Alex Atamanenko

[Health, February 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the residents of Princeton are extremely concerned about the health care crisis currently facing their community, with the loss of three positions by the end of April and, in addition, the closure of their hospital's emergency room.

It is estimated that five million Canadians currently do not have a family physician, and 4,000 more doctors are expected to retire within the next two years.

The residents of Princeton and other rural communities deserve to have access to doctors and to emergency services. The mayor and council, together with the Interior Health Authority, are working hard to address the situation.

Something is wrong here. Massive cuts to health care transfers, together with a lack of leadership at the federal level, have shifted the burden onto provinces and communities. In B.C., the provincial government chose to cut and slash the health care system at the same time that it implemented massive tax cuts.

It is time for the federal government to assume its responsibility to ensure that towns like Princeton have enough health care professionals and adequate hospital facilities. Canadians deserve no less.

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak to the bill and I congratulate the hon. member for Malpeque for putting it forward.

I am shocked and amazed that this was put before Parliament six years ago and reintroduced in the House of Commons for the third time in October of last year and still nothing has happened. I say shame because something like this should not have any obstacles.

When we look at the giveaways in corporate taxes, something that is a minimal amount of money that helps people, those volunteers who are precious and who keep our communities alive, those who provide, in this case, emergency services, there should be no question of assisting them in any way that we possibly can.

I remember years ago, when I was working for the Yukon Recreation Branch, that we put on seminars to show people in communities how to help and work with volunteers. Often we forget and we take them for granted. We forget there are people who do not take any money for jobs they do day in and day out and we even forget to thank them for that.

I believe firmly that if we are able to get this bill passed it will be a bill that will thank those people who put, in this case, their lives on the line for us.

It is almost similar to the feedback I am getting from the private member's bill that I tabled on the GST for 100% reimbursement for school boards. It is something we would think would not cost that much money but would help school boards as they try to overcome these great financial difficulties with government cutbacks these days.

Somehow once again the big government machine stops and we cannot move to help people who need the help.

With regard to the bill, I would like to read a letter I received from Munro Pickering who is with the Kootenay Boundary Regional Fire Services, Company #1 Rossland, British Columbia, Rossland and District Search and Rescue. He said:

I am writing regarding the proposed tax incentives for volunteers in Canada. I have been A/ a volunteer firefighter for 20+ years and B/ a search and rescue member and manager for 20 years. Many members spend a large sum of money on equipment they use in these endeavours and are on call 24/7. Also, much time is spent fundraising, whereas this time would be better spent training. Any tax deferments/incentives would be gratefully appreciated and would lead to more members to provide the services needed. Membership lists are available upon request.

Thank you for your interest in this matter.

I would like to add that in my riding, as in all ridings--I guess with the exception of major cities where people doing this work are paid and, thankfully, they are--we have people from Princeton, to Hedley, to Osoyoos, New Denver, Caslow, all these small communities have dedicated people who gather once a week and practise to be there when we need them.

In my own community, which is called Pass Creek and is approximately 15 kilometres outside of Castlegar, there are dedicated individuals. My neighbours and friends gather every Tuesday to ensure they get the proper training to be there in case I or someone else needs them. Recently they received a state of the art fire truck which all of us are very proud of and which will help them to do their work.

In a press release from Parry Sound we have the McDougall fire chief, Brian Leduc, and Seguin fire chief, Dave Thompson, who both support this bill. The press release reads:

We need to encourage people to volunteer as firefighters and really, most of us, as fire chiefs, are at our wits' end because we can't find people to replace those who leave”, said Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Leduc said people don't put their names forward for any financial reward, but that the tax deduction would help the many who end up paying out of pocket to serve.

This seems to be a recurring theme. Those of us who volunteer in our communities pay out of pocket and people do this willingly. Surely, if this happens, we, as parliamentarians and as government, should do all we can to assist them as they continue to provide this valuable work.

