Alex Atamanenko

[Senate Reform Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that we do need to listen to the majority of Canadians when we even attempt to change or abolish the Senate. I certainly would be prepared to support the majority of Canadians. For example, I talked about this ideal world where we could have a different way of having the chamber of second thought. It would be something to explore and we could maybe put something out to the public with different options.

[Senate Reform Act, November 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Nova Scotia is a tough act to follow. That was one of the best speeches I have heard in the House. He was flying.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-7.

If I understand correctly, what is being proposed seems to me to be an improvement on what we have now. For example, they are proposing that the law limit the terms of all senators summoned to the Senate after October 14, 2008, to a maximum of nine years. In my opinion, that limit is not a bad thing. As well, the provinces and territories would have the option of choosing to hold elections at their own expense to determine what names would be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration. We are not living in a perfect world.

In a perfect world we would have the following. What the government has proposed is not a perfect world. In a perfect world we would have senators appointed for a limited period of time. They would be non-partisan and they would not represent specific political parties or be appointed as a reward for their services to a party. They would be distinguished people from most segments of society, such as first nations, business, labour leaders, the social sector, students.

In a perfect world a group of non-partisan people, an impartial board, would select individuals. If we were to do this, then in this perfect world we could have a chamber of sober thought consisting of respected people who would look at the work we do here and certainly not meet with the caucus of the governing party of the day, but, as the previous member said, be truly non-partial.

When we on this side speak out against what goes on in the Senate or what is proposed, we are not criticizing many of the honourable senators in the Senate. For example, I am pleased to see my former boss and friend from Yukon, Danny Lang, there and he is working hard. There are other folks like Hugh Segal, who has been championing poverty issues and rural poverty for many years. I certainly respect the work he and many of his colleagues do.

Unfortunately this is not a perfect world and it is an illusion or dream to think that we somehow could have in our democratic country a group of people, wise elders of our society, who would sit down and reflect upon what needs to happen and give its impartial advice. However, as my colleague from London—Fanshawe earlier said, it is not a reality and there is a contrast between what happens in the Senate, with its expenses, and all the effort that goes into maintaining that antiquated body.

If the Senate did not exist, we could inject more funding toward assisting people who are unemployed, the percentage of workers who do not have access to employment insurance. Many of us met with students in the last couple of weeks and know that, for example, the average student debt in British Columbia upon completion of university is $27,000 and tuition fees are rising. Yet other countries have made it a priority to have free tuition and health care and have strong economic engines, countries like Sweden.

In previous Parliaments I have been in since I was elected in 2006, there was actually a fair amount of debate on various bills and a fair number of witnesses would be brought to committees. There was much scrutiny, unlike now, when there is limited debate and closure on a number of important bills. Even after that time, when these bills would go to the Senate, under the direction of the current Prime Minister and his ideologically-driven government, they would be killed and often senators were told there would be no further debate whatsoever.

There was the climate change accountability act in the previous Parliament, Bill C-311, and the bill on generic drugs. For all the people watching this debate, a bill to help people suffering from AIDS so we could finally eradicate this devastating disease and take up the work done by Stephen Lewis and his foundation was before Parliament. Groups like the Grandmothers for Grandmothers, which I met with in Nelson a couple of weeks ago, is raising money to assist grandmothers in Africa who are raising children. There are millions of orphans due to this devastating disease. Parliament had a chance to pass that bill and, in fact, did so.

What happened? The Senate limited debate and stopped it. As a result, we do not yet have a policy to assist those suffering with AIDS by having cheap generic drugs available. This is truly a shame.

Then we had the act to kill the Wheat Board rammed through Parliament by the Conservatives without any democratic vote by farmers, the people who are part of the Wheat Board. There was limited debate in Parliament with no economic analysis, no in-depth study and a limited number of witnesses. Now this bill will go the Senate. If there were an impartial Senate, if the Senate, in an ideal world, were made up of wise people from different segments of society, they would look at the bill, bring in witnesses and say that maybe Parliament has not done what it should have been doing. They would then send it back to us and tell us to get back to work and fix this or abolish it, because that is not the will of the people that the House of Commons has reflected.

