Alex Atamanenko

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that we have farmers who are struggling and people who need help from this budget and they have not received it.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, this is what we have come to in our country. We have workers who have paid into the employment insurance fund for years, to a total of $57 billion, and now, when they have lost their jobs, are not able to collect this money and have to go through loops and hoops to try to make ends meets.

People come to my office and say that they are ineligible for employment insurance and cannot get on welfare because their truck is worth over $5,000. It is an absurdity. All of us who have worked in the workforce over the years have paid into this fund, a fund that is there to help people in a time of crisis, and now they cannot access it.

This is a shame to our democratic way of life in Canada and on the way we conduct affairs in this country.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I wish I knew for sure why government members are not speaking out against this bill. Why is it that in British Columbia, the only party speaking out against the HST is our party when the majority of British Columbians are saying that they do not want the HST?

Why is nobody on that side speaking out to preserve rural Canadian postal service? Why is nobody talking about the airline tax or the changes to employment insurance and the fact that it will be a burden on the majority of Canadians?

That is a good question but I think we have to leave it to that side to answer that question.

[Jobs and Economic Growth Act, June 3rd, 2010]

Madam Speaker, before I begin I would like to assure my two dynamic assistants, Jen and Gina, that I actually am smiling on camera and hopefully they will see that. The problem is that there is not much to smile about.

The whole principle of this bill, taking a number of different categories, lumping them into one and pushing them through with what I would call blackmail, is wrong for democracy. We have heard many of my colleagues over the last day or so mention a number of things in this bill that should be debated separately, such as Canada Post and the HST. We should be looking at these issues and having a good, democratic debate on both. Instead, we see them all lumped together and it is kind of a take it or leave it.

Today I will concentrate my remarks and my speech on Canada Post because this is an issue that has been very close to my heart over the last while, specifically because it does affect our rural communities.

We have seen, for example, in my community of Castlegar and the surrounding communities of Trail and Rossland, that Canada Post offices in Trail and Rossland have now been designated installations, which means that the mail now comes to my community of Castlegar for sorting before it goes back to those communities, which are approximately 30 or 40 kilometres away, for distribution. This has had the effect of cutting back on some hours and of shifting jobs. The ultimate result is that we will see more shutdowns of our rural post offices if we allow this to continue. The fact that they are a major economic driver is something we need to take into consideration.

We have recently had an absurd situation in my community, a situation that we will be seeing now in communities such as Cranbrook, Grand Forks, Nelson, Oliver, Osoyoos, Penticton, Prince George, Quesnel, Vernon and Williams Lake. As of September 1, if anybody mails a letter in Prince George to someone else in Prince George on Friday, that letter will travel all the way to Vancouver for sorting before it comes back to Prince George for distribution. In my community of Castlegar, that represents a move, for one letter, of roughly over 1,200 kilometres before that letter arrives on the doorstep in my community.

When questioned about this, the officials at Canada Post mentioned that it was in the name of efficiency. They said that they had these big machines in Vancouver that they wanted to use and that trucks were going down there anyway so they could do this. After the letters go to Vancouver, maybe we should send them to Toronto for sorting because the machine in Toronto is more efficient. It goes on and on.

The point is that when all of this is happening, there is an erosion of our rural way of life and an erosion of Canada Post's ability to provide good quality service with well-paid employees who are contributing to their communities. It is important for the government and Canada Post to understand that if a community of 5,000 people loses two or three positions, that represents fewer people in schools, maybe one less car that will be bought at the car lot and maybe fewer dinners purchased that evening by a family. This has a real effect on our communities.

A disturbing fact that I would like to share with this House is something that I found out in my meeting with Canada Post officials. Not only is Canada Post mandated to make a profit, but it must return a certain amount of that profit to general revenue. Here we have a crown corporation that is not only there to break even or make a profit, but part of that profit must come back to general revenue. No wonder Canada Post is under pressure to make various changes and cuts and is scrambling to be as efficient as possible.

I would like to ask the government to reconsider its whole philosophy. Canada Post is there to serve us and, if anything, we should be assisting it in our federal budget to ensure that we maintain good quality services in rural communities rather than cutting them back in the name of putting money into general revenue, which will be used to ensure that we can give more major corporate tax cuts that will be used to beef up the money that has been spent because of giving these tax cuts. I do not believe that is right and I do not think people in rural communities believe that is right.

