Alex Atamanenko

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 30th, 2012]

With regard to the horse slaughter industry in Canada: (a) does the government know whether third party monitoring of video footage is occurring at Viandes Richelieu and Bouvry Exports and, if so, (i) what is the monitoring criteria, (ii) who is monitoring the footage, (iii) what actions, if any, have been taken as a result of observations, (iv) is footage monitoring to be a daily practice at this and other Canadian horse slaughter plants, (v) how many hours have been monitored, (vi) is footage archived and for how long, (vii) does the recording continuously loop over previous footage; (b) which tissue types and/or bodily fluids are targeted by the government when testing for phenylbutazone and other drugs in horsemeat, (i) what percentage of drug testing is performed on equine organs (particularly kidney and liver) as opposed to other tissues, such as muscle, (ii) what is the exact methodology and what are the specific testing mechanisms used to detect phenylbutazone and other drugs in horsemeat; (c) what surveys or studies has the government undertaken or relied on to determine the number of overall horse owners and keepers that have administered to horses under their care, even once in the horse's lifetime, substances that are banned for human consumption, in (i) Canada, (ii) the United States (US); (d) what surveys or studies encompassing the overall horse population has the government undertaken or relied on to determine the percentage of veterinarians who routinely administer to horse patients under their care, at any time in the horse's lifetime, substances that are banned for use in food animals, in (i) Canada, (ii) the US; (e) what was the ratio between the number of horses and the number of prescriptions of substances banned for use in food animals at any time in their lifetime, issued by veterinarians to the overall horse population in (i) Canada, (ii) the US; (f) what were the results of European Commission audits of federally-inspected Canadian equine slaughter plants in 2010; (g) does the government have any plans to adopt a policy similar to that of the European Union which stamps new passports on horses over the age of six months as ineligible for the food supply; (h) are the Equine Identity Documents (EID) being kept on record by the slaughter plants; (i) are the EID records being audited by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency; (j) what were the results of the most recent audit of the EIDs; (k) has a database been started that can track the EIDs; (l) how many times has the information provided on the EIDs for horses imported from the US been investigated and verified by the slaughterhouse owners, (i) how many slaughterhouse investigations into information on US-sourced EIDs led to horses being rejected as unsuitable for human consumption, (ii) how were the US horses deemed unsuitable for human consumption following EID investigations disposed of by the slaughterhouses; (m) how many times has the information provided on the EIDs for horses acquired from Canadian sources been investigated and verified by the slaughterhouse owners, (i) how many investigations on Canadian horses led to their rejection as unsuitable for human consumption, (ii) how were Canadian horses deemed unsuitable for human consumption disposed of by the slaughterhouses, (iii) how many slaughterhouse investigations into the EID information on Canadian-sourced horses led to them being rejected as unsuitable for human consumption; (n) as a result of information provided on the EIDs, how many horses were quarantined (i) from US sources, (ii) from Canadian sources; (o) how many downer horses were discovered by slaughterhouses in trucks arriving with shipments of equines from (i) US sources, (ii) Canadian sources; (p) for in each case in (n), how were the downer horses and their carcasses and meat disposed of; (q) in response to the findings of the February 2010 undercover investigations at Bouvry Exports and Viandes Richelieu, what changes have been made in the regulations, operations, inspections and infrastructure at federally-inspected facilities that slaughter equines; and (r) in what ways was the individual and management held accountable by the government or in the courts for the incident revealed in the 2010 undercover footage of an employee hitting a horse in the face multiple times?

[National Food Strategy, December 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, farmers and many other Canadians are very concerned about the Conservative government's move to be the first country in the world to allow, for the convenience of trade, the low-level presence of genetically engineered food not approved for safety in Canada.

Sacrificing health and farmers' livelihoods to force an undemocratic and unnecessary food technology on the rest of the world is a reprehensible approach to food policy.

I am especially concerned for the markets of organic farmers, such as Kevin and Annamarie Klippenstein, of Cawston, B.C., this year's winners of the National Outstanding Young Farmers Award.

If the government does nothing to protect them from U.S.-approved GE alfalfa spreading its unwanted genes into our country, where it is currently illegal, they will be forced out of business.

