Alex Atamanenko

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Chair, it was not a straight yes or no on that, so I will continue with my hundreds of other questions.

The next question deals with animal transport. We are getting many letters from folks who are concerned about the conditions, the 36 hours of transport without food, water, et cetera. I know we have had folks appear before committee on this, and there is a study in process.

I am wondering what the timeline is and when we will have some changes to these regulations that better reflect international standards. We have been talking about this for a long time. People are asking for some answers, and I would like an update, please.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Chair, if I understand it correctly, there are no discussions to change that 98% rule at this point in time, as has been demanded by some processors in Canada.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I think I will move on to another topic.

At about the time we were discussing product of Canada labelling in committee, an announcement was made by the Prime Minister that it would be now based on 98% content.

As the minister knows, there has been some feedback that this is not realistic. The recommendation from committee was for 85% content, which would take into account sugar, salt and so forth when processing Canadian products.

I wonder if the minister is looking to resolve this so it can be a little more flexible, for example, so that peaches grown in Ontario that are combined with sugar from Cuba, or somewhere else, can actually be labelled product of Canada. That apparently cannot be done now because of the 98% regulation.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Chair, although we are working toward resolving this, is there a plan B if that program does not get resolved?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Chair, could the minister talk a little about the cattle industry? We have had some questions on that and I will continue. Hopefully I will be quick and precise and we can get some precise answers.

Many people have tried to analyze why there is a crisis in the cattle industry. We have many reports and many people meeting at committee. A report by the National Farmer Union contained a number of recommendations, and I personally handed it to the minister .

One of the recommendations is we should probably look at doing away with it captive supply, which is apparently happening in the United States. Is there consideration for this?

According to the report, although exports have tripled in the last 20 years, the money that cattle producers are making is less than half of what they made 20 years ago, yet we are exporting more and we are opening up more markets. I will give the minister and the department credit for that. We need to open up more markets, but there is obviously something else happening as to why producers are not making money. Is the minister looking at other alternatives?

My next question is this. We keep talking about the COOL and the regulations the Americans are enforcing. We are doing our best to try to resolve that situation. I often ask, what if? Do we have a plan B if ultimately at the end of the day the Americans do not budge on their COOL regulations? We need to have some kind of other plan.

Tied in with this are the slaughter houses, the money available and the programs that happen in provinces. In my province of British Columbia a lot of small producers have been hit hard because of the standardization and the pressure they perceive comes from CFIA and the federal government. Is there any thought at looking at some flexibility for small producers, which we can pass on to the provinces?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, May 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Farmers' Markets Canada will cease to exist if funding is not renewed this year. Thanks to federal help last year, this newly created organization was able to assist farmers markets right across the country. These markets help generate farm income and supply us with good quality food.

In my cross-Canada “Food for Thought” tour, the constant message I hear is that government needs to support local food initiatives as an important link in our food sovereignty.

I outlined my concern to the minister in my letter of December 19. No commitment was received.

I ask the minister today, will he commit to fund Farmers' Markets Canada in 2009 and when exactly will the money be available?

[Petitions, April 27th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of constituents who are concerned about the NATO nuclear policy and would like the government to urge a review of this policy since Canada has signed and ratified a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in which article 6 commits each of the parties to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

The petitioners are saying the NATO stated position that nuclear weapons are essential runs counter to this treaty. They call upon the Government of Canada to press publicly for an urgent review of NATO's nuclear weapons policy to ensure that all NATO states fulfill their international obligations under the NPT to negotiate and conclude an agreement for the elimination of nuclear weapons and eliminate reliance on nuclear weapons within NATO's strategic concept.

[Food and Drugs Act, April 27th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-370, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (mandatory labelling for genetically modified foods).

Mr. Speaker, this is a private member's bill that I had introduced in a previous Parliament. It is a bill that was voted down unfortunately when it was introduced by another member during the last Parliament.

It is an important bill so that we can at least have some labelling of genetically modified foods. This is a question that many people are asking these days. The least we can do for the Canadian public is to let them know what they are eating.

My bill calls to amend the Food and Drugs Act to provide this labelling of genetically modified food. It is the least that members and the government can do for the Canadian public.

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

[Debit Cards, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, John Scott and Gary Sands, of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Mr. Scott told us that between 50% and 70% of all grocery store transactions involve debit cards. The current fee is 5¢ per transaction.

If the Competition Bureau allows Interac fees to go up, that will have a devastating impact on every small business in this country.

This is exactly what I have heard from independent grocers and others in my riding.

Will the minister ensure that there is no change in the current Interac policy so our small businesses can survive?

[Genetically Modified Food, April 24th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian organic standards prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms in organic production. Crops with any detectable GMO contamination cannot be certified organic. For this reason, the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate has opposed introduction of GM alfalfa into the environment.

Should this be allowed, it will be impossible to prevent contamination of non-GM alfalfa. This crop will no longer be able to be used by organic farmers as a legume for nitrogen fixation in crop rotation.

GM alfalfa could also cause serious damage to the market for hay and pellets as well as to organic farming. Canada is the world's leading producer of alfalfa pellets and cubes. We will lose a large share of the market if our product contains GM alfalfa.

On behalf of organic farmers, I am asking the minister to reverse the decision to approve the sowing of GM alfalfa in the environment and to abolish imports into Canada of GM alfalfa or GMO contaminated alfalfa.

For the sake of our organic farming industry, let us do the right thing and prohibit GM alfalfa in Canada.