Brian Storseth

[Committees of the House, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for his intercession. As informative as it was on the history of Afghanistan, I would like to ask him some questions on what he sees for the future of Afghanistan.

I have the privilege of representing men and women from both CFB Edmonton and 4 Wing Cold Lake who have served in Afghanistan. When I talk to these men and women, they do not obsess about the past in Afghanistan. They do not obsess about past military ventures they have been on in Afghanistan. Truly this is not Vietnam. This is not Afghanistan in the 1970s. This is Afghanistan in 2009.

These men and women tell me more often than not about the amazing difference they have made in this country from the beginning to the current date. When I talked to the development and aid workers who have been there, all they talked about was the future of Afghanistan. They are not weighed down about the past, as others are, though I do not want to be too partisan with this question.

The member talked a lot about the past and the history. I would like to know about his vision and how he sees Canada's engagement moving into the future, past 2011. Surely from the sounds of it he sees Canada being engaged in some role. I would like to know exactly what he foresees for us and what vision he has for Canada's role in Afghanistan past 2011.

[National Defence, October 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, 13 years of neglect of the Canadian Forces by the former Liberal government, often referred to as the decade of darkness, left our military service men and women with rusting equipment and crumbling infrastructure on our national defence bases.

Under our government's first defence strategy, we are replacing and refurbishing 25% of our existing military infrastructure over 10 years.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence tell us what infrastructure investments have been made in our military facilities across our country and how this is helping to stimulate the economy as well as protect jobs?

[St. Paul, Alberta, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the town of St. Paul. This is a town and community that I am tremendously proud to call my home. Communities like St. Paul continue to be the backbone of rural Canada.

Whether it was the humble roots laid down by the original French and Métis settlers, the first generation Ukrainian immigrants who braved the dangerous trip west in the hopes of a better future, or the Cree Nation that inhabited the area, St. Paul des Métis comes from a rich and diverse history. I can assure the House that small towns and rural areas like St. Paul will always remain front and centre in our government's policies.

One hundred years of history has built this town, given it a unique identity and made it a treasured home to thousands. Those who call St. Paul their home and who have grown up and raised their families there are proud to have done so.

I know that future generations will help build another 100 years of history. As we begin our celebrations, let us all look to a bright future for the town of St. Paul.

Once again, I congratulate the people of St. Paul and I hope they enjoy the celebrations.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I would like to switch gears once more and talk about the farm improvement and marketing cooperatives loans act and a little bit about what happened today in committee.

We have had a history of this in our agriculture committee over the last couple of years. When it came to product of Canada labelling, on May 21 the member for Malpeque was putting his own press releases out and taking credit for it. Now he is in committee attacking it. It is tough to get where he is at on these issues. However, I understood that the official opposition was in favour of Bill C-29, the farm improvement and marketing cooperatives loans act.

This is a very important piece of legislation to my farmers. It would give them access to the credit they need to be able to grow, to expand and sometimes just survive these troubling times. Even during the week, I thought we had unanimous consent to move this legislation forward quickly. Today in committee, when the government side requested to put forward a report that the Canadian Wheat Board admits it has and supposedly has no problem tabling with the public, the official opposition, led by the member for Malpeque, stalled, stammered and at the end of the day just walked out of the room on us, not allowing us to move forward with the legislation.

In fact, at one point he even threatened to delay our legislation until late next spring simply because his ego was bruised that we might ask for a report tabled to be made public on the Canadian Wheat Board's loss of over $300 million of western Canadian money.

Could the minister tell the House what the Liberals have to hide when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board? Will the minister commit to continuing to push the opposition to move this legislation forward, even with the Liberals now stonewalling at the committee?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, I would like to switch topics a little bit to talk about input costs.

I see that the members of the official opposition actually found out today that we had a grower-requested own use program. I am not sure they understand the program itself. This is an issue with the OUI program that I have been working on for a couple of years trying to ensure that six million litres of product that is used through the own use import program by Saskatchewan and Alberta farmers, giving them a direct savings to their input costs, has been able to be continued.

I know that the minister was personally responsible for helping to keep that program alive until we got the GROU program up and running and a little bit more productive.

I would like an update from the minister on the grow program and I have a couple of questions for him. I would like to know how many pesticides are now eligible. When we first started this program there were many problems and could only get one or two pesticides through. How many pesticides can our producers now use?

I would also like to know what the minister is doing to decrease the time it takes to register a pesticide, as well as adding new pesticides. Is he still continuing to move toward adding new pesticides to the program for our producers?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Chair, despite some of the partisan bluster that goes on in the House from time to time, I would like to start my speech tonight by reiterating the minister's comments about our former agriculture chair, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, who is at home with his wife after surgery. I know that all members of the House have him and his family in their hearts and prayers.

I would also like to congratulate the Chair tonight. I understand that it was recently his birthday. Thirty more years and he will catch up to the member for Malpeque.

It has been real honour to serve on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for the last couple of years. Some of the finest people are on this committee, from the chairman and the parliamentary secretary to the committee members who showed their devotion to show up for countless hours of subcommittee and main committee, all trying to work for a better future for our farmers, both young and old.

That leads me to the discussion I would like to have tonight on an important issue that has become increasingly crucial to my constituents regarding honesty in product labelling and the criteria that must be met for an item to be given the product of Canada designation.

Product labelling affects the ability to market and sell most goods produced by farmers in all regions of Canada. I was proud to take the time to listen to hours of testimony and participate in debate last spring and fall listening to Canadians who were calling for immediate changes to the product of Canada labelling regulations.

Thankfully, on May 21, 2008, the Prime Minister unveiled the new food labelling initiative together with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. In conjunction, they also launched the Canadian food and consumers safety action plan, which was committed to reviewing the policy on the use of product of Canada and made in Canada labelling claims on food labels and in advertising.