The press release further states:

“There's probably some guys, if they sit down and figure out expenses (such as lost wages, gas to attend calls); there's probably guys that it costs them to be a volunteer firefighter”, said Mr. Leduc.

In the immediate area where I live, namely the Southern Interior, it has comparable groups of dedicated individuals who are there at a moment's notice to help us. There is the Castlegar Society for Search and Rescue. It is a non-profit society of professional volunteers dedicated to providing search and rescue services to our community and the surrounding area. It is based in Castlegar and has about 25 to 30 active members.

We also have the Nelson Search and Rescue. It is a registered non-profit society consisting of over 40 dedicated and highly skilled individuals who are capable of an organized response to assist local police, fire departments and B.C. Ambulance in a variety of areas.

We often do not know what goes on and this is an example of what is happening right across the country. The group consists of a management team, an initial response team, a rope team, a swift water team, and general search and rescue personnel. These teams include mountain rescue technicians, rope rescue instructors, Canadian avalanche technicians, paramedics, physicians, swift water rescue technicians, and certified helicopter flight rescue systems practitioners.

This society is managed by a board of directors, consisting of a coordinator and six directors. Directors meetings are held at least once on the last Wednesday of each month. General training is conducted on the first Wednesday of each month, with additional weekend training, usually quarterly. Individual teams train together on a regular basis as team members see fit.

It is important for us to understand what happens at the grassroots level. I know when the member for Malpeque was thinking of bringing this bill forward, he had in mind people who he is in contact with on a weekly basis where he lives.

In my area there is also the South Columbia Search and Rescue, formerly known as Beaver Valley Search and Rescue. In 2000 members of the society voted on a name change to better reflect the response area of Trail, Waneta, Montrose, Fruitvale, Pend D'Oreille and other regions of South Columbia. This group assists with other SAR groups in B.C. and most often with the local search and rescue groups of Rossland, Castlegar and Nelson.

Their members are trained in GSAR, ground and inland water search and rescue. No prior training is required for interested new members, although an interest in outdoors and a basic level of fitness is a benefit. All GSAR training is provided by quality local instructors.

Specialized training opportunities also exist in the area of rope rescue, swift water rescue, avalanche rescue, tracking, et cetera. A lot of money and time has gone into ensuring that we have the very best quality of assistance in time of need.

A recent search summary was issued on Monday, January 28. Rossland & District SAR was called at 2235 hours on January 5 to look for a local skier who failed to return from a late afternoon tour. A 44 year old male with touring equipment and experience had last been seen between 1400 and 1430 hours at the Red Mountain base area. A hasty search was conducted by 19 Rossland & District SAR members. Due to very poor and dangerous weather conditions, the search was suspended at 0230 hours, which is 2:30 in the morning, and commenced at 6 o'clock in the morning with the assistance of the Castlegar SAR, Beaver Valley SAR and Salmo SAR teams.

Let us not forget that these people do other things in their lives. They are not full time members of these teams. They have taken time to get the training and to dedicate part of their lives to helping other people. On this particular search, a total of 31 search personnel responded on Saturday morning. At 8:10 a.m., the subject skied out after spending the night in a snow cave near Mount Grey. It was a happy ending and thankfully the skier was found alive.

We often forget, though, that these folks put their lives in the line of duty, especially when it comes to rescues in the mountains where I live. Lately, there have been avalanche conditions. It has been tough. People sometimes do not make very smart decisions and go out of bounds. These people are then called in to get them.

So, Mr. Speaker--

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, what I find alarming and amazing is the heckling from the government side when we are dealing with an important bill recognizing volunteers in our community. I do not quite understand it.

Six years ago this bill was put before Parliament and still nothing has been done. Farmers told us at the agriculture committee yesterday that they had shown up with the same complaints before Christmas, and still nothing has been done.

What is wrong with us collectively that we cannot get our government machine moving fast enough to help people in our country? Could the member comment on that?