This is not at all what Canadians have in mind in their calls for a national food strategy to help them meet the many challenges of our increasingly unpredictable world.

[Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act, December 7th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-311, An Act to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (interprovincial importation of wine for personal use).

Over the past years, as our former agriculture critic, I have been working with the Canadian Vintners Association, CVA, on behalf of wineries in my riding and right across the country to get some movement on this important issue.

At the request of local vineyards and the CVA, I have written a number of letters to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on this issue. For example, on September 21, 2010, I wrote the following letter to the minister:

Please find attached copies of letters that I have received from Mr. Tim Martiniuk, General Manager of Stoneboat Vineyards in Oliver, BC and Mr. Dan Pazkowski, President of the Canadian Vintners Association. These letters outline the need to modify the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (IILA) to allow Canadian consumers more flexibility when purchasing wine at local wineries.

I concluded my letter by saying:

On behalf of our BC wineries I would like to thank you for the efforts you have already undertaken with the Provinces to improve the accessibility of our excellent wine among Canadians. I encourage you to explore other federal options that will facilitate a workable solution. Please be assured that you can count on my support on any initiatives that will advance this issue.

Yesterday I met with Mr. Pazkowski, as well as with Mr. Luke Harford, vice-president of the CVA, on another important matter that concerns our Canadian wine industry, that of the 21.2% excise duty that is paid on all wines sold in Canada that do not come under the VQA or Canadian-grown label. What this means is that Canadian blended wine producers pay an extra 10.78¢ per litre of excise duty which is hurting their industry. I will be following up with the minister on this issue.

As a result of yesterday's meeting, Mr. Pazkowski, at my request, has sent me the Canadian Vintners Association talking points on Bill C-311, hot off the press, which I would like to share with the House in the time remaining.

The first question that is often asked is:

Why is this important to Canadian producers?

According to the association, and I agree, this change would:

Facilitate better choice for Canadian consumers so that more Canadians can enjoy the full range of great Canadian wines.

Ensure that Canadians who have visited wine producing areas and tasted the products can continue to get the products they have enjoyed as tourists if the wine is not available at local liquor boards.

Help Canadian producers increase their market share at a time when imported wine products are increasing their portion of the market and dominating liquor board listings.

Will this undermine the current system of provincial liquor authorities?

A personal exemption is NOT intended to undermine or destroy the current system of liquor boards. Despite the best of intentions and the support of liquor boards in producing jurisdictions for the Canadian wine industry, liquor boards are not able to carry the full range of Canadian wines, due to supply requirements, space restrictions, etc.

Allowing a limited amount of 100% Canadian wines to be supplied directly to Canadian consumers from wine producers or to transport wine across provincial borders would represent a very small percentage of total wine sales. A personal exemption of 12-24 cases per year per adult consumer is not going to undermine the liquor board system.

For small wineries, these sales could represent an important revenue and profit stream they would not otherwise receive. The products likely to be traded are small volume but higher value wines which are not available in liquor boards and are of interest to premium wine consumers. Higher profits by wineries are shared with governments in the form of higher taxes.

Who would participate in an electronic direct delivery of wine across provincial borders if a personal exemption was put into place?

Such a system would respond to the desires of a “select group” of wine connoisseurs/consumers who want variety, quality and regional wines. This select consumer group has a shopping strategy and is willing to:

pay the transportation fee

order a set minimum quantity (e.g., 6-12 bottles)

order more expensive wines at a price point of at least $15 per bottle

consider both online and retail purchases

Yet another question that is often asked is:

How much 100% Canadian wines would be sold under such a system?

It is difficult to accurately measure the volume of wine sales from wineries that would be sold to tourists and wine enthusiasts. We anticipate that Canadian tourists are currently purchasing wine while on vacation at wineries and transporting this wine across provincial boundaries, without knowing they are violating the IILA.

US data shows that Direct Sales represents approximately 2% of total production in the US, of which approximately 1% is DCT shipments (tasting room delivery, internet, phone, wine club).

