Pat O'Brien

[Income Tax Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Nepean for bringing forth this motion. This motion will help us participate in a much needed debate on a very important topic.

Clearly the current system around the issue of child support payments is unfair. It is outdated and simply is not working. The hon. member has helped us to recognize this vital concern that the system must be reformed and that we must find a system which is fair to women, men and most especially to the children who unfortunately experience the breakdown of the family.

Understandably, this has been a topic of interest in my own riding of London-Middlesex and indeed obviously right across this country. This is a vital concern which interests all Canadians.

Both this motion and the Thibaudeau case show that the current system is not working. It is outdated and in bad need of repair. However, simply eliminating taxation of support payments will not necessarily improve the situation.

Without discrimination against women I support the appeal of the decision and the task force to consult further into taxation measures and enforcement of child support payments. We need a more balanced system which is fair to all involved. However, I say again most especially we need a system that keeps as its first priority an adequate level of support paid regularly and on time to the children who have experienced the breakdown of their family.

On a personal note, as an educator for some 21 years in Ontario I can attest to the learning and social difficulties experienced by many children who come from broken and poorer families. All too often these children are unhappy in school and they underachieve as a consequence. Let me hasten to add there are many obvious exceptions to that. There are young people who are so well balanced and mature they manage to live through the breakdown of the family and carry on fairly nicely to successfully complete their education.

I say again, and any teacher anywhere in this land can tell you, all too often that is not the case. All too often these students have a number of problems which must be overcome if they are to successfully complete their education. Many times, unfortu-

nately, that education is interrupted or prematurely ended because of the problems that I have mentioned.

I commend the hon. member for this motion. We have heard many people speak out on the issue in our ridings, in the media, in this Chamber and obviously in the courts. Times have changed and the legislation to deal with this important problem must keep pace with the times.

As it now stands, the government is short $330 million in tax payments and $660 million in deductions. The issues that this case and this motion raise go far beyond narrow questions of taxation or legal interpretation. Most important and as part of his comprehensive review of social programs, the Minister of Human Resources Development in co-operation with the provinces will have to come to grips with the fact that the vast majority of single mothers in Canada receive no support payments at all for their children and that the vast majority of support orders are not obeyed. That is a pathetic fact that I think we all acknowledge. Indeed, one of my colleagues across the way spoke to this on a more personal basis earlier.

We simply cannot have the courts and the laws of this country flouted in such an important area as the support of one's offspring.

The system dates back to 1942. That date alone calls to mind that the system is outdated. The problem was that lawyers and judges frequently failed to increase payments to offset taxes. High income fathers got off without paying tax on part of their income while children suffered to make up the shortfall. Even with the tax benefit a majority of support agreements are in default in Ontario and some two-thirds of children from separated families live in poverty. That point has been made before in this House and today again, but it is a point that is so dramatic that it cannot be made too often. Some two-thirds of children from separated families live in poverty and the fallout of that, both in the school systems and in society at large, is incalculable. It is really a major problem that our society must come to grips with.

A modern and comprehensive approach would boost enforcement and set minimum support guidelines to ensure that children are properly served.

I am pleased to see the emphasis on fairness to Canadian women and I am sure the first people to support this would be those very women. The priority must at all times be the children involved. Whatever is going to be most effective to make sure that they are adequately cared for is the system that I and Canadians want to support.

To sum up, an appeal of the Thibaudeau decision may not seem necessary since Ottawa and the provinces are already studying ways to improve child support guidelines. I think the appeal is a good step as it will help us come to grips with the system in a more comprehensive way and to find that balanced system which we are sorely lacking right now.

Because the court only examined one side of the formula, the tax but not the deduction, there is this imbalance of which I speak. The father can claim the deduction but the mother no longer pays tax, a far richer subsidy than anyone intended. I do not think there can be anyone in this House and I have heard from very few Canadians who would object to the statement of the hon. Minister of Finance. He put it very succinctly and he put it very well and with common sense: Someone has to pay the tax.

The fact of the matter is that someone must pay that tax. It cannot simply be forgone.

In closing, I support the task force chaired by the Secretary of State for the Status of Women because I fully recognize with the government the need for change. Again I commend my hon. colleague from Nepean for her motion. I hope the end result of this process will be a much fairer system recognizing the needs of the children.