I was very pleased to find out that Senator Bob Peterson has introduced legislation in the Senate that calls for a strengthening of Canada Post in rural communities. I will quote from his press release in which he states:

In their haste to cut spending and reduce the scope of the federal government, the Tories are leaving millions of rural Canadians in their wake. The government needs to understand that shutting down a post office means taking away a piece of the community. It goes beyond line items to the very core of rural life.

I applaud the senator for taking that stance. I look forward to meeting with him next week to see how I can support him in his position and how we can work together to ensure that our rural quality of life is maintained with a strong Canadian postal system.

According to members of the National Farmers Union, if this part of the bill passes, this will lead to partial deregulation of our post offices and begin a process that will erode both service and affordability, particularly for people living in rural and remote areas.

Allowing international mailers to handle international letters opens the door for further privatization and deregulation of our postal services. Passing part 15 of the bill is likely to accelerate Canada Post's loss of letter mail volumes and revenues to for-profit remailers. This is revenue that our post offices can ill afford to lose. And any further revenue loss will damage service for rural Canadians.

The point is that Canada Post is the backbone of all our rural communities. If we shut down or transfer these services to a large major community or urban community, it makes it difficult for these communities to survive. It is often hard enough for farmers to make a living, to make ends meet and to meet their costs of production. It is hard enough to keep communities going that have an erosion of health care and other services. To take a major economic driver such as Canada Post and depriving it of adequate revenue and consolidating services in major urban communities is simply wrong.

It is important for all of us from all parties who represent rural Canada to come together in a way that we can impress upon the government and Canada Post that we need to retain the services and jobs because this is part of rural life.

It is very important that we do not give up, that we continue to fight for our rural communities and that we continue to demand that this service remain in our communities, for my community and for all rural communities in Canada.

I would reiterate that the idea of putting what many have called poison pills or take-it-or-leave-it provisions in this bill is wrong. It is wrong for the principle of a democratic debate and it wrong for democracy. I only hope that members of other political parties will take a strong stance against this bill so we can show the governing party that what it is doing is contrary to what a good democratic institution should be all about and that what would happen to Canada Post in this bill is not right.

[Human Trafficking, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I received letters from two young women from Nelson, B.C., in which they raise the issue of human trafficking in the world.

The letters, written by two sisters, Andrea and Maryn Marsland, talk about the fact that more than 27 million children and adults are trapped in modern slavery throughout the world. In fact, statistics show that an estimated 2.5 million people are in forced labour, including sexual exploitation, at any given time as a result of trafficking. The majority of trafficking victims are between the ages of 18 and 24.

Human trafficking and slavery is made possible whenever poverty and inequality deprive people of the ability to earn a living. It is a profound lack of economic power that leaves many people around the world vulnerable to exploitation by others.

It is imperative that Canada and other developed countries do more to eradicate poverty. We are currently well below the 0.7% GDP level proposed many years ago. Clearly, more needs to be done.

I applaud Maryn and Andrea Marsland for raising this issue and wish them all the very best in their pursuit of social justice in the world.

[Petitions, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by some members from my riding and also folks from Kelowna and Vancouver.

The petitioners state that currently Canada's commitments have overstretched the capacity of the Canadian armed forces' human resources and created pressure to recruit additional personnel. Children and youth still in school are generally not of a maturity to understand fully the implications of a decision to join the military and they lack sufficient other supports to access post-secondary education. It makes joining the military seem enticing, and possibly the only way to access a desired education and training opportunities.

Therefore, the petitioners hereby request that Parliament call a halt to recruitment activities of the Canadian armed forces in schools.

[Mental Health, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, recently a constituent of mine, Carrie-Ann Dambrowitz, whose daughter suffers from schizophrenia, issued an inspirational challenge to me and 330 other federal and provincial elected officials. She asked that we donate the price of a restaurant meal to a mental health provider and to encourage five others to do the same.

We have a serious situation in Canada, where over 50% of those who will have a mental illness are children, youth or college-age adults. Depression is most rampant among those under the age of 20. In most cases if help is obtained, mental illness can be treated with medication and/or counselling. Sadly, only one in three will receive treatment. Sadder still is the fact that society at large remains far too fearful and misinformed about mental illness.