[Petitions, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have here over 150 names of people from Manitoba who are extremely concerned about the proposed security and prosperity partnership. They are calling upon the Government of Canada to stop further implementation of this partnership with the United States and Mexico until there is a democratic mandate from the people of Canada, parliamentary oversight and the consideration of its profound consequences on Canada's existence as a sovereign nation, and also our ability to adopt autonomous and sustainable economic, social and environmental policies.

These people urge the Government of Canada to conduct a transparent and accountable public debate of this process, involving meaningful public consultations with civil society, and a full legislative review, including the work, recommendations and reports of all SPP working groups and a full debate and a vote in Parliament.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, pork and cattle producers told the agriculture committee that the government has basically abandoned them. Some have called today, February 1, black Friday and others are calling the government's funding promises a cruel joke.

Farms are foreclosing, rural communities are dying and yet no immediate assistance has been committed. At the same time the minister is using bully tactics and blatant pressure on the Canadian Wheat Board which will take power away from farmers. This is clearly undemocratic.

When will the government stop leading Canada down the road to agricultural suicide?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, February 1st, 2008]

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, energy policy in Canada has to be good for Canadians. We have to look at our needs first. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. We know that with the whole locking in of energy and what we have to export to the Americans, we have locked ourselves in under NAFTA.

Clearly the federal government does have a role. It does have a role in looking very closely at the cumulative impacts on water resources and the misuse of natural gas. We can do it. We are a nation of innovators. We can have a balanced approach whereby we support business and we support development for Canadians first, and at the same time we can look at the environment, shift over to a greener energy and look at, for example, carbon sequestration. We have the ability to do it, but the government must have a role in this.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her comments and the concern of many in our country in regard to food security and GMOs.

One of the problems in having the big biotech industries involved in the push for biofuels is that there is more pressure to produce crops, to produce strains of weeds and corn that are genetically modified, in order to increase the harvest. But at the same time, if we introduce this into our environment, there is a very strong probability of contamination.

This is one of the reasons why we do not have genetically modified wheat in Canada. There was a very strong push to say no to this. Genetically modified crops can and do contaminate fields in their vicinity. As we have seen, there is the whole case of Mr. Schmeiser, who has been fighting against Monsanto and is still continuing to fight against this.

Also on the point of GMOs, research has been done. I met personally with Dr. Seralini from France, who has been doing extensive research on the negative aspects of GMO crops in regard to human health. The president of France has been very supportive and has put a stop to one type of Monsanto 810 corn, because studies have proven its negative aspects in regard to human health.

Therefore, as we start the debate on biofuels and GMOs, and I must emphasize that we are just starting, we have to take that into consideration. One of my tasks in Parliament at this time is to continue to push to eventually convince Parliament and the Government of Canada to put a moratorium on genetically modified food and seeds in Canada.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his insight and knowledge into what is happening in the industry. As I mentioned earlier, we see that the push in biofuels is helping our grain and oilseeds sector, and that is good, but at the same time we see that this is one reason that the pork and cattle industry is going through such hard times. I must reiterate that some in that industry are calling today “black Friday”. They are saying that there has not been any help. They came before committee before Christmas and we made recommendations. However, nothing has happened. There has been no immediate aid to offset all of the factors that are contributing to their downward slide.

I agree with the fact that the government has the responsibility to assist the pork and cattle industry to get through these hard times, which in part has been caused by biofuels. We can do it. Why can we not do it? Other countries do this. Why can we not be good to our farmers and why can we not help all sectors of the agriculture industry?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, February 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was at the point where I was discussing the biofuel example in Manitoba. Manitoba wants to get concrete results for farmers. The introduction of co-ops is also being considered, which is the way to go. If farmers can somehow get involved in the whole aspect of the industry, not just as suppliers, that is the way to go.

Both the federal and Manitoba governments have a subsidy for blenders. Federally, it is 10¢ per litre for ethanol and 20¢ per litre for biodiesel, guaranteed for three years. A $20 million biofuels opportunities for the producers initiative program runs from April 1 of this year until the March 31, 2017. In Manitoba, subsidies to the blenders will start at 20¢ a litre but will decrease by 5¢ every two years so that by 2016 there will be no subsidy to the industry.