Based on the US model, approximately 1% of total 100% Canadian wine sales would take advantage of direct sales which could represent approximately 27,500 cases per year and would be drawn from wines that are not available at a local liquor stores via tasting room deliveries, internet, phone or winery wine club purchases.

This would also stimulate greater interest in retail sales at both wineries and liquor boards, resulting in greater market access across Canada and greater tax revenues and sales for both wineries and liquor boards.

The next question that is asked is:

Do Liquor Boards have a Meaningful Minimum Personal Exemption

According to the Vintners Association:

Liquor Boards have steadfastly opposed any amendments to the IILA to facilitate interprovincial trade in Canadian wine, even though total 100% Canadian wine sales across Canada represent a mere 6% of total wine sales.

With growing consumer pressure, liquor boards have further attempted to circumvent proposed amendments to the IILA by recently introducing small volume personal exemption limits.

For example, in Ontario the LCBO Board of Directors recently adopted a policy permitting Ontario residents of legal drinking age to transport 9 Litres of wine (equivalent to one case of 12 bottles) on their person from another Canadian province or territories, as long as it is for personal consumption. Other provinces have lower personal exemption limits [for example] Newfoundland (1.14 Litres) and PEI (2 litres) etc.

The Vintners Association would like to make two important points:

(1) Provincial personal exemptions are restricted to wine transported on your person, and do not permit the use of winery wine clubs, internet, phone, etc. This restricts the use of modern technology and limits the opportunity for Canadian consumers to access wines unless they travel to BC, Nova Scotia [or other provinces] which does not happen often in a country the size of Canada. Alternatively, you have the option to use the slow and expensive liquor board private order program.

(2) Provincial personal exemptions (e.g., the LCBO policy) are technically illegal since it contravenes IILA Section 3(1) that all alcohol entering a province be purchased by or on behalf of the Crown and Section (5) that anyone who contravenes the IILA is liable to penalties on summary conviction.

To ensure that liquor boards treat the issue seriously, it is important that Bill C-311 include a reasonable quantity. Industry fears that leaving the quantity to the provinces will provide limited benefits to Canadian consumers and would fail to address the spirit of Bill C-311.

I will continue with another question that is posed in this document, which is:

Are Provincial Private Order Programs effective?

The answer is:

Many liquor boards have introduced private ordering programs for wines that are not available at their provincial stores. This system requires consumers to request that liquor boards facilitate their communication with wineries, pay a premium for this service, and wait as much as 12 times longer for receipt.

In conclusion, I think Bill C-311 is a reasonable compromise. I would like to thank my colleague from Okanagan—Coquihalla for introducing this bill.

[Petitions, December 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is from concerned citizens all over British Columbia with regard to our post office.

The petitioners say that Canada Post has announced that it will remove mail processing from local cities, towns and communities in British Columbia and send it to Vancouver. They say that this will result in a reduction of service and the loss of good-paying jobs, which will negatively affect communities already hit hard by the economic recession, and I have seen that in communities I serve.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to ensure that Canada Post does the following: that it support local economies by preserving local jobs and maintaining mail processing and post offices in local cities, towns and communities throughout the province of British Columbia, and that prior to making any changes to its mail processing and transportation, it conduct a thorough in-depth study into the service and economic impact on local communities.

[Petitions, December 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

I am pleased to present my first petition, which is presented on behalf of the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace, B.C./Yukon Region. This petition is signed by over 1,200 from five parishes in the Nelson diocese, as well as concerned citizens from Victoria.

The petitioners call on the federal government to ban the purchase of bottled water in federal institutions wherever potable water is available. They use, as a precedent, the fact that the Province of Nova Scotia and many Canadian cities have banned bottled water in their government buildings.

I would like to especially congratulate Mr. Barry Nelson and others of the Nelson diocese for their efforts in organizing this petition.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency, December 6th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, recently released video of a horse-slaughter facility in Saint-André-Avellin, Quebec, offers a shocking insight into Canada's failing animal welfare system. The disturbing footage shows that at least 40% of the horses in the stun box were not rendered immediately unconscious after using 11 bolt pistol shots to stun one animal.

Horses are not raised for human consumption and are routinely administered drugs banned in the food supply. Phenylbutazone can cause aplastic anemia in children.

