Claude Gravelle

[Business of Supply, March 3rd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question.

The fact that the Senate defeated Bill C-311 is a fact. That is why we need to reform the Senate.

I want to add to what the hon. member from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador said about defeated candidates being appointed to the Senate. In that group of senators that was appointed, there are eight formerly defeated candidates, some of whom were defeated more than once.

Do we know why they were defeated? It is because the people in their ridings did not want these candidates to represent them, but the government, in its wisdom, appointed them to the Senate.

[Business of Supply, March 3rd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind the hon. minister that this is only a starting point. That is all it is, a starting point for democratic reform. We want to put the question to Canadians. Do they want it or not?

I want to cite an Ipsos Reid poll between the days of January 24 and 27, 2011, indicating that 33% of Canadians want to abolish the Senate and 49% want Senate reform.

That is a total of 82% of Canadians who want to reform the Senate.

This motion, today, brought forward by the hon. member for Hamilton Centre is just a starting point. We can start there and then we can go on.

[Business of Supply, March 3rd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to clarify what I said earlier, because in the heat of the moment I may have gotten carried away.

I think that everyone in the House would agree that Chantal Hébert is one of the best writers in the country and that we all read her column attentively. My comments were obviously not a personal attack. Rather, I was commenting on a specific column with which I disagreed.

No personal slight was intended of course. Even when we disagree, we are all professionals doing our job the best we can.

I am pleased to rise and participate in today's opposition day motion, tabled by my colleague from Hamilton Centre. I commend him on his excellent motion. The timing of this motion and today's debate could not come at a more critical period.

This historic place, our Parliament and its elected members are held in low regard by Canadians, thanks largely to the track record of the Conservative government and the previous Liberal government. Whether it was the sponsorship scandal that alienated so many voters or the hyper participation of the government, many Canadians now view this chamber with distrust.

However, it does not have to be that way. Like many of my constituents I am angry. My constituents are angry and disappointed because the government would rather prorogue Parliament when it cannot get its way, protect ministers who mislead the House, the minister of “not”, violate election laws because it thinks it is above the law, appoint dozens of senators at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars, undermining democracy itself, spend billions on corporate tax cuts for its friends or even sole-source 65 fighter jets at a cost of billions more, than help Canadians with their home heating bills or access to long-term care facilities or help them protect their pensions.

I am angry because I know we can achieve these goals and deliver a helping hand to those who help build our country. However, we do not because the Conservative government is so consumed with winning a majority that every promise it breaks, decision it makes, or every bill it brings forward is based solely on a political calculation on whether it will add one or two percentage points to its popularity so it can inch ever closer to a perceived majority. The Conservative government has sunk to such new lows in its approach to governing that it often makes a mockery of this great institution.

Let me read a quote going back to election night 2006. It states:

During this campaign, we talked a lot about values. One of the oldest and enduring Canadian values is democracy...This is a freedom for which our ancestors perished and our veterans fought--for which those in our Armed Forces today still sacrifice, for which too many in our world still yearn. It is a freedom which we must always--always--cherish as Canadians.

Who said this? None other than the Prime Minister.

Since delivering this speech, he has broken his promise to bring about real democratic reform. He has broken his promise on Senate reform, appointing 36 Conservative cronies and bag men. He has given Canada a black eye on the world stage, costing us a seat on the UN Security Council, a first for Canada. He has wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer money on advertising designed to benefit the Conservative Party. Two of the Senate cronies are now charged with wilfully exceeding spending limits in the 2000 federal election, the very election in which the Prime Minister promised to clean up corruption in our country's capital.

Is it any wonder that New Democrats stand here today urging parliamentarians to do what the Conservative government has lacked the courage and leadership to do? We know what real Canadian leadership looks like. We only have to witness the tireless dedication of our leader, the member of Parliament for Toronto—Danforth. His dedication to this chamber and our political process, his commitment to giving all Canadians a voice in Parliament, is a shining example for all of us. Our caucus knows that the best way to get Canadians excited again about the political process in our great country is to change our system to better reflect their vote.

This motion today could begin to reverse the drop in confidence in and respect for our political institutions that Canadians have. Our motion calls for the appointment of a special committee for democratic improvement whose mandate would be to engage with Canadians and make recommendations to the House on how best to achieve a House of Commons that would more accurately reflect the votes of Canadians by combining direct elections by electoral district and proportional representation.

There is no better way for Canadians to feel that their vote counts than by ensuring that the House of Commons actually reflects the will of the people. That is what part of this motion achieves. That is why we need to support the motion. We need to send a clear message to Canadians that their voice and concerns matter, and that we intend to take action to address their concerns.

There is no higher calling than serving the great people of this great country. There is no greater honour for me to be standing here today in this hallowed chamber to speak on behalf of the people of Nickel Belt. We owe this to Canadians. We actually owe them a lot more, but this motion is a good start.