This seems a more reasonable approach. In other words, by this time if this industry is not making a profit and there is a downturn in biofuels consumption, then government should not be injecting new funds into this enterprise.

It is important to look at the politics of the whole biofuel industry, not only in North America but in the world. While we were in Washington, the agriculture committee was told that the U.S. government's ethanol corn initiative was there to fulfill its need for increased consumption of fuel. In other words, the U.S. does not want to import any more oil as its consumption goes up. This increase is to be met by the production of corn and other commodities to make ethanol.

What we are seeing is a dangerous precedent. Instead of encouraging a decrease in oil consumption on fossil fuels, the U.S. government is encouraging an increase by growing corn. As we have seen from the research, corn is not an efficient energy input-output commodity. For every one unit of energy of corn, we may get 1.5 units of fuel, if that.

If we look at all of the input from fertilizer for fuel for machinery and transportation, we need to question the efficiency of corn ethanol production. This is why I advocate and my party is saying that we must discuss this bill in committee as part of an overall discussion in our country on the whole aspect of biofuels.

Today the reality is that big agriculture, big oil and big biotech are in the biofuels driver's seat. It is Husky Oil that has opened the ethanol refineries in Manitoba, which is a good idea and it is helping farmers, but it is the big corporations that are in the driver's seat. Our challenge and the challenge of governments is to work with them and ensure the benefits of this industry go to the producers and Canadians who always strive to meet their obligation to reduce greenhouse gases.

For example, of the 119 ethanol plants in the U.S., currently 49 are still owned by farmers. However, of the 90 plants currently under construction in the U.S., about 90% are corporate owned. By having the biofuel industry firmly in control by the major multinationals, the role of the farmer is reduced solely to that of supplier. If refineries then are allowed to import feedstock from underdeveloped countries or even from heavily subsidized U.S. farmers, our primary producers will once again be left out in the cold and at the mercy of these multinationals.

There is also the question of genetically modified foods. When major corporations step up biological research, we will be faced with the issue of GMOs. For example, there is the contamination of other crops, the debate in Europe about Monsanto corn, and so on.

Biofuels have a role to play in a comprehensive renewable energy strategy, but we have to continue to keep a close eye on them to avoid problems like the ones that have occurred in the south.

If taxpayers are to assume the burden of funding this industry, then we must make sure that our ability to ensure food safety is not threatened or diminished. We also have to make sure our policies do not threaten another country's food safety, that we get real results when we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that the industry is not subsidized once it is established, as is the case in Manitoba.

Finally, we must continue to encourage a decrease in fuel consumption. In the long term, this is the most important factor in a fuel-based economy.

As we begin debating the idea of biofuels as a possible solution to part of our energy needs, we must not forget food.

For the first time we are seeing the emergence of a truly global agricultural market driven by the underlying force of all economic activity. The scarcity of goods, wheat supplies for example, have reached a 30 year low. In only one year, inventories in the European Union have dropped from 14 million tonnes to only 1 million tonnes.

We need to ask ourselves how humankind will be able to feed itself in the future and at what price. How can agriculture feed the world that grows by 80 million people each year? When we take land out of food production to produce fuel, we obviously complicate this matter and we need to find a balance.

If we come back to our local agricultural industry, we have seen that the demand for biofuels has driven up the price for corn, which is good if one is a corn producer but not so good if one is raising cattle and already competing with the high Canadian dollar, the rising cost of inputs and other factors that are driving the cost production up.

Only yesterday we heard once again from representatives of the pork and cattle industry saying that their industry was in crisis. Some producers in Ontario are saying that they are losing at least $300 for every steer sold. We are seeing that they are not getting any immediate assistance from the loan program that they asked for. Small communities are going under. Part of this is because of the rise in prices of corn that they must use in that industry.

