Bill Siksay

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have a supplementary question for the member. I appreciate his thoughtful response. My other question is around the resources that go toward actually enforcing this kind of legislation. In the past, we have had consumer protection legislation, but often there have not been the resources to actually enforce that legislation. I think there is some attempt in this legislation to improve the situation and to see a stronger approach to product safety, but without the resources to do the appropriate enforcement, that really does not make much difference at all.

I wonder if the member would support ensuring that there is something in the legislation that might hold the government responsible for maintaining an adequate inspection capacity, for instance, with adequate staff to process, investigate and respond to problems that do arise, and to make sure that the new reporting system contemplated by the legislation is actually effective.

Is there something we can do to make sure that the capacity is actually there to back up the legislation?

[Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the member's comments on Bill C-52, An Act respecting the safety of consumer products. One of the areas that I am concerned about, and I know from his remarks that he is as well, is the whole question of the safety of imports into Canada.

One of the problems that I see with Bill C-52 is that it lacks any comprehensive system to ensure that items are safe before they enter Canada. The system it contemplates targets high risk sources for higher surveillance, but it depends more on reacting to safety problems that are identified through use after the fact. It relies on identifying a problem once the product has already been distributed in Canada. This seems to be a major problem. It might be better to try to identify those problems before the product reaches consumers in Canada altogether.

I wonder if the member might comment on that. Does he think it might be better to have some kind of pre-entry testing system or some pre-distribution testing system for imports that might make Canadians safer overall? That would not make the Canadian consumer the testing ground for whether there is a problem with a product imported from outside of Canada.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Vancouver East raises a very important point. One of the features of our electoral system has been tight restrictions on how much money is spent and how it is spent in election campaigns. Canadians have been justly proud of that kind of electoral practice.

We often look south of the border to the United States and see the billions of dollars that are spent on electoral campaigns. We are thankful we do not have the same kind of situation. We have chosen to limit how much money can be spent during an election campaign. Elections are not for the buying in Canada and there are legitimate expenses related to an electoral campaign, but there have to be limits placed on how much can be spent. Canadians want that to be observed. They do not want to see political parties scheming to find ways around that. It is sad when political parties spend more time scheming to avoid election rules rather than trying to conform to them and practise them appropriately.

I have confidence in the practices in my riding and in the official agent, who is a very experienced person when it comes to following the guidelines of elections both federally and provincially. She has done this for many years. She has a very high ethical standard and she would certainly raise questions if at any time a proposal did seem not to fit with the appropriate understanding of the electoral law in Canada. She would do her utmost to get the proper advice before any expenditure was made.

Lila Wing in Burnaby—Douglas has spent many years trying to understand our electoral law, the obligations of a riding and a campaign and to meet those obligations during an election and the reporting afterward. That kind of standard is important to follow in this kind of process.

[Business of Supply, April 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the discussion on the Bloc motion, which expresses confidence in Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections. It is important that we have an opportunity to debate this, given the current political context in Canada and some of the allegations and concerns raised by the Conservative Party about Elections Canada. We have to state very clearly our support for this important institution.

I want to share my time, Mr. Speaker, with the member for Timmins—James Bay.

Elections Canada is our independent non-partisan agency that manages elections in Canada. As such, it has to be prepared at all times to conduct a federal general election, byelection or referendum and also to administer the political financing provisions of the Canada Elections Act to monitor compliance and enforce electoral legislation. It is also mandated to conduct voter education and information programs and to provide support to the independent boundaries commissions in charge of adjusting boundaries of federal elections following each 10 year census. It also has a mandate to look at voting methods and to test electronic voting processes for future use during elections.

It is a very important mandate and one that all of us appreciate as fundamental to our democracy in Canada. Elections Canada's mission is very basic and stated clearly, “Ensuring that Canadians can exercise their democratic rights to vote and be a candidate”. It is simply and succinctly stated. Any of us who have anything to do with the democratic process in Canada realize how fundamental and important that is to Canada and all Canadians.