When will the minister put a stop to this violent industry and start to address the serious health concerns?

[Department of Peace Act, November 30th, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-373, An Act to establish the Department of Peace.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my bill, an act to establish the department of peace, to help advance the cause of peace in Canada and throughout the world.

The idea that all people can live in peace may seem a bit utopian, but each generation must, on behalf of the next generation, do everything in its power to come as close to reaching this goal as possible.

I would like to pay tribute to my former colleague, Bill Siksay, for introducing this bill in the last Parliament. He truly was and remains an inspiration for all of us.

I would also like to thank the leader of the Green Party and the Liberal member for Scarborough—Agincourt, as well as my fellow NDP members, for supporting this bill.

I also thank the folks from the Canadian Department of Peace Initiative for all their hard work in advancing this cause, a number of whom are here today. I extend a special thanks to Bill Bhaneja, the co-founder of CDPI, as well as Theresa Dunn, co-chair of CDPI, Koozma Tarasoff, a Doukhobor writer, historian and long-time advocate of peace, and Laura Savinkoff of Grand Forks of the Boundary Peace Initiative, among others.

This is truly a non-partisan issue. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the House to join us in support of this important initiative. Let us give peace a chance.

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

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anybody in the House who understands farmers more than my colleague does. He has been working on behalf of farmers for many years, whether through the National Farmers Union or right here in the House.

There is misinformation. There is a spin that somehow there is not enough value added because of the single desk. The member just stated that there is value added, there are new mills and capacity is increasing, whereas across the border this is not happening.

The member is entirely correct. Once this is thrown open, obviously people will not open up new plants unless they can get a cheaper price. The only way they could get a cheaper price is if farmers get less. It is a simple matter of economics.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as in other farmer control organizations, a board of directors is elected. If I am not mistaken, the member mentioned the stress leave that was granted. After that, farmers elected most of the members who support the single desk. Therefore, the democratic right was exercised within the farming community to elect directors who represented their views in a free and democratic process.

Why is it not possible then for the government to have this democratic process take place so that farmers can decide for themselves whether they want to go down this route or whether they would like to continue to retain a single desk?

The problem is that there has not been a democratic vote. During the election the minister stated that farmers would have a voice, but this has not happened.

There is something quite wrong here: a farmer-based organization making decisions through its elected board of directors versus a government decision that is being rammed through in legislation.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

It is with a great deal of sadness that I rise to speak to Bill C-18 today. Ever since I was elected in 2006, we on this side of the House have done all in our power to prevent this reckless dismantling of farmer control by the Conservatives.

This past weekend, I had the privilege of attending the National Farmers Union convention in London, Ontario. There, I saw many farmers, both young and old, who believe that the government is on a disaster course. In his speech to the delegates, the chairman of the CWB, Allen Oberg, raised a number of interesting issues, such as with the firing of elected directors, the government effectively takes control of this farmer controlled institution. This is obviously a blatant example of the further erosion of farmer influence on agriculture in our country. According to Mr. Oberg, the factors driving the Conservative agenda are, in order of their importance: ideology, industry, U.S. and European farmers, and lastly, the interests of Canadian farmers.

Clearly, the interests of the big corporations and farmers are not the same. The main objective of these companies is to increase profits by increasing the margin made from individual farmers. It is, therefore, difficult to see why this small group of farmers against the single desk does not understand it. They believe that somehow they will be able to compete and obtain a premium price from the very companies that wish to maximize profit.

We must not forget that all profits generated today by the CWB, some $530 million to $655 million annually, go back to farmers. The value of the Canadian Wheat Board mechanism for direct farmer influence on the marketing agency cannot be overstated. The small and medium sized wheat and barley farmers have an agency that provides a level of service that neither single nor even a small co-operative of even the largest wheat and barley farmers in western Canada could emulate.

The CWB has both the trust of the buyer and the seller. It ensures that the product is delivered with consistent quality, on time and to the scale required, while it connects with markets to negotiate the best price and to guarantee farmer payment.

