Carolyn Bennett

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-40, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act.

This bill amends the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act in order to bring them in line with a decision by a special panel of the World Trade Organization, whereby certain practices of grain handling and transfer in Canada do not comply with Canada's obligations of national treatment under the 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

When we look at all the tremendous accomplishments of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food industry over the past 100 years, the Canadian grain sector stands out as a great success story in its own right. Today Canadian wheat, barley and other grains are known by our customers all over the world for their outstanding quality, consistency, cleanliness and innovation.

Each and every year Canada's grain industry does $10 billion worth of business here in Canada and around the world. Those dollars create jobs and prosperity for Canadians here at home. They support our rural communities, which are the lifeblood of Canada's economy. Canada's grain growers sustain our health and well-being as Canadians by putting the very bread on our tables. We must never forget that; to quote the old saying, “If you ate today, thank a farmer”.

Canadian grain is about much more than bread. It is about a large number of products, such as durum wheat in pasta, oats in porridge, barley in beer, and so on.

Whatever the product in question, when Canada's global customers purchase Canadian grain for processing, they can count on getting the same high levels of quality and cleanliness that they have come to expect, load after load. They can count on knowing exactly how that grain will perform during processing, load after load.

This world class reputation that our Canadian grains enjoy around the globe has been earned. It has been earned in large part through the hard work first and foremost by our farmers. It has also been earned by grain handling companies, by research scientists, and by organizations such as the Canadian Grain Commission, the Canadian International Grains Institute, the Canadian Wheat Board and others.

Today and for the future the Government of Canada will continue to stand behind both the Canadian grains and the Canadian oilseeds sectors. In March we announced a $1 billion farm income payment program of which we estimate about $480 million will help grains and oilseeds producers with immediate cash flow pressures brought about by a number of factors, including weather losses, low market prices and unfavourable exchange rates. These funds will help our producers as a long term strategy is put in place to help the sector deal with a projected continuing decline in grains and oilseeds commodity prices.

Part of the strategy is growing and expanding our export markets for grains. We are working in partnership with the Canadian grain sector to do that. We are also working to secure and maintain the world class grain quality assurance systems that continue to open new doors in marketplaces around the world.

As members of the House will know, Canada's marketing system for wheat has been challenged by the United States on a number of occasions in recent years. Each time the major issue has been the Canadian Wheat Board, and each time the ruling has gone in Canada's favour. Both at NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, panels have consistently upheld Canada's position that the Canadian Wheat Board is a fair trader and that its mandate, structure and activities are consistent with our international trading obligations.

In April 2004 a WTO dispute settlement panel ruled that the Canadian Wheat Board was consistent with Canada's international trade obligations. The U.S. immediately appealed. In August 2004 the appellate body of the WTO upheld the original ruling, namely, that the U.S. had not provided any evidence whatsoever that the Canadian Wheat Board had acted contrary to Canada's international trade obligations.

Once again that ruling confirmed that the Canadian Wheat Board operates within the rules. It further supports Canada's position at the WTO negotiating table, namely, the Canadian Wheat Board is a fair trader.

The WTO did find against Canada regarding certain grain handling and transportation policies. In response to those findings, Canada decided that changes to Canadian legislation could be made that would both serve to meet our international trade responsibilities and at the same time maintain our world-leading grain quality assurance systems.

To summarize briefly, the WTO ruling requires action by Canada on three particular grain policies currently in force under the auspices of the Canadian Grain Commission and Transport Canada.

The first is entry authorization requirements. Under the Canada Grain Act, permission must be sought from the Canadian Grain Commission before foreign grain can enter licensed Canadian elevators.

The second is mixing of foreign grain. Under the Canada Grain Act, permission must be sought from the Canadian Grain Commission before a foreign grain can be mixed with domestic grain.

The third is the rail revenue cap program. Under the Canada Transportation Act, a maximum is imposed on the revenues that railroads may receive on certain shipments of Canadian domestic grain.

To comply with the WTO rulings in these areas, the government is proposing amendments to the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act. First, to address the issue of entry authorization requirements, the amendments to the Canada Grain Act remove the requirement that Canadian Grain Commission permission must be sought before foreign grain can enter licensed Canadian elevators. Instead, a regulation will be added requiring licensees operating grain elevators to report to the CGC the origin of all grain.

Second, to address the issue of mixing of foreign grain, the amendments remove the requirement that CGC permission must be sought before foreign grain can be mixed with eastern Canadian grain. The new regulation will also stipulate that if licensees operating elevators mix Canadian and foreign grain, they must identify that grain as mixed.

