Alex Atamanenko

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have looked at what the bill entails and I have looked at what is happening with other bills, namely the potential agreement of border security. This is just another nail in the coffin of Canadian sovereignty and Canadian independence.

In my long lifetime, we have seen an erosion of what I call our independence and our ability to act and think for ourselves as a nation. There used to be a time when the leaders of all parties stood up for the rights of Canadians. We can think back to John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Tommy Douglas. Those people understood the concept that we were a sovereign nation.

During those times, our farmers were protected. The lumber industry was thriving. We had well-paying jobs in manufacturing, protected by various agreements with other countries.

Then we saw progressively, in the 1980s under the Mulroney regime, a deterioration of this. We saw the tremendous pressure that the corporate elite had been exercising finally bear fruition when we saw the free trade agreement which resulted in NAFTA.

We see absurd situations today in which, for example, we have fruit growers in my area who have a hard time making a living because of all the produce being dumped from the United States. We see absurd situations in which Canadian governments have been sued by foreign corporations because they have decided to be a little stringent on environmental laws.

Then we have seen the buy American policy over the last couple of years, with the Americans tightening up trying to protect their municipal governments and their industry. Our reaction is to allow them more access to our contracts. For the first time in history, we have seen what we call the subnational governments subjected to trade agreements. We are seeing this with the proposed Canada-European trade agreement, the fact that municipalities will be in danger. In other words, municipal contracts will have to come under the scrutiny of big multinational corporations from Europe and we will lose our autonomy.

Many of us spent time speaking out against the Security and Prosperity Partnership, the SPP, and we thought it was put to an end. Now we are seeing a border agreement. The Prime Minister will be going to talk to the President of the United States on Friday to fine tune it.

Our Canada is not what it used to be and this bill, as I said earlier in my speech, is just another nail in the coffin of our sovereignty.

It used to be when we would talk about borders, especially with the Americans, that we would go across in a friendly manner. There were friendly border guards. We would go back and forth. Sometimes we would have to provide ID and sometimes we would not. It worked and our countries were relatively safe.

Now we see a tightening up. I am hearing cases in my riding of people subjected to unnecessary abuse by American border guards. Whereas before they used to go across for business or pleasure, now there is racial stereotyping, verbal abuse and interrogation. At the same time, the Americans want us to co-operate and have a free border.

Many companies cannot ship in a timely manner to the United States. Supposedly, an agreement would stop this. However, at the same time, the Americans do not seem to have a will to work with us.

I would like to submit that this whole fiasco of the F-35 purchase, this tremendous pressure on us, is almost like blackmail, that if we buy these airplanes, they will give us freer access to their borders. That is how it is appearing. We are being told we have to buy into this airplane that is not suited for our Arctic patrol, has one engine, cannot land on short runways, and is not even proven.

Let us move on now to this bill.

As we know, our Aeronautics Act currently exempts the operators of aircraft from restrictions on disclosing personal information without consent when the laws of a foreign state require disclosure of information about anyone on board a flight that is landing in that state.

Accordingly, passenger information for any Canadian flight that will land in a foreign state can be disclosed to a foreign government without restriction by the air carrier. The important part of that is “that will land in a foreign state”.

Bill C-42 amends this section to expand its application. As we are currently discussing, it would now apply not only with respect to foreign states in which the flight is landing, but also to any foreign states that the flight would travel over. I find that ridiculous. For example, if I, or someone here in the House, went to Mexico, Latin America or Cuba, our names would be subject to American security measures. That makes no sense. How is that logical if the flight will not be landing in the United States? Why should we have to give Canadians' personal and secret information to the Americans?

As we have already learned during this debate tonight, this does not apply to flights arriving in Canada that fly over the United States. There is something wrong there. If a flight from Vancouver to Toronto flies over the United States, that is okay, there is no problem. We do not have to provide the United States with the information.

However, according to this bill, if the flight goes to Cuba, that will be the rule. I find it shocking, and wrong, to force us to provide personal information on Canadians to a foreign government.

None of this really seems to make any sense.