Then there is the crime omnibus bill that we are all faced with now that has also been rammed down our throats. At a time when crime rates are going down, we will be putting more people in prison and, not only that, the provinces will be bearing the costs of the bill. Even American conservatives are turning away from putting people into prisons. They are saying that it is not cost-effective and that maybe they should be doing more prevention and more rehabilitation. At the same time, we are going against all of the evidence and the Conservatives are not even listening to their conservative friends in the United States or the Canadian Bar Association and judges.

Even though most of Canadian society and the provinces have asked us what we are doing, the bill has been rammed through by the government. Once again, if we were to have a Senate that truly represented Canadian society in an impartial way, it would tell the Prime Minister to take his time here, that this does not need to be rushed through.

We need to hear more witnesses and actually listen to what the Canadian Bar Association is saying. We need to listen to our provincial colleagues who say that the cost is a bit too much and that they cannot really afford it. We need to listen to the Canadian public and then, in an ideal world, the bill would be brought back here and we would be told to do something about it that truly reflects the values of Canadian society and not the ideology that the government is presenting to us in this Parliament.

[Petitions, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have never had a petition as big as this one. There are over 2,000 names, of which 1,000 come from Quesnel, British Columbia, over 300 from Nelson in the West Kootenay region, and the rest from other parts of British Columbia.

These citizens are concerned that Canada Post announced it will be removing mail processing from local cities, towns and communities in British Columbia and sending it to Vancouver, which it is already doing. This has resulted in the reduction of services and loss of good-paying jobs, which has negatively affected our communities.

The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to support local economies by preserving local jobs and maintaining mail processing at post offices in local cities, towns and communities throughout British Columbia.

The other petition deals with the same subject in regard to the post office.

The petitioners are asking that prior to making any changes to their mail processing and transportation network, Canada Post conduct a thorough and in-depth study into the service and economic impact on local communities and use those results to hold full, open and transparent consultations with local communities that will be impacted by the changes.

[Petitions, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. The first is in support of my Bill C-322.

The petitioners state that horses are ordinarily kept and treated as sporting and companion animals. They are not raised as food-producing animals. They are commonly administered drugs which are prohibited for use in the food chain. The petitioners ask the House of Commons to adopt into legislation 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 horsemeat products for human consumption.

The petitioners are from New Brunswick.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there are many positions out there. Since I have been here, I have noticed that members will stand up for the interests of farmers, for example, or other organizations and then when they get pressure from the government and other groups, they suddenly change their position. They seem to think that if they do not change their position, it will be harder to work with the government even though it might contradict their position.

I would like to spend some time with that gentleman, face to face, to find out what went on to make this change of statement.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know how decisions are made by members across the aisle. It does not make any sense to take asbestos out of our buildings to make our country safer, yet continue to export it to other countries. It is almost as if we do not care about people in other parts of the world, so we get an apology that somehow it is fine.

When representatives of our law enforcement officers are saying that the registry should be modified instead of being done away with, it does not make sense that the government continues with this ideological move. When people in the legal profession are questioning the government's whole crime agenda, from lawyers and people in the United States, who are saying it is not working, it does not make any sense that the government continues to do this.

I have absolutely no idea as to why the Conservatives have this ideological train of thought.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned cars. A stolen car can often be used to kill somebody, and that does happen.

I am not the one who is saying this. The people on the front lines are saying that it is possible that the gun registry helps them in their job. If that small possibility exists, why throw it out? Why not improve it? Why not modify it? Why not make it workable for everybody instead of doing what the government is doing? The government is throwing everything out. When we look at the consequences in 10 or 20 years, we might think we should have kept the registry.

[Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as with other rural MPs, there has been a lot of pressure on me to support abolition of the gun registry. Since 2004, however, I have supported the registry. It has been a divisive issue in communities, but nevertheless, I have been able to win three elections because I believe the majority of my constituents support retention of the registry.

People contact my office and want to hear my position. I will quote a bit from some of the letters I send out. I say in one letter that my position is basically this, “If there is some evidence that the registry helps police in their work, if there is some evidence, then it would be wrong to scrap it. I am personally prepared, for example, to keep my rifles registered if this in any way keeps our country safe”.

The other thing that I have been saying is that I understand that the powerful American National Rifle Association would like us to scrap all existing gun laws. I find this unacceptable.

Interestingly enough, according to the RCMP's Canadian firearms program, long guns are the most common type of firearms used in spousal homicide. There is some evidence that gun registration may be working. Between 1991 and 2007, the murder rate of women by firearms dropped by 67%, while the total murder rate by rifles and shotguns declined by 76%. Total firearms death in Canada decreased by 57%.

Of course there are those who would say that these statistics do not mean anything, that they are irrelevant, but I will come back to my main point. If there is some evidence that it works, why scrap it? Why not try to modify the registry and ensure that it is acceptable to all Canadians?

The other thing I would like to mention is that there is a train of thought circulating on the Internet and among some associations that somehow this registry is an affront to our liberty, that we have the right to have arms and we should not have to register them because if they are registered, then a fascist government could somehow get into power and seize all our weapons. It cites the example of Nazi Germany and all of that kind of stuff. Actually, I was going to ask my colleague who spoke before me if she subscribed to that philosophy, which I believe is pure rubbish.

My personal experience with the process of obtaining and renewing a PAL, as we call it, as well as with registering my rifles, has been very smooth. Both before and since being elected, and over the four years and more since I first took office, I have listened to different people and groups within the riding. There are conflicting views, but I have made a decision that, once again, if there is some evidence that it works, why do we not just retain it.

I have a press release in The Globe and Mail of May 6, 2010, and I would like to quote Mr. Charles Momy, president of the Canadian Police Association. In the article he says that he wants to make it clear that his members stand shoulder to shoulder with their chiefs on the issue. Two weeks after Conservative MPs derided the police leadership as a cult that pretended the long gun registry saved lives. Mr. Momy said:

—front-line cops disagree with their chiefs on a number of issues, but while they support the Conservative government’s law-and-order policies, the gun-registry is a different matter. We’re going there together to show a united front....We want to make it clear to Canadians and politicians and everyone else that we are not divided among the various groups

According to Mr. Momy, police can use the gun registry to help solve gun crimes, prevent suicide and find out about potential dangers when they enter a house or approach a suspect. He said, “the Conservative government’s approach is like taking away a police officer’s sidearm or baton because he or she hasn’t had to use them”.

Once again, if a number of people on the front line are saying it works, and some say it does not, why get rid of it? Why risk the chance of putting the lives of our police officers in danger or endanger other Canadians?

The RCMP defends the registry. For example, the RCMP officer in charge of the National Gun Registry, and this is from the Winnipeg Free Press, on May 5, 2010, said, “it is a misconception that only people who do not register guns ever use them for deadly purposes”.

RCMP chief superintendent and former director general of the Canadian firearms program, Marty Cheliak, said, “No legislation or regulation will ever prevent all crimes”. He went on to say, “However the...program does serve a very real purpose and contributes to police officer safety and the safety of all Canadians”. According to Cheliak, “40 per cent of the guns police traced back to an owner in 2009 were registered, non-restricted long guns—or 1,600 of the 4,000 recovered that year. Those guns would no longer need to be registered” if the current bill were passed.

