Alex Atamanenko

[Petitions, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, a number of folks from Trail, Montrose, Fruitvale and Rossland are really concerned about child pornography and child exploitation. The petitioners state that statistics show that 39% of those who possess child sex abuse materials have images of children between the ages of three and five and 83% have images of children between the ages of 6 and 12 being sexually assaulted.

Section 163 of the Criminal Code currently allows sentencing of as little as 90 days for making criminal child sex material and 14 days for the possession of criminal sex materials. They request that Parliament speedily enact legislation to change this illegal terminology in section 163 from child pornography to child sex abuse materials, and enact strong and mandatory minimum sentences to protect children, provide justice and deter pedophilia.

[Conscientious Objection Act, November 28th, 2011]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-363, An Act respecting conscientious objection to the use of taxes for military purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this bill respecting conscientious objection to the use of taxes for military purposes. As an aside, I thank my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam for seconding this bill.

According to this bill, once an individual registers with the Minister of National Revenue as a conscientious objector, he or she may then request that a portion of taxes for military purposes be credited to a special conscientious objectors' account. This money would then be used for any non-military peace-building purposes.

I would like to congratulate my former colleague, Bill Siksay, for all his hard work in this area. Details of how this can be implemented are outlined in the bill.

I would also like to thank Anna Kirkpatrick and others from Conscience Canada who worked with me to fine-tune this bill.

Let us give peace a chance.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, picking up on my hon. colleague's mention of blood, sweat and tears, we should all realize that a lot of blood, sweat and tears have gone to build this organization that has gained a worldwide reputation. Now we are pulling the rug out from underneath it.

I appreciate the work my colleague has done on the committee and I enjoy working with him. However, I want to defend those farmer elected directors who he is attacking today. I do not think that is right. These people have been elected by farmers. They represent the majority of farmers and now they are being replaced by five government robots, or stooges, and I do not think that is right.

We talk about moving wheat across the border. A lot of us have been involved with the American regulations, the country of origin labelling. We have seen how the border has been shut down to our pork and our beef. Now we think farmers will be able to move their wheat across the border. However, in this climate of protectionism, this buy America first, does he believe it is possible the border will be shut down to our wheat if we get enough wheat that goes across the border? In other words, are the Americans going to stand for having all of our good quality wheat going in to be mixed up with theirs? Could he answer that question?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg Centre for his tireless work on behalf of western Canadian farmers.

I had the pleasure of attending the convention of the National Farmers Union this weekend in London, Ontario. This group has also worked tirelessly on behalf of farmers, and is made up of farmers at the grassroots level. Not one farmer, young or old, said that he or she was were in agreement with this current legislation. The group that represents grassroots farmers is saying they should have had a vote.

At the convention I was given a disturbing article to which the hon. members for Guelph and Winnipeg Centre just referred. The article in the Leader-Post of November 26 says: “The wind-up costs are estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, including liability costs of breaking or renegotiating contracts and obligations, pension and severance payments, and other asset purchases”.

The author of the article is saying that farmers' money is going to cover these costs. Would my colleague comment on the fact that as estimated by the current chair of the Wheat Board, Allen Oberg, the cost will be somewhere from $200 million to $400 million? Does the member feel this is justified?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if these so-called free enterprises and people who came to Ottawa witnessing this really understand the impact of what is going on.

As a follow up to what my colleague from Winnipeg Centre said, there have been no impact studies or economic analyses on what is going on. Have Conservatives looked at the Australian experience? Three years after Australia deregulated its wheat board and split the coalition, farm groups say the new system is proving to be dangerous and a freakish place that has already brought about one co-op that has become unstuck. The quality now is fragmented. World markets cannot be assured of quality because this so-called deregulated board cannot function and does not have the clout it had before. If we look at it, 23% of the market share of this voluntary board in Australia collapsed without the single desk.

Has a study been done to assure us that these companies are going to pay the premium price that farmers are getting now, and that with around $500 million in revenue brought to farmers, it is not going to go into the pockets of some of the board of directors of Cargill or some of these other companies?

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, here on this side of the House, we think the copyright modernization bill gives with one hand and takes back with the other. I wonder if my colleague could comment on that.

[Copyright Modernization Act, November 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it appears, from the discussions we are hearing today, that this bill needs a lot of fine-tuning and that not enough time is being given to zero in on the problems and reach a good, healthy compromise. We have seen this with other pieces of legislation that have been rammed through.

I would like to ask my colleague to comment on the following point. This bill would require that, where a digital lock exists, copies made for the purpose of study self-destruct within five days and that course materials be destroyed no later than 30 days after the conclusion of a course. This would pose large problems for those pursuing long distance education and is not an appropriate use of copyrighted material.

[Petitions, November 24th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition supporting my private member's bill, Bill C-322.

The petitioners, primarily from Saskatchewan, say that horses are ordinarily kept and treated as sport and companion animals. They are not raised primarily as food processing animals, and they are commonly administered drugs that are strictly prohibited from being used at any time in the food chain, and I would like to emphasize that. The drug, which is phenylbutazone, is administered to probably about 80% of the horses on this continent. Once that drug is introduced, that animal is no longer fit for human consumption.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to bring forward and adopt Bill C-322, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act, thus prohibiting the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption as well as horse meat products for human consumption.

[Senate Reform Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is a waste of time. We should put it to the Canadian people whether they want to keep the Senate and, if they do, we need to give them some options that might work, rather than the option that is before us.

[Senate Reform Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I truly welcome my hon. colleague's presence here in the House. We will be collaborating on a bill that I will be introducing on the department of peace.

I think there could be problems with an elected Senate. When we are elected, especially if we want to be re-elected, sometimes the focus is not on the actual job but on being re-elected.

I would say that, if we are to retain a Senate, perhaps it should be people from all segments of society who are appointed by an impartial board. They could then focus on what they need to do for that period of time and not worry about whether they would be elected, re-elected or what the government is doing and be, as my colleague from Nova Scotia said, completely independent of the government of the day.