Elections Canada hopes it will do this by expressing a number of important values in its day to day activities and decision making. It lists those values to be: a knowledgeable and professional workforce; transparency in everything it does; responsiveness to the needs of Canadians involved in the electoral process; cohesiveness and consistency in administering the Canada Elections Act; continuously earning and maintaining the public's trust; and stewardship and accountability in how it manages its resources. Many of those things are being questioned by the Conservatives. The consistency in administering the Canada Elections Act is being questioned by the Conservatives, as they try to shift responsibility for what they did in the past federal election. They are trying to chip away at Elections Canada's long-standing record of being consistent in how it administers the Canada Elections Act.

The Commissioner of Canada Elections has a particular responsibility. The commissioner is an independent officer whose duty is to ensure that the Canada Elections Act and the Referendum Act are complied with and enforced. The commissioner is actually appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. That is another very important officer related to the electoral process in Canada. I am glad the Bloc motion also asks us to express our confidence in the commissioner. I will be pleased to vote in support of the motion both to express confidence in Elections Canada and in the commissioner.

It is sad that we have reached this point where a political party in the House of Commons has felt the need to table this kind of motion. Hopefully all parliamentarians will stand in their places and vote confidence in Elections Canada.

It is sad that the Conservative Party has tried to chip away at the reputation of Elections Canada because of its problems in following Canada's election law. The reality is we have one political party under investigation for its practices during the past campaign, and only one. The Conservatives need to take responsibility for their actions in the last Parliament and do everything they can to see that the issue is solved.

Frankly, I do not have confidence that they have done this, given the fact it was necessary for Elections Canada and the RCMP to conduct a raid on the Conservative Party headquarters. To me this indicates there was not full cooperation in resolving the questions related to the election return of the Conservative Party.

It is sad that many Canadians see again another political scandal, this time involving the Conservative Party, a party that came to power promising to be clean and transparent and to operate a good government in contrast with the mess the Liberal Party had created with the sponsorship scandal. I think many Canadians are very disappointed and have had enough of this kind of political scandal. I think they hope to see another direction taken.

It is also sad when this kind of scandal detracts from the important issues of the day. It would be great if we could talk about the rising gas prices that affect so many people in so many different ways, or health care and the need for doctors and nurses, or the housing and homelessness crisis, which affects so many Canadians. It is so crucial in our country, yet we do not spend the kind of time or have the same kind of accountability as we do around this political scandal. This is all very unfortunate. I, too, have had enough, like many Canadians.

If one were to ask me if I have confidence in Elections Canada, I most certainly do. Part of that is due to my own experience over many years as both an election organizer and as a candidate. It is partly due to the folks locally who worked for Elections Canada in Burnaby—Douglas over the years, people like James Pavich and Ann Crittenden.

Neither of them currently work for Elections Canada so I feel I can easily sing their praises in this forum and in this debate. In fact, James passed away a few years ago. He was the returning officer in Burnaby—Douglas and Ann was a member of his team, I think his second-in-command. They ran the electoral process in Burnaby—Douglas and did so in an amazing fashion. They were well-organized. They knew the provisions of the Canada Elections Act. They had good relationship with all the political parties and the campaigns in Burnaby—Douglas over many years. There were never questions about the fairness of the elections there. Where there were problems, they were quickly sorted out. Where they had questions of us, we provided the information and found the solutions to those issues.

James Pavich and Ann Crittenden are excellent examples of the kind of people who work for Elections Canada at the local level, in fact who work for Elections Canada, period. They have a great sense of commitment to the democratic process. They want to see an independent and non-partisan approach to our electoral process and they know how to get down and get the details of running a fair election. They know how to get it done and done fairly. They are very important to this process.

Without people like that, our democracy would be sadly lacking. We owe it to all the people who, at the local level, participate with Elections Canada. We know that setting up a one-day operation, in a sense, of the size and scale of our election machine is a very difficult job. To organize the workers for that one day of work, to train them and to see that they are all in place on election day and for the advance polls is a very significant challenge in our ridings, as diverse as they are, covering diverse geographic areas and covering the very different kinds of neighbourhoods we have in the urban areas of Canada as well.