The second part of the motion addresses the upper chamber, the home of political relics and bagmen and cronies, of undemocratic, unelected, unnecessary, unaccountable and unrepresentative members. I would go so far as to say that the Conservative government is taking a page from its corporate buddies. The Conservatives are engaging in a form of hostile takeover of the Senate as a democratic institution. They are even using the Senate to circumvent this democratic chamber of elected representatives.

Together, senators collect millions in salaries and they travel on taxpayers' dollars to attend their parties' fundraisers. Some are even ungrateful for their perks and privileges. Let me provide just one example. Last December, the Prime Minister appointed a Conservative senator who referred to his senator's salary as a “catastrophic” pay cut. It seems this senator will have to get by on only $132,300 a year, plus the pittance of $187,000 on average for staff and travel and office expenses. However, this senator is willing to make the sacrifice. After all, the Senate only sits for 90 days a year for the paltry wage of $1,470 per day. Seeing that the Senate only begins sitting at 1:30 p.m. each day of its three day work week, one can only wonder when this senator will ever find the time to campaign for his upcoming election. I almost forgot: there is no election for senators.

I wonder if the senator would ever risk asking Canadians, who earn an average of $172 a day, how they would feel about the senator's great sacrifice of earning only $1,470 a day.

The Prime Minister has appointed 37 of them, including 18 new senators, the largest number ever, in a single day. Not even Brian Mulroney appointed that many in one day when he was forcing the free trade deal on us. We will do our best to ensure that the Prime Minister does not get to make these appointments any more. What a legacy.

In conclusion, we know that many Canadians feel that something is broken. Our plan, outlined in today's motion, will make elections more democratic and Parliament more representative. That is the key to making Canadians feel their vote counts. We are asking all parties to work with us on a pragmatic, step-by-step plan to improve Canadian democracy. It is just a start. We need to redouble our efforts to regain the trust of Canadians. We have our work cut out for us.

In the 1867 election, voter turnout was 73.1%. Over 100 years later, in 1968, voter turnout was even better at 75.7%. Yet in 2008, voter turnout dropped to 58.8%. Let there be no doubt that we have a serious problem in Canada. We cannot afford to continue down this road.

I see that you are giving me the one minute sign, Madam Speaker--

[Business of Supply, March 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member referred to democratic reform as leftovers. She also made a comment about Chantal Hébert who thinks that democratic reform is not important. Chantal Hébert only thinks what Liberals think. If the Liberals think something is important, she thinks it is important. It is unfortunate that she would use Chantal Hébert who also said that this opposition day motion is not important. That is a real shame.

I would like to know how that member of the Liberal Party feels about Senator Raymond Lavigne, who is on trial for allegedly using public money to commit fraud? Could she tell me if that is a good thing for democracy in Canada?

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario Act, February 16th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise as my party’s critic on FedNor, and as a lifelong northern Ontarian.

I would like to speak to Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario. New Democrats have always led the charge on the need for an independent regional economic development agency for northern Ontario.

This bill is in fact based on the previous bill by my NDP colleague, the member for Sault Ste. Marie. I want to take a moment to commend my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie for his unrelenting commitment to the social and economic wellbeing of northern Ontario.

During debate on this bill, we have heard some poignant reasons why northern Ontario needs an independent economic development agency, including its geographic span and sizable population, the fact that an independent regional economic development agency is a proven way to support regional economies, and the fact that northern Ontario is the only significant region not served by an independent regional economic development agency, just to name a few.

Currently, we have the following independent regional economic development agencies in Canada, each with their own legislated mandate: the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Western Economic Diversification Canada, Canada Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec, the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario and the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency. The latter two agencies have been recent developments—brought forth by this federal government.

So we cannot say Conservatives do not believe in the effectiveness of regional economic development. I fail to understand, though, why this government did not set up an independent FedNor when it set up an economic agency for southern Ontario. I can only conclude that the government either has total disregard for northern Ontarians and has little confidence in our ability to function independently in our own best interests, or the industry minister enjoys having the control over decision-making for FedNor. Maybe it does not support an independent FedNor for all of these reasons.

I also want to stress that it would take very little to turn FedNor into an independent agency. FedNor already has a director general, many of its decisions are already decentralized and made locally, and it has offices throughout northern Ontario.

All we require here is political leadership. And clearly, we have none coming from this Conservative government.

In fact, the industry minister has provided ample evidence why FedNor should be a stand-alone agency, independent of his political interference. From pork barrel funding around the G8 and G20 summits to the cancellation of the long form census for purely ideological reasons, the minister responsible for FedNor has shown that he is not above petty partisan politics.