These substantial changes to labelling will have a direct effect on the industry and, consequently, they sat down with many stakeholders and community groups who were affected by the proposed changes, to learn how they feel that will personally affect them.

Consumer groups, food processors and retailers, as well as farmers, have been consulted. Over 1,500 people completed an online survey about labelling legislation and many more called or wrote in to make sure their views were heard.

Overwhelmingly, the response was the same. Canadian stakeholders wanted and needed new labelling so that they know consumers can clearly and confidently identify their product as made in Canada or product of Canada.

In order to understand how important these changes are, one must take a look at the regulations before they were changed by the minister. They had nothing to do with food content and everything to do with the pricing formula, ensuring merely that 51% of the total content was produced or packaged in Canada.

During our consultations as a committee, however, time and time again industry and, in particular, Canadians consumers called this not only misleading, but borderline fraudulent. Consumer confidence is increased when they know they can count on the product to be Canadian made, locally grown and processed.

Many stakeholder groups that were consulted believed this would promote uniquely Canadian foods and build on the consumer desire to buy locally.

The policy on voluntary product of Canada claims on food products and advertising came into effect December 31, 2008. These specified that manufacturers would only be allowed to use product of Canada labels if all or virtually all of the contents were Canadian. The made in Canada label may be used if a food product is manufactured or processed in Canada, regardless of where the contents are from.

There are several different approaches to labelling product to help farmers and producers get their made in Canada message across without using those two terms but that still communicates to consumers their local Canadian base. A food product may claim the product of Canada term when all or virtually all major ingredients, processing and labour used to make the food product are from Canada. This means that all significant ingredients must be Canadian and non-Canadian material must be negligible.

This is what consumers and our producers were asking for. Ingredients that are present in a food at very low levels that are not generally produced in Canada, including spices, food additives and vitamins, may be used without disqualifying the food from making a product of Canada claim. Generally, the percentage referred to is very little or minor and is considered to be 2% or less.

The former food labelling guidelines had not been changed since the 1980s and we owe Canadians the best regulations possible. As the Prime Minister Harper said, “Our new guidelines are designed to redefine Canadian food content labels to better reflect the true origins of products in today's global marketplace”.

Our government is tightening the definitions of these familiar labels so Canadians know exactly what they are getting and get exactly what they want.

The consumer support for this initiative has been overwhelming.

I would like to ask the minister to please comment on the benefits of the new product in Canada labelling.

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2009]

Madam Chair, first I would like to thank the minister for appearing today. I have been a member of the standing committee for the last couple of years, and he has been very accessible to us.

I come from a strong agricultural riding. My province's premier has taken a very bold stance when it comes to traceability and age verification. Alberta was way ahead of the country and the world when it came to this. I would like to ask the minister about the importance he sees in age verification, traceability and how important he feels it is in moving forward to open new markets.

The committee is now discussing the issue of competitiveness and many people from industry have come forward to ask us to move forward on this as well.

[Canada Grain Act, April 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, first, I am very proud to be on this side of the House representing farmers, trying to bring legislation forward that has been stuck in the mud for 30 years. I am proud to stand by the minister who is a farmer and understands these roles. I am proud to stand by members, like the member for Vegreville—Wainwright and the member for Wild Rose, to name a few, who stand up for farmers on a regular basis.

It is important to note that I was just in an agriculture committee meeting where we were standing up for small farm operations on the potato problem. The NDP did not even take the time to send a member to the committee to ask questions on that file.

In the last Parliament I was here when we introduced changes to KVD, kernel visual distinguishability. The NDP stood and said that we could not do this, that we were attacking farmers, that we were this, that and the other thing.

Farmers came to the agriculture committee last week and thanked us for introducing this. They thanked the minister for having the courage to move forward on this because they had more varieties of winter wheat now than they did last year because of that legislation.

Does the member, who might not have seen a farm before, think this legislation will in some way help modernize the Canada Grain Act?

[Royal Canadian Air Force, April 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, 85 years ago today, a royal proclamation gave birth to the Royal Canadian Air Force. In its history of excellence, the men, women and machines of the RCAF have chased the wailing winds and topped the sun swept summits with easy grace in the cause of freedom and justice.

Whether in the swirling skies over London, the dark deadly nights over Berlin, the training airfields of the prairies, the hostile skies of Korea, facing off against the Warsaw Pact in Europe, intercepting potential intruders near North American skies or while dazzling millions of fans with the Snowbirds, our Air Force has been on the job, around the clock, around the world for 85 years.

I am proud to represent an integral part of that history in the fighter squadrons and support organizations of 4 Wing Cold Lake and Edmonton Garrison's 408 Tactical Helicopter Squadron.

Today I salute the dedication of the men and women of today's Canadian Air Force and the courage and sacrifice of those who preceded them. They have truly taken Canada Per ardua ad astra, through adversity to the stars.

[International Conference on Afghanistan in The Hague, March 26th, 2009]

Madam Chair, I am proud to have the opportunity tonight to take part and ask a question in this debate. I know the hon. parliamentary secretary well. He has served with our Canadian Forces. It is indeed a pleasure to serve in the House of Commons with him.

I am also proud to represent two great military bases in our country, Edmonton Garrison and 4 Wing Cold Lake, which have sent men and women to Afghanistan.

In representing them, I am able to discuss the mission in Afghanistan with these brave men and women on a weekly basis. One of the things I often hear from them is how they have changed lives in Afghanistan, and in doing that, have helped change the country.

This is a story that I do not think we hear enough, and I would like the parliamentary secretary to elaborate on the fact that when people talk about development and some of the development dollars, it is often our military that is doing this great work.