I thank the people who work locally for Elections Canada and who follow in the fine tradition of people like James Pavich and Ann Crittenden.

Elections Canada has an excellent reputation around the world, as well, whether it is organizing elections in democratic development in Afghanistan, or working on the bill of electoral rights for people with disabilities, or participating with other electoral organizations around the world in conferences, in capacity building, or the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network Program of which Elections Canada is part, or the work that it has done in Iraq to develop the democratic development and the electoral process there.

Elections Canada is recognized around the world for its important commitment, knowledge and expertise. Hopefully later today the House will have an opportunity to stand and vote strong confidence in Elections Canada for all the important work it does both here and around the world.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in this corner of the House we have always been concerned about the income of farmers and agricultural producers across Canada. Sometimes we wonder if that commitment is shared by other parties in this House.

One of the key things we tried to do in committee was to make an amendment to the legislation that would protect Canadian farmers by ensuring that if there was going to be production of biofuels, it had to be done in Canada. There would be protection so that corn or wheat could not be imported into Canada to be used in Canadian plants that were producing biofuels. That was a measure that was intended to protect Canadian farmers. Unfortunately, other parties in this House turned it down.

It seems like a very reasonable amendment, one that tries to protect the place of Canadian farmers in this industry as it goes ahead. It is something which we feel very strongly about. Given the fact that the amendment was turned down, it really makes us question what the intentions are of the government and the other parties when it comes to this legislation.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct that we are seeing some very serious and troubling developments around the world. The food riots we have seen are certainly one example of it. There are the rising costs of grains and rice, for instance, around the world. I read one report that in Thailand farmers are actually sleeping in their fields to protect their rice crops from people going into the fields to steal them because rice is becoming so valuable. These are changes that are very disturbing.

I have seen the chain reaction that the drive to biofuels causes. It is an American example. U.S. farmers are selling one-fifth of their corn to ethanol production. That means that U.S. soybean farmers are switching to corn because they can make better money doing it. The Brazilian soybean farmers, in reaction to that, are expanding into cattle pastures to expand their production. The Brazilian cattlemen are being displaced further into the Amazon basin, leading to more rainforest being chopped down. All of these developments contribute to the development of greenhouse gas emissions. The chain is pretty direct and far extending. It extends around the world. The policy changes we make here have an effect all the way around the world because of this kind of chain reaction.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to join in the discussion today of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, regarding biofuels.

As we have been hearing, this is very important legislation. The amendment before us today is also very important, as it relates to how we do the business of the people of Canada in this place.

The intent of Bill C-33 is to enable the government to regulate renewable content and fossil fuels and proceed with plans to mandate a 5% renewable content in gasoline by 2010 and a 2% average renewable content in diesel and heating oil by 2012. This is something that we have supported in this corner of the House, although we supported it with reservations in the hope that we might see some important changes made when it was before the committee.

My colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior and my colleague from Western Arctic have worked hard to see improvements made to the legislation before it came back to the House. Unfortunately, that work was only partially successful. That is the reason we have this amendment before us today.

I should say that in committee there was some success, in that my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior managed to ensure that a parliamentary review would be undertaken every two years on the environmental and economic impacts resulting from the biofuel industry. That was a very significant addition to the legislation.

It is certainly something that needed to be there, especially given the changing scene regarding biofuels and the concerns that are being raised more intensely with every passing day, it seems, about the effect of this industry and these fuels on our planet and on food production in particular. Achieving that review at committee as an amendment to the legislation was a very important contribution to the debate around Bill C-33 and will have an important and lasting effect should this legislation ultimately pass.

The other problem, however, is that the other amendments introduced by the NDP and my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior did not get through the committee. They were very significant as well, in that they would have ensured that Canadian farmers benefited from any federal investment in the biofuel industry by the prohibiting of imported grains and oils for the production of biofuels. These amendments would have made sure that what is used in the biofuel industry is produced here in Canada.