With the loss of the single desk, this capacity will be gone. No longer will the CWB be able to put farmers first against the railway monopolies, provide a strategic advantage to ship from Churchill, protect against WTO harassment and maintain producer cars, fight against GM wheat or maintain a quality reputation in the world.

A very disturbing article appeared in the Leader Post on November 26. It mentioned that, under direct orders from the minister, the CWB's contingency fund was raised from $60 million to $200 million. The author of the article, Bruce Johnstone, said that this did not “have anything to do with putting more money in farmers' pockets”. He went on to say:

In fact, farmers are going to help bankroll the Tories' new voluntary wheat board whether they want to or not.

[The]...government wants to use the contingency fund to cover the costs of operating the new wheat pool company and wind up the old farmer-directed board, including severance payments for CWB officials.

These wind-up costs are estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, including liability costs of breaking or renegotiating contracts, obligations, pensions, severance payments and other asset purchases. Allen Oberg estimates this to be between $200 million and $400 million. In other words, money will be taken from farmers to advance the government's agenda so it can ram this through.

This does not make any sense and, I would submit, it is morally wrong. Shame on the Prime Minister and shame on his corporate stooges.

We need to look at the cost factor of this massive, tragic transformation. Most analysts predict that grain prices will fall after the elimination of the single desk. Another likely outcome is industry consolidation as large producers squeeze out smaller producers. Large grain companies, such Viterra, Cargill and Bunge, will have a huge new supply of sellers competing to unload their products.

In Australia, with the loss of the single desk, the market share of the Australian wheat board collapsed to 23% of Australian exports, as its reputation for quality is being lost.

The CWB grains account for 95% of shipments through the Port of Churchill. This does not cost the government any money at all but the government is now proposing to provide $5 million of taxpayer money per year for five years to support the shipping of grain.

According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the CWB contributes a gross output of $94.6 million to the city of Winnipeg. The employment spinoff from the CWB is 2,000 jobs, with a total labour income impact on the city of more than $66 million and, at the provincial level, $140 million.

What is tragic is that there has not been an economic analysis by the Conservatives of this legislation. Based on analysis of the situation on the open market, it can be expected that there will be a reduction of between 16% to 23% on return to farmers and losses in the millions related to payment defaults and arbitrary reductions by grain companies.

Today, the CWB earn farmers between $500 million and $655 million every year. No one will be able to influence any of the big five grain companies that will take over. There will be no pooling of premiums. These will go directly to the company, which does not guarantee payment to farmers for all grains delivered.

In the past, the CWB has also assisted farmers in legal challenges, such as the lawsuit against CP Rail. There is no credible evidence that any single farmer on the prairies has the resources to do any of this. Based on historical precedence, there will be losses in the millions of dollars per year to farmers on demurrage charges, as well as freight rate overcharges. There is also credible evidence that the farmer-loaded producer car option will end. This will results in a direct loss to the farmer of between $1,000 and $1,500 per year.

This is a black day in the history of our country. Whether we are dealing with the issue of crime in this country or the collective interests of farmers, we have a Conservative government, elected with only 27% of the vote of eligible voters, that is determined to transform this country based on an ideology and not on sound analysis or research.

Farmers in western Canada have spent many years building an organization that provides them clout in dealing with their trading partners and transnational corporations at no cost to the taxpayers. In their wisdom, through the election of their directors in the recent plebiscite, they have chosen to retain a strong, collective, united front through a single desk.

What we are seeing here is a battle of ideologies. The co-operative position of strength versus this rugged, every person for himself individualism. Some will survive but many will not. The tragedy is that this ideological agenda will further erode the family farm and the quality of our western Canadian rural life. Unfortunately, there will be no turning back once farmers' rights and powers are taken away.

In closing, we could say that history will be the judge as we see the dismantling, and it is a dismantling. The evidence and the research that I have read and we have seen on this side of the House is that a single desk entity will not be able to survive in today's ruthless market when we have the United States, through the WTO, unsuccessfully challenging the Wheat Board 13 times, but this organization has been able to stand up on behalf of farmers.

We will see in a few years what will happen. Those of us on this side believe that this is not a happy day and it is not as exciting as many on the other side think that it will be.