I want to make a slight diversion here to touch on the whole crime policy in general that the government is presenting. I would like to quote from the Red Deer Advocate, a publication in Alberta, which as we know is no hotbed of socialist left-wing thought. In its editorial it says:

It’s been said that if you’re in the United States and have an urge to commit a crime, steer clear of Texas, which is reputed to be America’s toughest crimefighting state. But apparently that’s not really the case. Texas has seen the light. By spending more money on rehabilitative programs—not more jails and tougher laws—the state has helped turn offenders into constructive citizens. Costs to taxpayers have fallen and so has the crime rate.

To that end, Texas officials took the unusual step earlier this week of warning [our] Prime Minister...that...Bill C-10 to get tough on criminals will fail. And a coalition of experts in Washington, D.C., said tougher laws are counterproductive. Costs will skyrocket, there’s little hope for rehabilitation and the streets won’t be safer.

The article goes on to say:

The Tories want more prisons, longer jail terms, mandatory minimum sentences and the power to tell judges how to do their job. A justice system that strives to be fair and flexible could be seriously eroded.

I want to highlight the fallacies of the whole crime agenda that the government is forcing upon Canadians. To make an analogy with the gun registry, in Canada we have a system of justice that works. Our crime rate has been going down. It is much safer to live in Vancouver than in Detroit or any other major American city and yet we want to take more people and put them into prisons.

We have a gun registry that cost many billions of dollars, but now runs at around $4 million a year. Even if we do not register long guns, the cost will still be the same because of other arms that have to be registered. Therefore, a system that is basically in place, instead of tweaking it or calling for the decriminalization of this, as we are calling for as a party, we need to abolish it, not only abolish it, but the government is saying to destroy all records so that other provinces such as the province of Quebec, even if it chooses to do so because it is the will of the people, cannot use the gun registry. This does not make any sense.

As the Canadian Association of Police Boards says:

It may be that the Firearms Registry is not perfect. If so, let us improve, not dismantle it.

It may be that there are people in your community who have legitimate concerns about certain aspects of the Fegistry. If so, let us work together to address those legitimate concerns.

That is what my party has been saying ever since these bills were introduced, including the private member's bill during the last Parliament. It may be that there is need for better public awareness in parts of Canada, including other constituencies. If so, let us work together to create that awareness instead of dividing our country as the Prime Minister and the government have done on this question. Let us not be complicit in doing one thing, and that is destroy a basically good safeguard that works in the public interest.

There are some myths that the firearms registry is a financial boondoggle and costs billions to run. In 2009 it cost $4.1 million to operate the long gun registry.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there are a number of points.

First, Ontario farmers decided on the marketing system themselves. They decided that experience. Western wheat production is 10 times that of eastern Canada. It has a different transportation system. It only costs $15 a tonne in Ontario to move wheat to the Great Lakes or just across the border, but there is a tremendous cost in western Canada.

The Ontario wheat business is completely different from what it is in western Canada. Ontario produces soft wheat used for pastry, cookies, doughnuts, et cetera. Most of Ontario's wheat is sold within Canada. U.S.-Canada trade in wheat is relatively low. Transportation, as I said, is a less important factor in Ontario.

Ontario farmers actually pay more handling fees now than they did under the single desk, which is quite interesting. If we transport this to the argument we have now, with transportation fees already high for western Canadian farmers, what are they going to pay when they lose the single desk?

As well, wheat is cleared from the Ontario system quickly, whereas it often takes a long time to store and move grain in western Canada.

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting comparison. The fact is that prior to the markets opening up for other crops, there has not been a single desk entity negotiating good prices for, in this case, wheat farmers.

The market is already established. I hear the same argument on GMOs, which is that if a canola GMO is successful, why would we not introduce any more GMOs?

Those producers have done it. They have carved out their market. However, when they did that, the situation was different. It is a tougher time now. It is going to be a tougher time for wheat growers to carve out that market and to have the representation to get those markets on the international level.

It is now 2011. It is throwing people open to a ruthless market and to competitors who heavily subsidize their agriculture, such as the European Union, the United States and others. It is going to take a long time to stabilize that. In the meantime, wheat farmers are going to take a hit. It is as simple as that.