The other part of the amendments that unfortunately was lost at committee called for the protection of the natural biodiversity of the environment from contamination by genetically modified trees and seeds. We have seen over and over again the concern about genetically modified foods being grown in Canada. There is a particular concern about the use of genetically modified seed and the effect that will have on agriculture in Canada. Given the interest in producing for biofuels, we wanted to make sure that there was some limitation on genetically modified seed and trees being used. Unfortunately, that did not make it through the committee either.

Finally, my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior tried to ensure that prohibiting the exploitation of sensitive biodiverse regions for growing crops for biofuel production was part of the legislation. That seems to be a very reasonable addition. It is something we should be concerned about when we are going down this road of biofuels, but sadly that did not make it through either.

The final and most blatant statement, I think, and the most important statement of all, was that food production should come first, before production for biofuels. We wanted to see that enshrined in the legislation as a principle as well. That did not make it through the committee process.

These are all very serious issues that were raised by the NDP in the debate at committee and ours were all very reasonable and appropriate amendments to bring forward. I am sad that they did not get the support of the other parties to get them included in the legislation we are debating here today.

That being said, we are putting forward another amendment today at this stage of the debate. That amendment would ensure the scrutiny of the regulations related to the bill that are brought forward and would make sure that the appropriate committee of the House has that opportunity specifically to look at the regulations. We heard earlier from my colleague from Winnipeg that often the devil is in the details. When it comes to legislation, the details are often in the regulations.

That is why we believe it is important to pass this amendment. As well as having oversight of the overall environmental and economic impact of heading down the biofuels road, we want to make sure that we look specifically at the regulations that are brought forward by the government relating to this bill. That is extremely important. Often we do not pay the kind of attention that we should. Given the very serious concerns related to biofuels, it is important that we do that.

Without that kind of scrutiny, and given that this is broad enabling legislation, we worry that we are handing the government another blank cheque. The Conservative government seems to be very interested in those kinds of blank cheques. It seems to be very interested in promulgating legislation, guidelines and regulations that are big enough to drive a Mack truck through. We have seen this over and over again.

We saw this with Bill C-10. That bill was essentially about closing income tax loopholes, but also included a guideline around the film and video tax credit dealing essentially with the censorship of film and video production in Canada. It is a very broad guideline that gives the minister and the government very broad powers with respect to deciding, based on apparently their own personal tastes, what should or should not be funded when it comes to film and video production in Canada. We in this corner of the House and many people in the arts community and the film and video production community in Canada are concerned about that and are extremely upset about it. It is another example of putting a very broad guideline or regulation into a piece of legislation that would give the government broad powers to make decisions without being clear and transparent.

We have also seen this with respect to Bill C-50, the budget implementation bill. The bill includes similar broad powers for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration when it comes to dealing with immigration applications from people wishing to come to Canada. It gives the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the power to choose to ignore immigration applications. This is very inappropriate. The NDP has fought long and hard for an immigration system that is transparent, that is guided by clear regulations and clear policy. To give this kind of broad arbitrary power to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who can ignore immigration applications based on unknown decisions to us, such as personal preference or biases of the current government, seems unreasonable.

We see Bill C-33 as very broad legislation. It would essentially give the government a blank cheque to develop regulations around the biofuels industry. The NDP is very concerned about that. It should be more closely delineated. There should certainly be, at least as a bare minimum, more opportunity for scrutiny of the overall direction of the legislation and the impact it would have, as well as direct scrutiny of the regulations that are brought forward relating to it. That is what our amendment deals with today.