This bill warrants the full support of the House. It is a good bill in that it specifies an independent mandate for FedNor, its powers, duties, functions and reporting mechanisms. It ensures that in the future the federal government will require the consent of Parliament to change or alter the agency's powers and mandate, and it defines the geographical area of northern Ontario as comprising the following 10 ridings: Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, Kenora, Nickel Belt, Nipissing—Timiskaming, Parry Sound—Muskoka, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, Thunder Bay—Superior North, and Timmins—James Bay.

New Democrats have consulted stakeholders in northern Ontario and the sentiment is the same across the board—they agree that FedNor should be an independent agency.

New Democrats have a vision for northern Ontario that goes way beyond this bill. We see the role of FedNor as aiding our communities in their pursuit of economic diversification, as well as cultural and linguistic promotion.

In order to spur the necessary growth, we need to keep our young people in northern Ontario. Too many communities, including our first nations, are suffering from youth out-migration. Young men and women are educating themselves and becoming creative entrepreneurs and caring professionals, but the lack of growth in many small communities is causing them to head south to larger urban centres.

Northern Ontario is as beautiful as it is unique. In fact, our region was a source of inspiration for Canada's famed Group of Seven painters. However, part of its uniqueness is that we have small communities that are geographically distant from one another. We have few large hubs of economic activity. As a result, our communities face challenges, ranging from their accessibility by bus and rail to infrastructure needs, such as roads, clinics, hospitals, to government services.

I share these challenges with you to highlight the fact that our region needs an effective economic development agency staffed and led by local professionals and entrepreneurs who understand our unique needs.

People often say back home that Ottawa does not understand us. And while many of my colleagues from other parts of this great country hear the same thing, it does underscore why FedNor needs its independence.

This government's cabinet includes champions for every regional economic development agency.

What confounds me and my New Democratic colleagues is the stubbornness of the government in refusing our region of northern Ontario an independent economic development agency of its own.

I look forward to other members of this House making the same point, as well as this bill succeeding at third reading.

I wish to conclude my remarks with a few words of caution for my Liberal colleagues.

While I sincerely appreciate the effort of my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming, I want to remind the House that the Liberal Party has a long-established history of sounding like New Democrats in opposition and then acting like Conservatives in government.

It is crucial that my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming secures the unequivocal support of his party for his private member's bill. We do not want the Liberals developing memory loss if they ever find themselves on the other side of this House. Northern Ontarians' needs have long been ignored by successive Liberal and Conservative governments.

However, it is amazing to watch what happens when New Democrats are elected. With the strong team of northern New Democrats in this chamber, one thing is for sure, that one of the best ways to ensure that the interests of northern Ontarians are defended and promoted is to continue electing New Democrat members.

We will continue to fight for what is best for our communities, and we will continue to promote our region and advance ideas that strengthen our future and our children’s future.

We cannot stand by and watch our communities struggle with out-migration. One of the best ways of getting started is to put in place the right tools and systems. An independent FedNor would be a good start.

[Seeds Regulation Act, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I think the previous speaker's comments indicate he has been eating genetically modified food for far too long.

I rise today to join my colleagues in this historic debate in the House of Commons. It is historic because for the first time we are debating the issue of genetically engineered crops, known simply as GE seeds, and their impact on producers and consumers.

I wish to stress at the outset what other colleagues have pointed out, that on the issue of GE crops, Bill C-474 is purely about the economic side of this debate.

Its brilliance is that it is a simple bill that clearly and eloquently provides the federal government with a mandate to provide a mechanism currently missing in the regulations that can protect farmers from the economic hardship caused by the commercialization or contamination of their crops by GE seeds in the face of widespread market rejection.

We are not hypothesizing here. We have a real example cited earlier whereby the European Union, our largest market for flax, banned our imports because an illegal GE flaxseed called CDC Triffid had contaminated Canadian flax exports.

The EU buys 60% of our flax. To my Conservative colleagues who like to proclaim their love of all things market-related and corporate-related I ask: What happened to flax prices? Those prices plummeted and our farmers lost out.

Jim Lintott, chairman of the Manitoba Forage Council, summed this situation up beautifully when he said:

The perception that Canada is a pristine and clean environment for the production of food is slowly being eroded. The introduction of unwanted GMOs is affecting not only the direct sale of crop and seed production, but also the sale of value-added products.

I want to point out that although there is no question that the Triffid flax situation has cost Canadian farmers and exporters a lot of money and their reputation, it has cost our customers, who then move that flax into value-added production, a far greater amount of money. Those customers will not easily forget what they have paid for buying Canadian.

According to Barry Hall, president of the Flax Council of Canada, that incident cost Canadian farmers and flax processors on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean tens of millions of dollars. Mr. Hall went on to say: “Canada's reputation as a supplier of quality flax has really been trashed...We've really been hammered over this”.

When the tables are turned, companies like Monsanto cannot wait to slap farmers with lawsuits.