Further, all licensed elevator operators will be required to maintain the origin of grains at all times to ensure that grain is never misrepresented. It is essential that Canada continue to have the capacity to assure our buyers that they are getting what they pay for, namely, the consistent high quality they have come to expect from Canadian grain. The Canadian Grain Commission is confident that these changes in no way compromise our ability to do this.

In addition to the amendments to the CGA, amendments are required to the revenue cap provisions of the Canada Transportation Act in order to bring the cap into compliance with the WTO decision. One option would be to simply repeal the revenue cap provisions. Let me assure western Canadian grain farmers that the government has no intention of repealing the cap. It will function as usual for Canadian grain industry stakeholders.

Instead, the revenue cap will be extended to foreign grain that is imported into Canada. It will not apply to foreign grain that is in transit through Canada to some other destination. The government believes this change will not have a significant impact on the grain handling and transportation system.

At the same time, by implementing these changes, Canada will comply with our obligations under the WTO in the same way as we would expect other WTO member nations to do were they in our position.

The deadline for Canada to act in these matters has been negotiated with the U.S. It has been agreed that changes to the acts and associated regulations will need to be implemented by August 1, 2005.

Canada's grain quality assurance system is designed to ensure that the varieties of grain produced in Canada meet the strict quality specifications that customers have come to rely on.

We are confident that the amendments we are proposing today in no way compromise Canada's ability to fully protect and safeguard the integrity of this system, which has won and continues to win so many loyal customers the world over. We believe that Canada can conform with the WTO panel findings in a way that will have little practical impact on the Canadian grain handling and transportation system.

I can assure everyone that the grain sector is on side in the course of action we are taking. In fact, in January the parliamentary secretary for rural affairs held extensive consultations in western Canada with a wide range of stakeholders, including farmers, producer organizations, general farm groups, elevator operators and private grain companies. Overall, stakeholders were broadly supportive of the government's proposed approach and believed that the changes would have little or no impact on the current system.

There was also strong support for Canada to meet its WTO obligations. It is important to note that while indicating areas of non-compliance, the WTO panel nonetheless recognized Canada's fundamental right to maintain our own quality systems.

The WTO panel in no way ruled against grain quality assurance. In fact, the panel clearly articulated Canada's right to segregate grain to ensure the quality of grain shipments. Nothing in the ruling changes, compromises or dilutes Canada's fundamental right to safeguard the integrity of our world class grain quality systems.

The panel rulings back up Canada's position in the WTO negotiations, namely, that no disciplines on state trading enterprises, like the CWB, are needed beyond those agreed to by the WTO members in the July 2004 framework on agriculture.

It also supports our position that CWB is a fair trader, that its mandate, structure and activities are fully consistent with commercial considerations. It is Canada's hope that the decision by the WTO and our compliance in the areas I have outlined will lead other nations to turn the page and put our collective focus where it should be, namely on levelling the international playing field so our producers and processors can compete fairly and effectively in the global marketplace.

As the Doha round proceeds, Canada will continue to work closely with the Canadian grain sector and the entire range of agrifood stakeholders to achieve an outcome that is positive for the entire agrifood sector. We will continue to defend the ability of our producers to choose how to market their products, including through orderly marketing structures such as the CWB.

The whole of the agrifood sector and of the Canadian economy stand to gain from these negotiations. We are seeking prosperity for Canadians through secure access to markets around the world and we are seeking a stable and predictable business environment and a level playing field that will allow Canada's grain industry to leverage its competitive strengths to the maximum.

I am confident that the amendments to the Canada Grain Act and to the Canada Transportation Act which we are introducing today support those goals. That is why I support it and urge other members of the House to do the same.

[Health, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, together with Theresa Oswald, the minister of healthy living in Manitoba, we have launched a completely non-partisan program across the country to hear from Canadians as to their dreams and visions on what it takes to keep as many Canadians healthy for as long as possible. Poverty, violence, the environment, shelter, equity, education, dignity, a sense of belonging, we know these things matter to Canadians and we want to hear from them at www.healthycanadians.ca.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the government's bill on civil marriage and the legal recognition of same sex unions.

In tabling this bill, the government is acting responsibly in order to reaffirm its commitment to three important principles: equality, freedom of religion and full and transparent democratic debate. The government recognizes that this is a matter of equality and fundamental human dignity and that partners of the same sex must not be denied the ability to enjoy and formalize one of life's most significant relationships.

It is very interesting that in this past week when we have been travelling across the country talking about the public health goals for this country, the number one word that came up time and time again was “belonging”. It became extraordinarily important to Canadians that people would feel secure in a personal and cultural identity which made them feel that they belonged. The words “equity” and “dignity” and the idea of social inclusion are now fundamentally accepted as a determinant of health.