[Witness Protection Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on February 21 I had the opportunity in the House to ask a question of the minister of agriculture about the expansion of country of origin labelling in Canada. At that time the minister indicated general agreement with the concept and the fact that there would obviously need to be ongoing discussions with the various sectors of the agri-food industry.

In April I had the opportunity to put a question to the parliamentary secretary to the minister, again about the issue of country of origin labelling, with the twist that it had come to my attention at a meeting of the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture that there was concern among Canadian farmers that perhaps there had been an agreement, a secret agreement I guess, made between Canada, Mexico and the United States not to pursue the idea of country of origin labelling. I had the assurance from the parliamentary secretary at that time that this was not the case.

I wish to pursue this briefly today in the House because we all know that it does pay to buy Canadian. I certainly prefer to purchase Canadian product, and that obviously includes agri-food product, as I think many Canadians do. Within a given range of expense, I think that many Canadians are prepared to pay a little bit more for a Canadian made product or a Canadian grown product in the agri-food situation.

My farm constituents in London-Middlesex would want me to say that we certainly have the safest food anywhere in the world, and as an urban Canadian I agree with that. If it is a little more expensive through no fault of Canadian farmers, then I am prepared to pay that little extra and I would certainly hope and I do believe that many Canadians are also prepared to pay that little extra.

I wonder about the labelling we see in food stores. I have spoken to the parliamentary secretary and the minister informally on this as well as many members. It is pretty easy to go into a food store in this country and see in large letters "Packaged in Canada", and below it in very minuscule letters, almost unreadable, "Product of California" or South Carolina or wherever.

To the naive purchaser, which I would be, not often frequenting these food stores because that chore is taken on by one better qualified in my family, my wife, it is pretty easy to think you are buying a product that was produced in Canada when in fact it simply was packaged in Canada.

I have a couple of questions for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

First, will the government consider some expansion of the concept of country of origin labelling, or at least will there be an opportunity to have a dialogue with the Canadian agri-food industry about this idea?

Second, is there not some concern from the minister and from our government about safety standards of agri-food product that is imported into this country? I ask this second question because we have all heard the horror stories about imported food. Let us for example talk about chicken from the southern U.S. The former illustrious member for Lambton-Middlesex has a pretty good horror story about southern U.S. chicken coming into this country, treated in such a way that I think if most Canadian consumers knew it might turn their stomachs, if not dissuade them from buying that product.

To what extent is that a concern of the minister and of the parliamentary secretary and of our government?

I have two questions in summary. Will the concept of country of origin labelling be pursued with our Canadian farmers in at least a determination of how much they want to pursue it? I understand there is a potential downside when that is done to our product in other nations. To what extent is there a concern about imported agri-food product being up to the safety standards of our product, not that it is acceptable to come into the country, but is that food in all instances as safe as our own Canadian agri-food product?

[Witness Protection Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to speak to Bill C-206, an act to provide for the relocation and protection of witnesses.

Listening to previous debates on the bill, it is clear that we all agree on the importance of providing Canadians with an effective and efficient witness protection program. We also appear to agree that the best means of achieving this, of ensuring a first rate witness protection program is through legislation. The obvious benefits of legislation pertain to accountability, transparency and universality.

In terms of accountability, there is no question that a minister should be held accountable to Parliament for the administration of this important service. While acknowledging that witness protection is inherently a confidential program, its basic principles and features should be matters of public knowledge.

There would be less misunderstanding about the purpose and scope of a witness protection program if its fundamental principles, criteria and procedures were expressly defined in law. When we speak of the need for universality, it is that witness protection should be available to all Canadians given the criteria for eligibility are satisfied.

There are of course other desirable features of legislation many of which have been raised in this debate. My point is to say we are all convinced that Canada's witness protection requirements would best be addressed through legislation. Having agreed that a legislated witness protection program is desirable, we must then ask what we want addressed in legislation besides the program's basic tenets and parameters.

As we have already learned, witness protection is a complex function of law enforcement, criminal prosecutions and public safety. It involves the interest and participation of numerous individuals and government departments. It generates considerable administrative activity. To what extent, I ask, should we address in legislation administrative requirements that comprise a witness protection program?