Somehow we must get a balance and also assist those in parts of the agriculture industry who are suffering because of this demand for biofuels. The government still has not been able to address the fundamental needs of these producers who are struggling to survive.

We are seeing more critics in the world speaking out against the biofuels industry and we need to take that into account. For example, the verdict of the OECD, consumer organizations like FoodWatch and even major food corporations like Nestlé, is devastating.

According to the OECD, expanded biofuels production will lead to untenable strains on the commodities markets without yielding significant benefits for the environment. FoodWatch is convinced that the strategy, while benefiting farmers, will do nothing to protect the climate. Germany's environmental expert counsel says that the industry raises expectations that fly in the face of acceptable science. Nestlé's CEO bluntly characterized biofuels production as environmental lunacy.

That does not mean we need to stop the whole aspect of moving forward in this industry. What this means is that we must undertake a very logical approach. We must see that as this industry moves forward we help the primary producer. We have seen that this has given the primary producer a stimulus to at least start making some money but at the same time we have a responsibility to feed not only ourselves but the world.

We must ensure that we do not get on the band wagon that we see happening south of the border where the American ethanol industry is creating what I would say in many respects havoc in other parts of the world where countries are scrambling to supply this growing demand for fuels.

As I said before, instead of the growing demand for fuels, we should be concentrating on decreasing our demand for fuels and fossil fuels in particular.

Much of what the energy farmers produce is offset by the amount of energy that goes into producing the plants in the first place. They consume fossil fuels to harvest plants, for shipping, for storage and for drying, not to mention the energy required to produce pesticides and fertilizers. The economic possibilities are also limited.

Even in the U.S., if the entire corn crop were converted into fuel, it would satisfy only about 12% of the demand for gasoline. For example, to fill a 100 litre tank of an SUV, an ethanol producer has to process about one-quarter tonne of wheat. This is enough wheat for a baker to bake about 460 kilograms of bread which has a total nutritional value of about one million kilo-calories, enough to feed one person for a year.

I would like us to take this debate forward and to look at biofuels from the aspects of the environment, of food security and from our ability as a nation to assist our primary producers, who are basically the best in the world, to continue producing food with help from us here in Parliament and, at the same time, not to make life more difficult for people in countries like Malaysia, Brazil and other places where family farmers are being forced from their farm to finance the big plantations for palm oil and ethanol from sugar.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, January 31st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-33. It is important that we look at the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act dealing with fuels as part of a long range study on the impact of biofuels, not only in Canada but also throughout the world.

We support the bill in principle because of its potential benefits to farmers who finally, thanks to the surge in the biofuel industry, have at least a better chance to make a profit from going green.

My party and I also support increased funding and an expanded mandate for the Canadian Co-operative Association, specifically renewed funding for the cooperative development initiative, beginning as of April. Cooperatives, as we know, can be a very important part of this whole biofuel initiative.

When dealing with growing crops for fuel, however, we must look at it under the umbrella of food production. Does the cultivation of corn, for example, or wheat for fuel take away land which has been used to grow food. That is a fundamental question not only in our country, but throughout the world. This is an important question in light of the dwindling stocks of food supply in the world. I will try to come back to this later.

In Canada, Manitoba has attempted to reach what I call a healthy compromise in the food versus fuel debate. It has taken a three point approach to biofuels, which include agriculture, the greenhouse gas effect and the economy. It is using local grain and also some from Saskatchewan.

The federal program proposed by Bill C-33, however, opens the door to the import of sugar and palm oil, which are potential food stocks, and in many instances the cultivation of these commodities in the southern hemisphere has proven to be devastating for the environment as well as for local farmers. We have to be careful. We need a planned, balanced, moderate approach.

The province of Manitoba has determined that 10% of its grain and oilseed stock is not food grade and can thus be used for the value added industry. For example, wheat can be broken down to sugar for ethanol and protein for animal feed. We see in Manitoba a concrete result for farmers. There is now a market for B grade crops and winter wheat, and winter wheat is still being grown.