It is interesting as we discuss this extending of civil marriage how many speakers will speak about the rights. Many speakers, including our justice minister and our Prime Minister, and the eloquent decision of the Supreme Court have talked about this as an issue of rights. Today I want to talk about why it is the right thing to do to extend the opportunity for all couples in this country to commit to one another and to formalize their relationship.

It was 25 years ago when I first attended a civil ceremony at city hall in Toronto. The eloquent justice of the peace talked about this country as being only as strong as its individual family units, that a chain is only ever as strong as its individual links. In the bill we are talking about making each link in this country as strong as it can possibly be. It helps individuals to be stronger by being part of a unit. It helps families to be stronger because of the commitment of the parents. It helps groups in the provinces and in the country to benefit from this fundamental link in our country which is the family.

We formalize our relationships with one another as we sign contracts and other documents and pledge allegiance. It clarifies our expectations and it strengthens our relationships. For me this debate has served us well as Canadians to really examine what marriage means to each of us.

Earlier this year United Church Moderator Peter Short hosted the breakfast on the Hill. It was impressive when he eloquently articulated some of the issues, which were beautifully written in his article. He said:

How, then, shall we be faithful to marriage? Not by forbidding change. Change is the only medium in which faithfulness can really be faithfulness. Faithfulness is to an unchanging environment as autopilot is to flying.

So let me express my hope and my prayer for all who are married and for all who stand at the gate of the honourable estate. Love is always a risk. So is life. But we believe in marriage as a good house that shelters the presence of the greatest of gifts. It is a good house for all the people and an honourable estate from which no one should be turned away.

It was interesting as Dr. Short spoke with us, that he explained the struggle that had taken place in the United Church of Canada over 20 years ago in terms of the ordination of gay ministers. The continued progressive leadership on this difficult issue has been an amazing strength for this country to have an institution such as the United Church of Canada way out ahead on this.

It was his explanation of how two people who had committed to one another are really saying that they could do more together than each of them could do apart. As a family physician, I felt it was the same as two and two make five. It is the commitment together that actually means there is a little pressure to get through those tough times.

I was very impressed by the order of service for the same gender covenant by the United Church which was compiled and edited by Fred Graham and Louise Mangan-Harding. They were talking about developing a covenant service. They said that when a local congregation becomes aware that a couple wishes to share a life of equality, of mutual love, of care, respect, forgiveness, comfort, joy, hospitality and faithfulness and if no previous commitment is violated, the congregation may wish to develop with the couple a liturgical celebration of a committed relationship. I think we all know that a covenant is a voluntary bond by which the parties make certain pledges to one another.

In looking at this I was thinking of how frightened I was at my own marriage 26 years ago about what actually I was committing to. It was very impressive to read these vows again, as Moderator Short has said, that we would not want to exclude anyone from.

The statement of purpose indicates that marriage in the United Church is “a timeless and holy moment, a moment of hope and expectation. To share their lives, to encourage creativity, to inspire each other to reach beyond the limits of the ordinary--not at the expense of a partner's individuality but inspired by the strength of the common bond....We witness the making of a covenant, as two persons publicly declare their intent to enter into an intimate relationship of enduring love, of deep fidelity and trust, expressing the highest aspirations. May those gathered here who live in intimate and loving relationships find that relationship renewed and strengthened, as we offer the prayers for these two people who are about to begin a united life together”.

It is always helpful to remember those promises and to wonder why anyone would not feel that any two people in this country who want to make this serious promise to one another should be prohibited from doing so. To think that two people would say “to be my beloved partner, to be no other than yourself, I promise to respect you, trust you, cherish you and help you; I promise to be faithful to you and honest with you; I promise to share my life with you in abundance and in need; I promise to forgive us as we have been forgiven and try with you to love ever more dearly ourselves, our word and our God, that we may serve together”. In a society that is ever growing, in a society that needs to figure out ways of being stronger, it seems odd that we would deny a couple this opportunity.

If standing together before their friends to pledge their lives to a future together, why would a God of love deny a couple this opportunity is what Moderator Short has asked.

On the plane last week I watched the movie Shall We Dance? There was a wonderful scene where Susan Sarandon asked why she needed a marriage and was worried that hers was breaking down. I was truly touched by the admission that being married actually has a witness on one's life. The wonderful screenplay by Audrey Welles puts that into something which touches each of us personally.