One thing is certain and that is that an ineffective witness protection program could lead to drastic results for all concerned. We must ensure we do not create a program without providing the tools for its effective implementation.

Of course, to address the specific issues that should be dealt with by legislation requires a thorough understanding of the intricacies of this service. This leaves us in a bit of a quandary as there are few experts in this field. Certainly we in this House, although we have been considerably enlightened over the course of this debate, really are not witness protection experts.

It is not my intention in speaking to trivialize in any way the efforts of my colleague, the hon. member for Scarborough West, or to minimize the knowledge he has obviously gained in this area; indeed he ought to be complimented for his efforts in this area. Knowing the scarcity of information on witness protection and the difficulty in accessing whatever information there is, the hon. member is to be commended for his tabling of Bill C-206. I speak today only to suggest that as with any law, the proposed legislation should take into consideration the representations of experts in the field.

A recent example of a similar undertaking can be found in Australia. A parliamentary review of witness protection took place in Australia in the late 1980s. The joint committee on the national crime authority produced its final report in 1988 following extensive testimony and submissions to the committee by police, lawyers, academics and even protected witnesses themselves.

We are fortunate to be able to benefit from the Australian experience, particularly in light of the scarcity of information on witness protection. I would like to share with the House some of the committee's observations and recommendations as well as review aspects of the Australian witness protection bill which was tabled in its Parliament in March 1994.

For members' information, the bill proposes the establishment of a national witness protection program to be operated by the Australian federal police.

To begin with, the committee clearly recognized that witness protection is crucial to the investigation and prosecution of organized crime and that in fact the vast majority of individuals who receive protection are informants, more specifically police agents.

I quote from the report:

The reality is that the majority of witnesses likely to be in need of protection will look at some involvement in the criminal activities in respect of which they are giving evidence.

The importance of this fact cannot be overemphasized. The implications of protecting and relocating individuals who have criminal experience or criminal associations are significant. I would suggest that this fact be specifically addressed in any proposed witness protection legislation in the interests of public safety and the general success of a witness protection program.

The Australian witness protection bill clearly considers this important issue. For example, clause 7 of the Australian bill lists matters that the witness must disclose before being included in the program. Most of these matters pertain to possible civil obligations, including debts, bankruptcy and other financial liabilities, as well as a detail of the applicant's criminal history.

This provision addresses the practical but very important, complex and costly problem associated with protecting witnesses who have outstanding liabilities in the old name. In effect it provides the commissioner of the Australian federal police permission to terminate an agreement with a witness if these kinds of liabilities were not disclosed prior to admission of the program.

I would suggest that this is the kind of practical matter that needs to be considered when legislating witness protection so that the program eventually created is workable.

Similarly, the committee recognized the importance of an efficient name change and documentation process and made several recommendations in this regard. Clause 22 of the Australian bill reflects the intention of one of these recommendations by creating an offence of unlawfully disclosing information about the witness' identity or information that would compromise his or her security. This is another example of an important aspect to witness protection that should be addressed in law.

The provisions of documents in the witness' new name in a timely and secure manner is vital to the success of relocation. In fact, this is the key to the success of any witness protection program. If an efficient name change and documentation process can be achieved by providing legal authority for the administration of this function and also sanctions for disclosure then we should be addressing this issue thoroughly in legislation.

I referred to just a few of the Australian bill's provisions. Overall the bill addresses numerous practical administrative considerations with informed detail. I have referred the House to the bill and the commentary in the Australian parliamentary joint committee's report to underscore the need to address this issue in a comprehensive manner. These are the types of factors that must be examined before this government can in good conscience proceed further with legislation for a witness protection program.

In closing, I would suggest that we learn from the experience of our Commonwealth partner and adopt a similar thorough approach to the important issue of witness protection in this country.

[Wetlands-Woodlands-Wildlife Program, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food recently announced 10 partnership projects in Ontario promoting sustainable agriculture practices to benefit and restore fish and wildlife habitat. These demonstration projects are part of the wetlands-woodlands-wildlife program identified as a priority initiative under the Canada-Ontario agriculture green plan.