Kurt Shmon, president of Imperial Seed, notes:

We see instances in which Monsanto is not afraid to sue the producer if the producer uses its technology without Monsanto's approval.

I would like to think that the regulatory process that approved it, CFIA, or Monsanto itself would be the ones that I could turn around and sue if their gene entered my land and my seed crop where it is unwanted. Or is it just a one-way street so that they can sue whoever they choose to but they don't have to take responsibility for their technology?

Here we are with a simple piece of legislation that calls for factoring in the potential harm to export markets before any approval of GE crops is given. That is all.

What is so ideological or political for that matter when the economic impact of new GE crops is being considered?

Our agriculture critic, the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, sought out the lowest common denominator with his bill in order to build consensus across party lines.

Here is what Matthew Holmes, executive director of Canada Organic Trade Association, had to say about the bill:

Bill C-474 does not establish some unrealistic threshold, nor does it give economic considerations of veto over all other considerations. It simply provides policy-makers with one more tool with which to understand the implications of their decisions, and our sector feels this is a reasonable one.

Yet we have a typical ideological response from Conservative members in the House. They are blindly taking their cues from companies like Monsanto without the fortitude of questioning these companies' motives.

What is also reprehensible is the Conservative MPs behaviour at committee. They shut down committee just as witnesses, invited by the committee, arrived on the scene. What an insult to the witnesses and to the democratic process.

Addressing the economic implications of genetically modified crop is absolutely critical. Thousands of Canadians have written the government expressing their support for Bill C-474. Farmers are worried about whether their largest markets will continue to purchase Canadian seed.

The uniqueness of Nickel Belt is that it is a collection of small, but unique communities, each with their character and beauty. Many in communities such as Verner, Lavigne, St. Charles, Noëlville, Blezard Valley are home to farmers. While they were not affected by the ban on Canadian flax, I have learned so much about the many challenges facing farmers across Canada.

They have faced rising costs in areas such as energy and transportation, effects of climate change, local predators such as bears and other wildlife that destroy crops and infrastructure costs such as fences and tile drainage. Some cannot retire because their children lack the financial means to purchase the farms or cannot get loans from the banks to buy new equipment to enhance productivity.

Farmers in northern Ontario have to ship their products to Toronto before they are returned to the shelves of local grocery stores in Nickel Belt, Sudbury and other northern communities.

These challenges are not unique to farmers in my riding of Nickel Belt. Farmers across the country face huge hurdles, so why would Parliament not want to make one simple amendment to the Seed Regulations Act that would ensure the potential market harm would be considered before permission would be granted for production of genetically modified seed? After all, Bill C-474 is purely about economics. A GE crop that is not approved in our export markets has little value to farmers.

I want to close with a quote by Jim Lintott, chairman of the Manitoba Forage Council. It really packs a punch. Mr. Lintott says, “The bill is perfect the way it stands. It's a perfect requirement. Why would you produce anything with no market for it?”

Why indeed, unless one does not care about destroying the reputation of our farmers, unless one only cares about one's corporate buddies.

Here in the NDP we care about our farmers. We also care about Canada's reputation abroad. We know the Conservatives do not care about our reputation, but I do not understand my Liberal colleagues. They say that they are different from the Conservatives, yet they are joining with them in opposing this bill.

Our western farmers will remember tomorrow's vote. They will remember how each western MP voted on Bill C-474 and we will be sure to remind them as well.

I am proud of the work of my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior. I thank him for all his work on behalf of farmers. This debate is a historic one. It is also just the beginning.

[Economic Development, February 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservative government and its industry minister, who considers himself a northern Ontarian, have no respect for us in the north. If they did, they would have made FedNor a stand-alone agency just like the one they set up for southern Ontario. Why the double standard? Why the hypocrisy?

[Economic Development, February 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry likes to use the name FedNor during press conferences. But what people from northern Ontario really need is an independent economic development agency like the one in southern Ontario or the one in Quebec.

There is currently a bill before the House of Commons to allow FedNor to become a stand-alone agency, which will meet the needs of our people back home.

Why are the Conservatives opposed to this?

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am glad my colleague from British Columbia touched on the fact that the Conservative government got rid of the long form census because it was too invasive to Canadians, that we knew too much about Canadians, where they live, how many people were in their homes and where they worked, all good statistics that could be used by doctors, hospitals and municipalities.

In Bill C-42, the government would allow all kinds of information, even more information than was in the long form census, to go to these foreign countries.

I would like the hon. member from B.C. to try to explain to me why the change in the ideology between the long form census and Bill C-42 from the Conservative government?

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question and it is impossible to answer it.

What reason would the Conservatives have for wanting to give out our personal information, especially after the fact they cancelled the long form census because it was too invasive.

What is their reasoning? We do not know what their reasoning is, and the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is correct. They are just a bunch of rogues.