist groups and leaving Canada to participate in activity of terrorist groups. I daresay that it has historically been a major component of not only Canada's foreign affairs agenda but I would also argue our aid agenda and our defence agenda to to fight against these crimes in the world. Is Bill C-75 the example that we want to set for the world?

Another item that stands out to me is “Obstructing or violence to or arrest of officiating clergyman”. I see my delightful colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard in the House. I worked, side by side, with him at his round table that he had for clergy. God bless him. I am sure they always do, but they did have the fear of God regarding the potential change that would result from this legislation. I daresay they might again today, seeing that these penalties can potentially be reduced. It very well might embolden some. That is also very concerning.

Moreover, there is the offence of “advocating genocide”. That is something that we as a nation should be in the lead against. We are indicating in Bill C-75 that perhaps it is not such a priority that we have said it is to the world by reducing the sentencing for advocating such a thing. I think that is shame. Again I ask, is this the example, as found in Bill C-75, that Canada wants to set for the world?

Also, I am going to go to one of the last items on the list, and that is “Participation in activities of criminal organization”. This is one that is very dear to me, again, having served in El Salvador, a place that unfortunately has much gang violence, with many negative effects on society there.

In addition to being the consul and the chef d'affaires during my time in El Salvador, I was also very fortunate to sit on the Canada fund as a member to decide the allocation of funding for programs. Every single time, we would put these funds towards activities that would discourage gang violence, primarily towards youth, to get them involved in physical activities and with youth organizations, so they could have other interests that would allow them to believe and see that they were worthwhile and worthy, and could contribute to society.

This would be a good time for me to indicate that I am very proud of our leader today and the legislation that he has brought forward in regard to gangs for a safer Canada. This includes ending automatic bail for gangsters, identifying gangs in the Criminal Code, revoking parole for gangsters, tougher sentences for ordering gang crime, and new sentences for violent gang crime, something that I believe, given my experience, given my work in Canada and abroad, is something that is very timely and necessary for a safer Canada.

I do believe that we should all get behind our leader and his message of a safer Canada in promoting and supporting this legislation, because I have seen the end result of where gang violence takes over a society. It is not a pretty picture. It affects all areas of society. Again, I ask, is Bill C-75 the example Canada wants to set for the world?

In conclusion, I will say this to my counterpart, the Minister of Democratic Institutions.

He said that he came to the House of Commons specifically to change the law with regard to valid ID for voting. I myself came here to promote democracy. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s administration did so much for democracy, prosperity and justice. That is why I cannot support Bill C-75, since it goes against Canadians and our position in the world.

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member opposite and salute her contributions to Canada while serving in the foreign service in the past. While I am tempted to ask her a question about the disenfranchisement of all of the Canadians abroad under the previous government while she was serving those Canadians abroad in El Salvador, etc., I want to ask her about Bill C-75.

The member asked repeatedly about whether this is something we should be proud of and whether it is the kind of symbolic representation we want to make toward the world. I have a comment and a question.

We do want to be known as a government that takes discrimination against indigenous people seriously, and a government that listens to those very same foreign counterparts she served in her various roles in the foreign service, like England, which eliminated peremptory challenges in 1988. Those challenges are basically discriminatory, as they would allow a homogenous jury to render a verdict in the case of a white farmer accused of killing an indigenous man in Saskatchewan. I would put to her that ending peremptory challenges is something we want to be known for around the world.

Would she agree that it is also good to be known around the world for taking a substantive stand against intimate partner violence, something the member for Cariboo—Prince George questioned in a somewhat mocking manner in the chamber? Also, by expanding the definition to include dating partners and former spouses and ensuring that we have tougher penalties on intimate partner violence, is that the exact kind of stand she would like our government and this Parliament to take against violence against women?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what I will say is that I am very proud of the Harper administration and, along with that, my predecessor Jason Kenney. Also, I am very fortunate to know the Hon. John Baird very well. I believe all of them worked together to promote the principles of democracy, prosperity and justice in the world. It was this type of leadership that saw us do many great things during that time of the Harper administration. Therefore, I do not believe that the reduction of sentences for these significant atrocities against humankind would do anything to further our place in the world. I will always stand very much behind and encourage the types of stands we saw from Minister Kenney, Minister Baird and certainly Prime Minister Harper. I really look forward to returning to those practices again very soon under a Conservative government.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although the bill in question includes some measures concerning domestic violence, many stakeholders and victims of sexual violence have said that the existing justice system does not meet current needs and is not adapted to the reality of sexual violence. It can often be a traumatic experience for victims.