We need to remind ourselves that this is not only for religious people. A number of the gay and lesbian people in my riding want to remind us that being gay and lesbian does not mean that one is not religious. There are gay people and lesbian people who are religious and others who are not, in the same way that there are heterosexual people who are religious and others who are not.

It is the heterosexual people and non-religious people in my riding who have been very concerned that if marriage was only left to churches they would not be allowed to get married at city hall. They would be allowed to go to city hall for a civil union and that is unacceptable to them. They are challenging us to say that option would only be there because we are afraid to give full rights of marriage to the homosexual and lesbian community.

We cannot have two tiered marriage in the same way as we fight every day against two tiered medicine. This is about equality. It is about civil rights but it mainly is about the right thing to do.

My parents were florists. I remember as a little girl the first time that one of the gay members of the staff had enough nerve to bring his same sex partner to the Christmas party. I remember thinking it was wonderful. I remember as a resident having to redefine the next of kin. I remember our fight in the House on same sex benefits. Now we must take this final step to full equality.

This is about people feeling included. It is about security. It is that this country will only be as strong as its individual units.

Members of my staff refer to themselves as post-charter kids. They grew up knowing only the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They know that this is the right thing to do. They know the Canada that they will inherit will be stronger as a result of our acting in the House now, not waiting for them to do it later.

[Health, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her ongoing watch on global health and health care in Canada.

To date there is no evidence of efficient human to human transmission of avian flu H5N1. The WHO has not changed its assessment of risk to human health as a result of the health care worker's case. The Public Health Agency of Canada is working with the WHO and continues to monitor the global avian influenza situation.

Canada has developed a comprehensive action plan to deal with flu pandemics, including at the provincial and territorial level, with several provinces or territories currently developing their own plans.

[Health, February 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a tremendous advocate for chronic disease prevention. The province of Nova Scotia has really taken health promotion seriously.

We are pleased that the 2005 budget expands the initial investments in the Canada Public Health Agency and sets out $300 million over five years for a strategy focussing on healthy living and chronic disease.

There is now a strong consensus in the country that working together on the common risks is the best way to get results. We will also deal with the three pillars of prevention, promotion and--

[Health, February 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Public Health Agency of Canada continues to be actively involved with respect to public health threats. Its activities include emergency planning within the agency itself, and collaborative efforts with its various national and international partners, WHO among them.

Today the Public Health Agency is conducting a pandemic influenza table top exercise, Constant Vigil II. Tomorrow we will demonstrate our enhanced communication and interoperability with the two pillars of the agency, Ottawa and Winnipeg, the WHO, CDC Atlanta, BCCDC and l'Institut national du santé publique.

[Quarantine Act, February 10th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, compensation would be on a case by case basis. It would not cover all the problem situations. Compensation may not be appropriate in the case of it being a shared responsibility of a community or whatever. We need to think about compensation but it has to be negotiated based on each individual case. We need flexibility with respect to what situations will be compensated. Who would be compensated would need to be negotiated.

After the SARS outbreak in Toronto it was extraordinarily difficult to figure out whether compensation should be extended to all of the people who were affected. Flexibility was needed in order to say who or when or why.

Obviously we will need some flexibility as new diseases are added. The trouble is that when specialists and experts get involved they have tons of opinions. We would have laughed at the word tularemia this time last year until there was a huge outbreak in hamsters in Winnipeg. That was the first issue the chief public health officer for Canada had to deal with in terms of the export of hamsters infected with tularemia, which could have been a public health threat.

We also had hoped that polio and smallpox would be eradicated. We need the flexibility to add or subtract from the list but it needs to be done in a very comprehensive way over time.

[Quarantine Act, February 10th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois member has a good question regarding the issue of compensation. I think he is well aware that this issue requires greater flexibility and that each case should be reviewed on its own merits.

We think that sometimes it may be a small, very obvious compensation that would be negotiated. Sometimes it may be on a grand scale, such that everybody will be able to contribute their opinions on something like this. Obviously there are many times where it will be a public facility and many times it will differ from situation to situation.

We hope this kind of approach will not be in the letter of the law but will be something that is free to be negotiated situation by situation, not only with the Minister of Health but among the provinces and territories which often will be the ones that have the best opinion as to what place to use.

As the member knows, public health is really done from the bottom up and our job is try to facilitate the best possible decisions based on the people on the ground who know best.

The kinds of diseases that the member is asking about are communicable diseases that could put the public health at risk. During the SARS outbreak we did not have a name for the disease and we did not even know the incubation period. It was called severe respiratory syndrome because we did not have a clue what it was or how it was transmitted. We are hoping this bill today will help us with not only the diseases that we know now, but with the diseases yet to come.