Some people have been quoting witnesses who appeared at committee. I would like to thank my colleague from Western Arctic, who is responsible for transport, for providing information. Although I was not at committee, the national coordinator, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, who said:

After running a risk assessment for each passenger using data mining technology, Homeland Security in turn issues a boarding pass result back to the airline. The result instructs the airline to issue a boarding pass, deny permission to travel, or issue an enhanced screening requirement. These regulations give the U.S. access to a whole subset of information on air passengers who are not entering the U.S. but merely overflying its airspace. Furthermore, this information can be shared among at least 16 U.S. agencies and with foreign governments. The program gives the government of a foreign country a de facto right to decide who gets to travel to and from Canada, since the vast majority of Canadian flights to and from Europe, the Caribbean, and South America overfly American airspace.

My colleague from Thunder Bay said something in a humorous manner, but we have to understand that there are implications here. What if someone from homeland security does not like what we are saying here today? What homeland security does not like what my colleague said, or it does not like the fact that I am criticizing the U.S. government? What is to stop it from putting my name or anybody's name on that list? How can we get off that list? The next time I board an airplane for Mexico will I be banned from going?

The bill does not make any sense. There is no reciprocity. We should all give our heads a shake before we support a measure like this.

[Petitions, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by well over 200 people. There are thousands of names in support of my Bill C-544.

The petition states that horses are ordinarily kept and treated as sport and companion animals; that they are not raised primarily as food-processing animals; that they are commonly administered drugs that are strictly prohibited from being used at any time in all other food-producing animals destined for the human food supply; and that Canadian horse meat products that are currently being sold for human consumption in domestic and international markets are likely to contain these prohibited substances.

Therefore, they call upon the House to bring forward and adopt into legislation Bill C-544, An Act to amend the Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act (slaughter of horses for human consumption), thus prohibiting the importation or exportation of horses for slaughter for human consumption, as well as horse meat products for human consumption.

[Petitions, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. The first one is a petition of over 100 names, thanks to the folks at Sunshine Coast Peace Group on Vancouver Island who request that the House inform the Canadian public of the number of civilian casualties inflicted by Canadian troops in Afghanistan; that the House report the number of military casualties, including serious injuries, to the Canadian public; and that the House keep the Canadian public informed of the cost of the war to Canadian taxpayers; and the House act to bring our troops home forthwith.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the sovereignty of our country is at stake.

The U.S. government's authorization of unrestricted use of Monsanto's genetically engineered alfalfa has put Canadian farmers at financial risk. They have already been shut out of key markets over GE flax and have had to pay the price.

Now our farmers, both conventional and organic, are threatened by the inevitable contamination of U.S. GE alfalfa.

Will the Prime Minister express these concerns to the U.S. president on Friday, or are the Conservatives too wrapped up in meeting with Monsanto's lobbyists to listen to the concerns of Canadian farmers?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 31st, 2011]

What is the total amount of government funding, since fiscal year 2006-2007 up to and including the current fiscal year, allocated within the constituency of British Columbia Southern Interior, specifying each department or agency, initiative and amount?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, January 31st, 2011]