Although it contains measures related to domestic violence, is the bill before us today a major reform of the justice system when it comes to sex crimes, or is that far from the case, and does it in fact lack the reforms needed to make the justice system work better for victims of sexual violence?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot think about Bill C-75 or genocide without thinking about the work done by my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill. I can honestly say that our party supports victims of genocide, including women. As I said before, I cannot support Bill C-75, because that would be tantamount to opposing victims of genocide.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to rise to speak to Bill C-75, an omnibus bill that is over 300 pages long, even though I very clearly remember the government promising not to introduce any omnibus bills. Unfortunately, the Liberals did not keep their promise.

Bill C-75 has the Liberal stamp on it. At second reading, the Liberals moved a time allocation motion on Bill C-75. They do not want to hear the truth when they introduce bills and they do not want to hear what the opposition has to say. Nevertheless, the members of the opposition represent Canadians the same way government members do, and so what we have to say deserves to be heard.

Since time is quickly running out, I will get right to the point. The Liberal government's inaction on justice has consequences.

One of my constituents was the victim of the Liberal government's inaction on justice on two occasions. His name is Dannick Lessard. He was the victim of a crime and he was the victim of an error on the part of Corrections Canada. He was also a victim of the Jordan decision. He watched as his assailant, the man who shot him, was set free without any other charges being brought against him.

It is absolutely unbelievable that, despite this voluminous bill, the government is doing absolutely nothing to address the case of Dannick Lessard, a man who did not ask to be victimized several times, not only by a criminal but also by the government. He was also the victim of the government's dogged determination to ignore his case.

To date, Mr. Lessard has racked up $80,000 in legal fees just so he can get his point across, get the government to listen to reason and be able to move on to other things.

The government has become an expert in victimization, which is completely unacceptable.

I would like remind everyone of what happened to Mr. Lessard, so they know what we are talking about.

Mr. Lessard was shot by a man armed with two pistols. He was hit nine times. He suffered many physical and psychological injuries. That act of unspeakable violence turned his life upside down. That is what he wrote in a letter addressed to several people.

On April 21, 2017, a stay of proceedings was ordered under the Jordan decision for the trial that was to be held in September 2017 of a man charged with first degree murder as well as the attempted murder of Mr. Lessard.

That ruling effectively ended any chance that Mr. Lessard's case would be heard and that justice would be served. At the time, he asked one question, and he still has not received an answer.

Is it reasonable that his attacker does not have to face justice for such a violent and gratuitous crime? Is it reasonable for Mr. Lessard to live the rest of his life with the scars from that attack? He believes that as a consequence of the Jordan decision, victims and the public have lost confidence in the Canadian justice system.

What does Bill C-75 propose to do about appointing more judges? Absolutely nothing. It is all very well to make laws, present amendments and talk for hours in committee, but if there is no one on the bench to manage these situations, it will not do any good.

Mr. Lessard wants the government to acknowledge the mistakes it made in his case. He wants the government to acknowledge that mistakes were made in the case of his attacker, who was wrongly released.

It is scandalous that an attacker who should be in prison is released to commit another crime and then has all charges dropped. Meanwhile, the government gave Omar Khadr $10 million.

This is a case of a citizen who was just doing his job and got shot. He was the victim, and today he is looking for help. He wrote to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety. The Minister of Public Safety was the only one to reply. Unfortunately, in his reply, he said that the Minister of Justice was responsible for this file.

What happens when the buck gets passed? Nothing is resolved.

We absolutely have to think of the people who are victims of the system. The system did not work, and the government is taking too long to appoint judges for various reasons. Unfortunately, people are waiting and spending a fortune trying to get justice. The government should be more understanding and address the situation as quickly as possible.

Since Bill C-75 does not resolve Mr. Lessard's case, I will be voting against it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable will have four minutes remaining for his speech when the House resumes debate on this motion, as well as a 10-minute period 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.

National Local Food Day Act

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

moved that Bill C-281, An Act to establish a National Local Food Day, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today for third reading of my bill, Bill C-281, to create a national local food day the Friday before Thanksgiving every year.

For those at home who are not familiar with private members' bills or how they work, when we become a member of Parliament, our name go into a hat. There were 338 names put into a hat. Names are drawn out and whichever spot our name comes up in becomes the number of our bill. I was about 111 with respect to private members' bills.

The first introduction of my bill was on June 1 of 2016, and then it was almost two years later, May 30, that my bill was debated at second reading. A number of members of Parliament from all parties gave some really inspiring speeches about how important local food was in their ridings. I very much thank them for that.