This plan provides over $1.8 million over the next three years for demonstration projects that range from windbreak plantings, conservation cropping and tillage practices, to enhancing natural wetlands and woodlot areas that will provide food, shelter and nesting habitat for a number of wildlife species.

The goal of this program is to promote the development and adoption of sustainable farm management practices and new technologies. I am very pleased that one of these projects will be located in my riding of London-Middlesex.

The enhancement of the Caddy-Bott drain in Middlesex county demonstrates this government's commitment to working in partnership with our farmers to promote environmentally sound agricultural practices that will ensure the long term viability of Ontario agriculture.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the Reform Party for his compliments and for his question. Perhaps I misunderstood his earlier speech, but I was taking issue with the suggestion that there was some sort of an inconsistency with the pre-election or the election position of our party on article XI and what we actually did once elected. I do not think there was any inconsistency whatsoever when we voted and stood alone in the world on article XI.

However one sees article XI and the efficacy of it, I was wanting to reinforce the fact that we were very consistent on how we dealt with that important clause of GATT after elected and what we had said prior to the election.

I will comment briefly on the Reform leader's points which almost amounted to depoliticizing the agri-food industry. While I applaud that sentiment I am not sure, knowing the farmers I do in my riding, I have never met more political people, people more attuned to what is going on in the country politically and determined to influence the system obviously to their advantage as Canadians, as we all seek to use the system to the advantage of our families and our country in general. I do not think we are going to see a day when governments are not involved in the agri-food decision making process. The process is political by nature, as I see it.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as you can tell I am anxious to speak in this debate, however I am glad I did not prevent the interesting exchange we just heard between my colleague and the leader of the Reform Party.

First let me congratulate the minister in opening this important topic to a full debate of all parties in the House. My riding of London-Middlesex is 20 per cent agricultural and that 20 per cent encompasses four townships of some of the best farming land in southern Ontario.

It is important to me that my constituents have their views represented. They well know that the spinoff value of agriculture in economic activity is something in the order of four to one. This is a fact that is not appreciated enough by urban Canadians, just how important agriculture and the agri-food industry is to the country.

Our party in the red book spoke about making food and the production of food a matter of national security. That is a commitment that our government and our minister fully intend to live up to. I intend to help make sure that it does take place.

As Canadians, we know that we have the safest food in the world at a very affordable cost. Many of us who are more urban Canadians do not fully appreciate that fact. It is time that we did so whatever part of the country we happen to live in.

Earlier I heard the speech of the leader of the Reform Party. I enjoyed it but I would take issue with one important point because it is something that has been brought home to me by my constituents. That is the question of article XI of the GATT.

Our party during the election made the commitment very clearly, and I know this because I spoke to it a number of times in the campaign, that we would do everything within our power as a government if we were elected to ensure that article XI was maintained.

It just was not there for that to happen. In case there are any members opposite who forgot the vote let me remind them that when the actual push came to shove and it came time to vote on article XI, the vote was 115 against and 1 country for, that country being Canada.

An elected government can do no more. A member of Parliament can do no more. We have heard this repeatedly from the members in the Reform Party. You can do no more than stand and cast your vote and be counted on what you feel is important. I intend to do that on some issues like euthanasia when the free vote comes on that. I intend to do it based on my conscience and discussions with my constituents, but in my case based on my conscience because I believe that is how one ought to cast his vote.

I am drifting into another important but somewhat off the topic at this point.

The point I am making is that when you cast your vote as an individual member of Parliament or as a government in an international forum, that is the ultimate that you can do to back up your position. This country stood absolutely alone in trying to maintain article XI at GATT so I take some exception with the leader of the Reform Party in saying that we were not consistent on that. That is not exactly what he said but that is the implication I drew from his comments.

Agriculture is of national importance to Canada from coast to coast to coast. We know that it is. If Canadians are not involved in the production of food they are certainly involved in the consumption of it. There is no Canadian in this country who can look at the agriculture and agri-food sector with indifference. If they do then they are displaying an ignorance that I think we ought to address.

What I would like to do, given the national importance of agriculture, is to overview briefly on a regional basis the importance of this particular activity. In B.C. the agri-food sector is a small but stable component of the provincial economy contributing just over 2 per cent of the province's GDP in 1992 and almost 6 per cent of Canada's agri-food GDP. With its proximity to the Pacific Ocean obviously the sector is firmly focused on the Asian marketplace where it is beginning to have considerable export success.