With respect to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food’s (AAFC) Advance Payments Program (APP) and its Western Canadian administrators, for each fiscal year since 2006-2007, up to and including the current fiscal year: (a) what amount of funding did AAFC advance to each of the APP administrators and how much of that funding was (i) interest-free, (ii) interest bearing; (b) what are the names of the APP administrators with whom the Minister entered into Advance Guarantee Agreements (AGAs), identifying those administrators who complied with their AGAs; (c) when was the government first made aware of breaches of AGAs by APP administrators; (d) how and by whom was the information in (b) communicated to the administrators; (e) what are the names of all applicants who applied to fill positions as APP administrators but were declined, (i) what criteria informed each rejection, (ii) who collected and reviewed this criteria, (iii) by whom, when and how was the applicant notified of the rejection, (iv) by whom, when and how were existing APP administrators notified of the rejected application; (f) what activities has the government undertaken to address the accessibility of advances to producers; (g) what correspondence has the government received addressing the issue in (f), how was this information communicated and by whom; (h) what activities has the government undertaken to ensure producers receive all of the accrued interest from the holdback; (i) how much interest was claimed through the Claim for Reimbursement of Interest; (j) how much money has the government spent on information technologies for the APP’s online system; (k) how much money has the government spent on resolving the problem of duplicate and triplicate APP Identification Numbers; (l) pursuant to section 12.6.2 of the APP Administrative Guidelines, how much interest was paid by each administrator to the Minister for (i) failure to reimburse the loan on the next business day following the day on which the administrator received payment, in whole or in part of those advances, (ii) failure to reimburse its liability within 15 business days following the day of learning of a producer defaulting; (m) how much money has the government spent on dealing with APP administrators who are past the allowable 45 days to submit the End of Production Period report; (n) for each administrator, what was the holdback percentage specified (i) in each AGA, (ii) on each producer application to an administrator; (o) if any of the correlated amounts in (n) differ, what was the justification given in each case for the difference; (p) what percentage of producers have all-perils insurance documentation; (q) what correspondence did AAFC receive from existing APP administrators with regard to proposed new APP administrators, how was this information communicated and by whom; (r) what steps has the government undertaken, when and by whom to ensure that (i) documentation of creditworthiness is included in producer files, (ii) producer and witness signatures are authentic and valid; (s) what amount of funds has been paid to the Receiver General for Canada for the interest AAFC has already paid on advances under $100,000.00; (t) what amount of interest owed to the Receiver General for Canada is delinquent or past the allowable 45 business days of the End of Production Period; (u) which administrators are delinquent on the End of Production Period Reports and for how many Production Periods; (v) what steps has the government undertaken to rectify the “System Default” situation with the APP online system; (w) how much money from all government departments, aside from the APP funds, have the administrators received and from which programs; (x) when were AAFC audits of the administrators conducted and by whom; (y) when and how were the results of the audits in (x) communicated to the Minister; (z) what actions has the government undertaken to ensure that the APP is efficiently managed by AAFC; (aa) what specific criteria does the Minister of Agriculture apply when assessing organizations pursuant to (i) paragraph (2)(1)(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, (ii) paragraph (2)(1)(c) of the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act; (bb) what steps does the Minister take to ensure that all applicants have been provided a transparent and equal opportunity to apply for and be considered for the designation as an administrator while assessing organizations as in (aa); (cc) what steps does the Minister take to ensure that APP administrators currently under contract have complied with the terms of the AGA; and (dd) what steps has the government taken to ensure that the Minister and AAFC do not enter into new AGAs with administrators that are in breach of a prior AGA?

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has worked very hard on this file and I often see in our caucus meetings the thorough analysis that he and his staff provide on various crime bills that come before us. It is done with a measure of objectivity and knowledge because he has served in the legal system for many years.

It seems that we now have a policy under the government to put more people in prison and spend more money building prisons. However, at the same time, we read that there are fewer people eligible for rehabilitation under the current system. The crime rate is decreasing, yet, as the member mentioned in his speech, somehow there is a campaign to make us all afraid so that we can support measures such as this and build more prisons.

Does the member feel there is a trend within the government with all these bills to take away the power from the legal system and from the judges and juries to make decisions?

[Canadian Wheat Board, December 16th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the outcome of the recent Canadian Wheat Board directors' election proved once again that farmers are overwhelmingly committed to maintaining a strong Canadian Wheat Board. Four of the five successful candidates are strong supporters of the CWB single desk marketing advantage.

I hope this House will join me in congratulating Stewart Wells, John Sandborn, Allen Oberg, Kyle Korneychuk and Henry Vos.

Farmers have made it pretty clear that they do not appreciate the Conservative government's relentless attacks against their venerated marketing board.

I would suggest that it is high time the government showed some respect for prairie grain farmers. It can start by immediately dropping the gag order prohibiting the board from advocating for the single desk; instructing our negotiators to take the wheat board off the table in the Doha negotiations; making it abundantly clear to the EU that our board will not be traded away in CETA; and moving quickly on the CWB's latest initial prices request.

I urge the Prime Minister to get off the farmers' backs once and for all and let them make their own decisions.

[Petitions, December 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, my second set of petitions has a total of 617 signatures dealing with my private member's bill, Bill C-544. The petitioners are saying that horses are ordinarily kept and treated as sport and companion animals, not raised primarily as food processing animals, and are administered drugs that are commonly prohibited in the food chain.

The petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to bring forward and adopt into legislation Bill C-544, 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.

[Petitions, December 15th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first one is signed by 100 people from the Boundary region, Grand Forks, Greenwood and Christina Lake in support of my bill, Bill C-474, which basically asks the government to make sure that an analysis is done of the potential economic impact on farmers before introducing any more genetically modified organisms into the environment.

They call upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation Bill C-474, an act respecting the seeds regulations, to amend the seed regulations to require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.