From there, the bill went to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and it was approved unanimously on June 20. I would like to thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his support at the agriculture committee.

Why is local food important and why is there support right across Canada for my bill? I will start locally.

In the summer of 2018, I went on a farmers' market tour around my riding. My riding is 64,000 square kilometres and there are a lot of communities to visit. I attended farmers' markets with my tent and table in 10 communities. In the 11th community, I had the privilege of opening the summer market. Over the course of the summer, I was in Fernie, Jaffray, Cranbrook, Creston, Salmo, Nelson, Revelstoke, Golden, Radium, Invermere and Kimberley. Everywhere I went, people were excited about local food and the national local food day bill.

Why is that? It is because local food benefits us in so many different ways. First, it is healthy. We know where it comes from when it is grown locally. It is important to food security. We do not have to import food that we grow locally, and food security is going to become a growing issue internationally, particularly with climate change. It benefits the local economy. I know the farmers' market in Cranbrook, after about three years of being in existence, was generating over $1 million a year in benefit to the economy.

Going around to the various communities this summer and participating in the farmers' markets, I met tourists from all over Canada and the world who had come to farmers' markets in local communities. Therefore, it also benefits tourism, as well as the economy and food security.

One of the fastest growing agriculture products in Canada is organic food, which people can get at farmers' markets, as well as many local grocery stores. According to Canada Organic, organic food, comprised mostly of fresh vegetables and fruit, was valued at $4.4 billion in 2017, with 66% of Canadian shoppers saying they bought organic food, and that is on the increase.

Growing food locally is also a benefit to the environment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its report on October 10. One of the key messages that came out very strongly from this report was that we were already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels, among other changes. At the current rate of warming, the world is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052.

Locally grown or harvested food has a much smaller carbon dioxide footprint than food imported from around the world. It is essential to our food security. Increasingly, locally grown food is one important way to fight climate change.

A few weeks ago during question period, a question was raised about the impact on climate change of greenhouse marijuana grow operations that used a lot of electricity and plastics. The best way to counter that from an environment perspective is for the government to give priority to outdoor marijuana grow operations. I can assure everyone that marijuana farmers in the Kootenays are ready to do their part to help save the planet.

In addition to hearing directly from people, there was a petition that circulated around the riding this summer, which again drew support from across Canada. That petition talked about the need to strengthen the connection between consumers and producers of Canadian food and the need to support our local farmers. The petition underlined that a national local food day to celebrate food is one of the most elemental characteristics of all of the cultures that populate this nation. Therefore, it called upon the Government of Canada to support the NDP's Bill C-281, an act to establish a national local food day, and designate the Friday before Thanksgiving every year as national local food day.

We also circulated postcards. One of those postcards invited people to draw and send back to us what they thought represented local food. Three-year-old Madeleine from greater Vancouver sent me a postcard with a carrot drawn on it, and Lisa from Saskatoon sent a card back saying “Local Vegetables - Hooray!”, so there is a lot of support from that perspective.

There is also a lot of support from other organizations, including provincial governments. I will start with British Columbia's Minister of Agriculture, Lana Popham, who sent us a letter. It reads:

I am writing in support of Private Member Bill, C-28: An Act to establish a National Local Food Day.

...The establishment of a National Local Food Day encourages Canadians to choose local food products and supports our farmers, ranchers, fishers, hunters and food processors, while also promoting healthy living.

This is a letter from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry from Alberta, the Hon. Oneil Carlier. It says:

The Government of Alberta recognizes the tremendous contributions that the local food sector makes to a strong and diversified economy and to the quality of life of Albertans and Canadians...

I have written a letter to Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food expressing my support for your bill. I look forward to further opportunities for provincial and federal governments to work together to support our local food producers and processors, and recognize the contributions that they make to the economy, the environment, and the health and wellbeing of all Canadians.

From Manitoba, the Minister of Agriculture Ralph Eichler writes:

This letter is to express Manitoba Agriculture's support for your Private Member's Bill, C-28: An Act to Establish a National Local Food Day, which would designate the Friday before Thanksgiving each year as “National Local Food Day”....

Having a national designated day to focus awareness of food produced in Canada, especially at a time of giving thanks, is an excellent way to celebrate food and recognize the hard work that goes into its production.