In order of importance, the major sectors of the British Columbia agricultural industry are dairy, poultry, eggs, cattle and calves, horticulture, grains and oilseeds.

The prairies, which many of us have had the opportunity to visit and marvel at the wave after wave undulating prairie with the fine grain that we see produced there, is now beginning to diversify into new primary and processed products and is finding new customers for its exports.

In 1992 the prairie provinces contributed more than 30 per cent of Canada's agri-food GDP.

I might digress at this point and make the point that I intend to share my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Huron-Bruce. I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will remind me when my time has run out.

In Alberta the agri-food sector is the major renewable resource industry in the province contributing nearly 6 per cent of the province's GDP in 1992. The southern area of Alberta produces the most hot season crops and has the majority of beef lots. The central area has cow-calf operations, hogs, dairy, grains and oilseeds and the northern Peace River district, which I would like to visit, has livestock and grain and is noted for forage seed and honey production.

In Manitoba the agri-food sector contributed some 6.4 per cent of the provincial GDP in 1992. Wheat and barley traditionally constitute two-thirds of farm cash receipts in the province while other major crops include canola, flax and sunflower. As well the soil and climate accommodate the production of a variety of special crops such as buckwheat, sugar beets and potatoes.

Manitoba also as we know has a substantial red meat industry which constitutes about 25 per cent of the value of agriculture production in the province. It has a dynamic food processing sector which in 1991 accounted for almost 27 per cent of the value of all manufacturing shipments from Manitoba.

Some 39,000 people were employed in primary agriculture production in 1991, about 8 per cent of the province's total workforce, while an additional 21,000 people were employed in related industries, hence reinforcing as I said at the beginning of my remarks the spinoff value of agriculture and the agri-food sector.

Turning to my own area of central Canada, Ontario and Quebec's agri-food sectors contributed about 55 per cent of Canada's agri-food GDP in 1992. The region ships primary and processed products to the rest of Canada and the United States and has some highly successful processing firms that have become multinationals with plants around the world. In 1992 agri-food production constituted 4 per cent of Ontario's GDP and about 4.3 per cent of Quebec's.

My home province of Ontario is the top agri-food producing province in Canada with more than 588,000 people employed in the industry in 1992. Livestock and livestock products accounted for 59 per cent of farm cash receipts in the province in 1991 and crops such as grains, oilseeds, soybeans, dried beans, corn and tobacco accounted for some 36 per cent.

As well, much of Canada's food processing occurs in the province of Ontario. Ontario accounted for 35 per cent of all shipments from Canadian food and beverage manufacturing industries in 1991.

In Quebec the dairy industry is the largest component of agricultural production, producing over 38 per cent of Canada's milk output in 1991. As well, Quebec accounted for 32 per cent of all Canadian pork production that year.

Poultry, horticulture and beef are also very important components of this sector. The province has more than 1,000 processing plants which shipped more than $11 billion worth of products in 1991.

Agriculture and Agri-food Canada employs about 2,600 full-time employees in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. No part of Canada has a greater variety of agri-food product than the province of Ontario. That is very easily reflected in my area of southwestern Ontario and in my riding of London-Middlesex.

My colleague from Huron-Bruce who will speak following me can certainly attest to the diversity of agriculture in southwestern Ontario.

In Atlantic Canada, and there are members in this House much more knowledgeable about Atlantic Canada than I, 6 per cent of Canadian agri-food GDP in 1992 was produced. The region's biggest agri-food market is the United States but there are also successes in the Caribbean and in Europe.

In New Brunswick the agri-food sector contributed about 4.7 per cent of the provincial GDP in 1992 with dairy representing the most valuable agricultural commodity, followed closely by potatoes at $54 million.

In Nova Scotia agri-food production contributed about 4 per cent to the province's GDP.

In Prince Edward Island, where the agricultural sector has long been the mainstay of the provincial economy, about 7.8 per cent of the provincial GDP was contributed by the agri-food sector in 1992, not including food and beverage processing. Can there be any eastern Canadian or western Canadian who is not familiar with the famous songs of Stompin' Tom Connors immortalizing the potatoes from Prince Edward Island.