The problem of new and emerging diseases and this interest between animal health and human health, we know that 80% of these new and emerging diseases come from animals. They are known to vets. We are doing everything we can to examine these new diseases, as well as dealing with the ones that we know so well and are listed as communicable diseases right now.

[Quarantine Act, February 10th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, in today's modern era, emerging and re-emerging public health threats do not respect borders. This we know first hand from our recent experience with SARS.

With advances in technology, rapid air travel is now common practice in the daily lives of individuals, replacing the days of long voyages on ships. The new age of jet travel is paving the way for increased population mobility and has accelerated the rates in the spread of disease on both a domestic and an international front.

A serious communicable disease can spread to any part of the world within 24 hours, which is less time than the average incubation period of most diseases.

This new reality regarding the health of migrants is becoming a growing transborder problem with many public health ramifications, including effects on the social and economic fibre of our society.

While the existing health protection system has served the interests of Canadians well, the time has come to update our laws and to integrate them into a public health system that is stronger, more comprehensive and more flexible, precisely as recommended by Dr. David Naylor and the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology following the SARS crisis.

Lessons learned from SARS forced Canada to face the fact that our current Quarantine Act is outdated in the public health realm. The existing legislation had remained largely unchanged since the adoption of the first Quarantine Act in 1872. Hence, there is an urgent need for updated legislation to mitigate the heightened risk of global disease transmission and to support public health practices in modern times.

Although Bill C-12 serves to modernize the Quarantine Act, it is only one tool in Canada's public health toolbox. The creation of the Public Health Agency, the appointment of David Butler-Jones, Canada's first Chief Public Health Officer, and the Canadian pandemic influenza plan are all essential elements of the government's strategy for strengthening Canada's public health system.

Public health is a shared responsibility. While the provinces and territories bear the responsibility for protecting public health within their borders, the federal government has a constitutional authority for quarantine at Canadian points of entry and departure.

Existing federal powers under the Quarantine Act are outdated. They do not reflect the changing face of emergency preparedness and response in the 21st century. That is why we are moving forward immediately with new quarantine legislation that will give the government the means to cope with and control disease outbreaks and ensure better communication, collaboration and cooperation among public health partners.

The scope of the new proposed Quarantine Act is limited to ensuring that serious communicable diseases are prevented from entering into Canada or being spread to other countries. It will also mitigate the risk of future threats to public health at home and beyond to our international partners.

The new act respects shared federal, provincial and territorial responsibilities in public health. Further, the Government of Canada will continue to work with our provincial and territorial partners to prevent and control the spread of communicable diseases within and between jurisdictions.

The modernized act we have proposed has a new focus on airline travel and will provide the Minister of Health with additional authority. For example, Bill C-12 would enable the minister: to divert aircraft to an alternate landing site if necessary to isolate and contain a public health threat; to establish quarantine facilities at any location in Canada; to order a carrier to not enter Canada if there are serious concerns that the arrival may threaten the public health of Canadians; or to close Canadian border points in the event of a public health emergency.

The proposed legislation offers greater flexibility with respect to the types of communicable diseases for which travellers coming into or leaving Canada may be detained by Canadian officers.

Bill C-12 protects privacy rights and maintains an appropriate balance between individual freedoms and the public interest. While the amended act allows the collection and sharing of personal health information, this is limited to what is necessary to protect the health and security of Canadians.

In addition, the bill enables Canada to assume its responsibilities as a partner in the area of global public health. The amended act is aligned with Canada's obligations under the World Health Organization's International Health Regulations.

Overall, this legislative reform initiative reflects the government's commitment to strengthening Canada's public health system. By introducing Bill C-12, the Government of Canada is responding to the call from Canadians to do more to protect the public from unnecessary health risks.

Further, the newly proposed quarantine act is responding to the calls of experts in the public health community to modernize the legal tools for preventing the import, export and spread of serious communicable diseases, while affording individuals full protection under the Charter of Rights.

In conclusion, I wish to express my gratitude for the hard work of the Standing Committee on Health. As the Minister of State for Public Health, I strongly support Bill C-12. This, as a federal legislative tool, is a critical measure in the establishment of a comprehensive pan-Canadian public health system and paramount to protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

[Health, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the World Health Organization has called the pandemic influenza plan for Canada one of the best in the world. I believe that is because of the amazing cooperation of the federal-provincial-territorial committee on this. One of their strong recommendations was the purchase of antivirals.

I am pleased to announce to the House that the Minister of Health this afternoon will be announcing an unprecedented investment of $24 million into the purchase of stockpiled antivirals to make sure that we will be ready before the vaccines can be available.