From across Canada, other supporters include the Canadian Horticultural Council, the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Association of Fairs and Exhibitions, the Chicken Farmers of Canada, the Canadian Meat Council, the Egg Farmers of Canada, the Turkey Farmers of Canada, Restaurants Canada, food action coalitions, farmers markets, and the list goes on.

There are a number of food events across Canada. We encourage every riding, every province, to celebrate food locally as well. I will list some that are currently occurring in Canada. The national local food day complements the many local and regional farmers markets and food festivals that already take place across Canada. There are many organizations that promote Canada's culinary wealth, including World Food Day on October 16, National Food Day, Feast of Fields, the Nelson Garden Festival, Taste of the Danforth, the Shediac Lobster Festival and many more. Canadians love locally produced food and we are proud of the world-class excellence of our products. We need more opportunities to celebrate local food.

I know that each member of the House is proud of the growers, producers and harvesters in their particular part of the country. In order to help shine a light on their important contributions to food security, a healthy environment and a healthy economy, I ask that members continue their support for Bill C-281 and let it move on to the Senate. Let us join together across Canada and recognize the Friday before Thanksgiving each year as national local food day.

I very much appreciate all the support that we have had to date, and I look forward to that support continuing.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for what he is trying to do and what he is trying to submit.

The question is, how much of a capacity do we have in Canada, and specifically in British Columbia and on the Prairies, to be able to produce enough food for Canadians? If we were to take that calculation, if he has done the math, would he be able to advise us on Canada's capacity in terms of locally produced food?

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not actually done the calculations. I just know that across Canada, as local food grows in importance, we are going to get better and better at ensuring food security for the future.

I will give an example. When I was mayor of Cranbrook, we started to have a look at what kind of opportunity there was to use our vacant lots in communities. Virtually every city has lots that are currently empty. We could, instead, turn those into gardens to help grow local food.

When I was in Korea, again when I was mayor and we had a friendly city relationship, we stayed at a hotel in downtown Wonju, South Korea. What was once a vacant city block was entirely covered in vegetable gardens.

We can certainly do much better to ensure that we have food locally, and of course if we have extra, we are always happy to export it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the hon. member's efforts in this regard. This would recognize farmers and producers for what they do, not only for their own local areas but for the economy generally.

I have always found it strange that often we will be producing food in one area of the country and they will be producing it in another. Two trucks will be passing each other on the road, going in different directions, because of the brand that is on the label, so that one of the chain stores can sell that particular product. I know of situations where people could not buy Nova Scotia corn in Nova Scotia, because the chain stores had a contract to bring in Ontario corn. What sense does that make?

This would not only recognize farmers but also, if we could have people buy local more often, actually lessen the trucking and help the environment. It would do any number of other things. It would recognize farmers locally for what they do. It would show people in the local area the quality of products they can get from their local farmers, and that is all to the better.

I really appreciate and want to congratulate the member on his efforts.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member brings up an excellent point.

Again, when I was mayor of Cranbrook, I met with the president of Save-On-Foods, which is a B.C. company that is in many of our communities. I asked him that question. I asked, “If we end up developing a greenhouse operation in Cranbrook and producing vegetables, would you buy them locally?” He said, “Absolutely, that is the preferred way to do it.” They save money doing it that way. It cuts down on environmental costs, but also on actual costs for companies if they get products grown locally.

The more we can grow locally, the better it is. We need to have industries or stores that are leaders in their area to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque almost stole my question, but I will ask it anyway.

I heard a story that might be apocryphal, but in Spain and France there were two trucks that actually had a head-on collision. One was bringing tomatoes from France into Spain, and the other was bringing tomatoes from Spain into France. It shows the absurdity of the situation.

I would like to ask the member for his comments on this very unusual situation.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an unfortunate situation in many aspects, of course.

Again, if we can grow more food locally, most stores would be happy to carry that food and sell it locally. It would save on transportation costs. It would save the stores money, it would help the environment, and we also would not have situations like that happening, which was unfortunate for the people involved as well as in terms of the concept.

[Pat Finnigan, Liberal, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the House for the opportunity to talk about this important private member's bill.

I want to comment on the last question. I can assure the member that my tomatoes will never collide with anyone else's, because I sell them locally.

On that note, I applaud the member for Kootenay—Columbia for introducing this excellent private member's bill. I was proud as chair of the standing committee on agriculture that all members of our committee gave the bill unanimous support when it was presented last June.

Our government recognizes the contribution of agriculture and food to local and regional economies. We also recognize the importance of strengthening connections between consumers and producers of food, and the capacity of local food systems to offer distinctive, high-quality food choices to consumers.