In Newfoundland agri-food production contributed about 2.8 per cent of the provincial GDP in 1992. Some 83 per cent of farm cash receipts came from livestock operations and 17 per cent from the production of vegetables and other crops. The majority of the province's agri-food production is in the processing industry however. Of the 293 agri-food processing businesses in the province in 1992 half were engaged in the meat and meat products sector. The bread and baking products sector was the next largest at 36 per cent followed by poultry and then fruit and vegetable processing.

Agriculture and agri-food Canada has about 820 employees working in Atlantic Canada.

It is quite clear to me as an urban Canadian from southwestern Ontario and increasingly more so as a member of Parliament just how vital the agri-food industry is to this country.

When seeking nomination and because I come from an urban background, I formed an agricultural advisory committee in my riding, making sure that the different parts of the riding and different sectors of the agri-food industry were represented. This obviously led to an increased knowledge of agriculture in Canada on my part. But as the old saying goes, the more you learn the more you understand you have to learn about anything in life. That certainly applies to agriculture.

I commend the people who served and continue to serve on that committee and who keep me informed as a member of Parliament from an urban background about the issues, the needs and the concerns of Canadian farmers.

It would be a sad day when we could not go into our farmlands and see the family farm still in existence. That is a very real concern I have come to share with the constituents I represent. There is tremendous stress and strain on the family farm. I believe this government will do everything possible to make sure that a young farmer who wishes to follow in his or her parents footsteps and continue to farm will be able to do so.

It is a key drive of this government to make sure that those Canadians who wish to work are able to work. That must include agriculture. It will be a sad day when my cousins, some of whom do farm, cannot continue to do that because the family farm has become obsolete or simply impossible to manage.

I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate today. It is a great privilege to represent farmers in this House of Commons. As I said, I will continue to speak on agricultural issues, ask questions to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food and make sure that the voices of my constituents are heard.

In closing on a related note, I hope that my colleagues in the Reform Party will perhaps reflect on this. One of the objections in southwestern Ontario to the proposed redistribution, not of members of Parliament but of individual ordinary Canadians, farmers living in southwestern Ontario, was that the proposed redistribution was going to represent a reduction in representation in the House of Commons for rural southern Ontario. They want to see the maximum possible voice for their concerns in the House of Commons. Those farmers in my riding who represent 20 per cent of my constituency do not want to see my riding become totally urban and their voice therefore reduced.

I am not sure that is appreciated by all members in various parts of the House who are not familiar with rural Ontario. I thought it was important to share that.

I appreciate the opportunity and I will listen very carefully to the rest of the debate.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure today to join in this important debate on agriculture and the agri-food-

[Communications, May 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of London-Middlesex believe that communication is a vital link in the development of a unified community.

In 1993 a large area of land including the village of Lambeth was annexed to the city of London. Lambeth is now part of London and as such receives most of the same services and utilities as the residents of London.

There is one exception. That is that Lambeth residents are subject to long distance telephone rates when calling surrounding communities.

The community of Lambeth has a strong social and commercial dependency with neighbouring exchanges. It does not seem fair or equitable that Lambeth residents do not receive extended area service in the same manner as other London residents.

An overwhelming number of my constituents are in support of the CRTC providing extended area service to the Lambeth telephone exchange. On their behalf I ask that the government consider this unique situation which would go a long way in improving our vital community communication links.

[Petitions, May 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition today signed by some 250 residents of southwestern Ontario, including my riding of London-Middlesex.

These petitioners call on the government to amend the National Energy Board Act in order to provide intervener funding in the matter of interprovincial pipelines. With these petitions I would note that the total number of petitioners in southwestern Ontario is now at 1,000 calling on the government to take this action.

[Food Labelling, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, recently at a meeting of the Middlesex County Federation of Agriculture the concern was raised that Canada may have abandoned the idea of expanding and improving country of origin labelling for agri-food products. My question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Has Canada made any commitments with the United States and Mexico as part of NAFTA to implement country of origin labelling for food products purchased in Canada? Could the parliamentary secretary indicate what timeframe he might foresee for the implementation of such labelling?