The whole question of biofuels is part of what some people are calling the perfect storm. In an article Gwynne Dyer wrote about the coming food catastrophe, he sees it as a piece of the perfect storm, related to population increase, related to the demand for food which is growing faster than the population, and to the changes in diet in countries like China and India where there is a growing middle class. It is related to global warming. Some countries are seeing changes in climate that affect their ability to grow food. Again there is the whole question of biofuels and whether they supposedly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but because of the change in food growing patterns that they are evoking around the world, they actually may strongly increase carbon dioxide emissions. Biofuels may not be a solution to the problem, but in fact may make it worse.

Gwynne Dyer certainly sees all of these things coming together as the perfect storm. He quoted Professor Robert Watson, a former adviser to the World Bank, who said, “It would obviously be totally insane if we had a policy to try and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of biofuels that is actually leading to an increase in greenhouse gases”.

[The Environment, April 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Oceans Day is exactly 51 days, 16 hours and 4 minutes away. The Living Oceans Society, David Suzuki Foundation and the Sierra Club have called for action on a Pacific north coast integrated management plan by that time, an ecosystem-based management plan that is sustainable, protects the environment and provides for human well-being as needed.

First nations, the province and the federal government must be directly engaged in this development. Will the government commit today to launching a formal Pacific north coast integrated management plan process by Oceans Day?

[Criminal Code, April 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, why would we put someone in jail who has never been convicted of a crime in Canada, which is what this provision would do? Why would we put extreme limitations on people's personal freedoms when it has never been proven that they have committed a crime or posed any threat to Canadian society?

The problem with the legislation is that it takes those kinds of cases out of our usual justice system and makes an exception. It basically says that allegations have been made against a person, even though nothing has been proven in a court of law that the person has actually done anything, and we need to restrict the person's freedom in order to protect society.

We already have the possibility of doing that under the Criminal Code. Conspiracy is a crime under the Criminal Code, as is plotting a criminal activity. We should use those provisions and subject the person to the rigours of the Criminal Code, and the state to the rigours of the Criminal Code in those instances as well.

I see no excuse for short-circuiting that process. No one has been able to show that this has been necessary in the five years since September 11. We have charged people with offences related to alleged terrorist activity but we did not use these kinds of provisions to do that.

I think it is very dangerous to have this kind of extraordinary sweeping provision on the books when we already have legislation in the Criminal Code that can deal effectively with any situation that might arise and also balances the need for security and respect for human rights and civil liberties in Canada.

[Criminal Code, April 18th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hochelaga is absolutely correct. Those of us who are concerned about civil liberties and human rights in Canada are very concerned about the legislation, and it causes significant worries for us. We have to be very clear.

The House did something proper, at the time the provisions were about to be sunsetted, in voting down an extension of these provisions. It is very clear that there has been no demonstrated need for them in Canada. We have good Criminal Code legislation that makes it very clear. Any of kinds of criminal activity associated with terrorism are of the most serious kinds of crime and they have some of the harshest penalties associated with them. The Criminal Code provides for processes of long-standing that balance the need to protect individual freedoms and the security and the needs of the state. There have been many years, centuries even, of jurisprudence to get us to that point in Canada, where we have a system that balances those concerns. It is very important we show respect for that system.

I am not convinced extraordinary measures have been necessary. In fact, they have never been used when they existed in that five-year period. It does not seem they have been part of what has been necessary to protect us in the circumstances that exist in the world today. We have to be vigilant about these kinds of provisions that would take us to a different place, that would suspend some of the basic rights that we have.

I think if we told many Canadians that we currently had someone in jail in Canada for seven years who had never been charged or convicted of a crime, they would find it unbelievable and shocking and would want to know how that was possible in Canadian society. However, we already have this with the security certificate legislation and with the situation of Mr. Almrei, who is in the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre. This is a very draconian legislation and is currently being used in Canada.

Despite assurances that extraordinary measures are not to be used or are only to be used in very extreme or difficult circumstances, here we have someone who has been detained for that period of time without any possibility of being released. It looks very bleak in that sense right now, given the extension of the legislation.

We have to be very vigilant about our commitment to human rights and civil liberties, to the principles of the charter and to ensure we judge this legislation in that light before it comes to a vote in the House of Commons.