This debate has prompted some members to share their experiences with local food.

I have been a local farmer all my life, but things have changed a lot since I started out. Back then, there were plenty of small and medium grocery stores, wholesalers and farmers’ markets where I could take my certified organic tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and flowers. However, the concentration of the food chains has changed the landscape for my business and that of my fellow farmers.

It forced me and others to connect more directly with the consumer. Through my direct market called Mr. Tomato in Rogersville, New Brunswick, we were able to connect directly with consumers. They came to our place to buy our product.

I was a founding member of the Really Local Harvest co-op. This co-op has about 30 members within a 100 kilometre area. It permits us to network and to sell our products. With that co-op, we became the manager of the Dieppe Farmers Market, where over 7,000 people go every Saturday to buy their food and talk to farmers. It made a big difference. That market managed to keep some farmers going when a lot of farms were closing down, and it permitted our farms to stay connected with the consumer.

Food is close to our hearts. Home is where the heart is.

From U-pick strawberries in Ontario to fresh beer made with prairie hops to drink on the balcony, our favourite foods are often those produced closest to home. In fact, according to the 2018 Canadian Food Trends published by the Loblaw Food Council, more and more Canadians want locally produced food. Of course, we are all local somewhere.

That means that we need a solid agricultural system across Canada. All Canadians can share their beloved local foods with the entire planet to help feed the growing world population with sustainable foods.

That is why the objective of the new Canadian agricultural partnership is to build a strong agriculture sector. The Canadian agricultural partnership is Canada’s five-year agriculture policy framework. It outlines a bold new vision that will help the agriculture and agrifood sector innovate, grow and prosper.

On April 1, ministers of agriculture from across Canada launched the partnership as a shared vision for the future of Canadian agriculture. Over the next five years, our governments will invest $3 billion in the partnership. Over $1 billion of that investment will support federal programs and activities to revitalize Canadian agriculture. These programs will focus on the following three key areas: growing trade and expanding markets; innovation and sustainable growth of the sector; and supporting diversity and a dynamic, evolving sector.

Canadians want to make informed choices about what they eat. They want to be able to trust the quality of the food that they and their families are eating. The Canadian agricultural partnership is the first policy framework to explicitly recognize public trust as a priority for our agriculture sector.

The new $74-million AgriInsurance program will help the agriculture sector maintain and strengthen public trust in Canada’s food system.

It will help farmers and food producers tell customers about the great things they are doing to grow safe, high-quality food and to care for animals and safeguard our environment, so that customers, whether they be local or international, will know that the red maple leaf is a symbol they can trust. Our new $20-million agri-competitiveness program will also help organizations raise awareness of our world-class agricultural industry among Canadians. This will reinforce the public's confidence in Canada's food production system and promote public trust. Partnership programs are also breaking new ground with a strong focus on diversity.

The more perspectives we have in agriculture, the more dynamic the sector becomes. Through our new $5-million agri-diversity program, we will reach out to women, indigenous communities and young people. It is important that we remove any barriers that are preventing these groups from taking up a leadership role in the sector. This diversity helps give local food systems the capacity to offer distinctive, high-quality food choices to consumers.

Of course, when it comes to agriculture, we are a trading nation, and the partnership is geared to opening markets. We export over half of all of our agricultural output and the government knows that trade also drives jobs and the economy.

That is why our objective is to expand agricultural exports to $75 billion by 2025.

The partnership programs will help the sector promote Canada as a producer of safe, high-quality foods so that our farmers and food processors can sell more products at home and abroad. This will help strengthen the local food movement and could even draw food tourists from around the world.

The future of Canadian agriculture is bright. We are blessed with an abundance of quality farmland and a variety of local climates. Our ice wines are among the best in the world.

That is why we have set a target of $75 billion in agricultural exports by 2025.

For top-quality grains, look no further than the Prairies. In fact, a public-private group in Saskatchewan was selected as one of five new super clusters under our $950-million investment in budget 2018.

I am sure we can all agree that eating locally is an excellent way to stimulate the economy.

Protein Industries Canada will turn even more of our prairie grains into high-quality plant protein to feed the world. With the new programs available under the Canadian agricultural partnership, we are giving farmers and food processors the tools they need to keep agriculture diverse and vibrant right across our country. A yearly national local food day would be an opportunity for Canadians to take a look near them and see what is growing.

Once again, I would like to thank the member for Kootenay—Columbia for all of his hard work on this bill.

I look forward to the passing of this bill before the end of this Parliament. I hope it does. We are proud to support it.