This Mental Health Week I would like to recognize the many dedicated volunteers and professionals in the B.C. Southern Interior and across Canada who do so much to help those in mental distress with very limited resources. With some creative help from all levels of government, they could do so much more.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, April 20th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, instead of firing off cheap shots, the minister might want to get out and actually do some work to help people in the north.

Farmers and consumers agree that public scientific research is required to solve problems of debilitating crop diseases, like wheat rust and soya bean root rot. The Auditor General blamed the government's funding cuts of 20% and 6% over the past three years for reducing the amount of peer-reviewed research that helps producers. Cuts to peer-reviewed research mean harm to farmers' incomes and threats to food security across Canada.

Will the minister commit today to reversing cuts to agricultural research funding?

[Seeds Regulations Act, April 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank all of my colleagues who took part in the debate on Bill C-474. It is my hope that they will work hard to convince members of their respective parties to move this bill forward to committee.

It is vital that we have a thorough and democratic debate on the economic effect on farmers of any further introduction of GE organisms into the environment. At the end of the day, it is up to parliamentarians to do all we can to help our farmers.

Before I move on, I would like to clear up a misconception. It was mentioned a number of times that had this bill been in place, it would not have helped the flax farmers. That is not entirely true because in 1996 Triffid received feed and environmental release approval. In 1998 it received food safety authorization.

Had the bill been in place at that point in time, the economic impact study would have shown that it would have been unwise to continue releasing flax into the environment. It was not until 2001, because of the pressure by farmers, that flax, which already had been released into the environment, was taken out and cancelled. I wanted to clear up that misconception.

The other point that is often mentioned is that somehow this is science-based technology. Let us be clear. The yield increases in crops are due to traditional breeding. For example, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, it is looking at methods now that are capable of increasing more of the crop yield, using a high tech genomic approach or marker-assisted selection. These are non-GE methods and they are the ones that actually increase the yield.

I do not have a great deal of time, so I will concentrate my remarks on the alfalfa industry. Mr. Paul Gregory of Interlake Forage Seeds in Manitoba states that most family-owned seed companies are against the further advancement of GM traits, especially in the forage seed business.

Mr. Kurt Shmon, president of Imperial Seed Ltd. also of Manitoba, writes:

--the users, producers and wholesales/retailers of alfalfa seed and hay are opposed to the introduction of Roundup Ready alfalfa and yet we are at risk of the release of this product.

He also cites the case of a U.S. seed company, Cal/West, which lost its market due to GE contaminated seed. The key word here is “contamination”.

According to the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate, it will be impossible to prevent the spread of GE alfalfa beyond the fields it is planted in for the following reasons.

First, alfalfa is pollinated primarily by leafcutter bees, which often drift several miles in search of better bloom, and also by honey bees, which have a range of up to four miles. Actually, a U.S. study has shown a contamination radius of up to 1.7 miles already.

Second, GE alfalfa for hay is often cut after the blooming starts and, therefore, the pollen is easily transferred to non-GM crops. Third, alfalfa seed crops produce a percentage of what is called “hard” seed that can germinate several years after the field has been plowed up.

Once contamination is discovered, countries that currently reject GMO crops, food and feed, will obviously then reject our alfalfa. Also, a large portion of our alfalfa pellet and cube market would be lost. Our organic livestock industry would also be hit hard if GE alfalfa contamination were to be found.

Consider Argentina for example. Before a GMO is approved for marketing, the government must have in hand the technical advice, including whether the market would accept the GMO, in the absence of potential negative impacts on Argentinian exports.

The government officials responsible for allowing this technology onto the market need a mandate to consider what the impact of doing so will have on our export markets. Bill C-474 will provide the mechanism to give them this mandate.

I urge my colleagues to send Bill C-474 to committee so that we can have a thorough and democratic debate.

Farmers are in difficult times. Let us not throw more obstacles in front of them by carelessly allowing the release of GE crops that can lead to economic harm.

[Agriculture, March 26th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Conservatives may think, the market does not care about our science-based approach to genetic engineering.

In fact, on March 18, Bulgaria adopted the most restrictive law on GMO released in the European Union. This new law includes a ban on GM wheat. Six other European Union countries, including France and Germany, have imposed bans on growing GM corn.

Argentina protects its farmers by analyzing the potential adverse effects of Argentinian GM exports. Will the minister protect Canadian farmers by following Argentina's example?