Diane Finley

[Agriculture, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, an amicus brief status these days is like issuing a news release and is just as effective.

It has been 701 days since the U.S. border was closed to Canadian livestock. Since then the Liberal government has failed to apply for intervenor status, not amicus status, in the courtroom where a Montana judge has put the Canadian food safety system on trial.

Why is the government leaving it to the U.S. protectionist lobbies to explain our food safety system to a U.S. judge?

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today to address avian influenza. This is a contagious and deadly virus that has resulted in the deaths of millions of birds in British Columbia. This is an important issue to poultry producers in the Fraser Valley and, indeed, to all Canadians.

I am pleased that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has tabled its report on avian flu, which focuses on the management of the crisis. I know that the committee has worked hard to evaluate the CFIA's response to this disaster. I would like to thank my hon. colleagues on all sides of the House who have worked hard on this evaluation.

I would also like to recognize the hard work of my colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford. He has spent countless hours on the ground addressing the concerns and needs of his constituents and, in effect, all Canadian poultry producers.

Most importantly, let us recognize the hard-working people of the Fraser Valley who have participated in the many forums surrounding the evaluation. Their resilience is representative of all Canadian agricultural producers in times of crisis and their patience is greatly appreciated by the members of this House.

We have seen the devastation that the avian flu virus has caused in Asia where it is not under control. It is important to recognize that the virus that was discovered in British Columbia was not the same strain as the one that jumped the species barrier in southeast Asia infecting and killing many people.

However this House has to recognize that it is the same disease and that it can jump the species barrier. It is deadly.

If history has taught us anything, we cannot ignore the threat that the World Health Organization has been warning us of. I encourage officials at Health Canada and at the CFIA to share information on developing safeguards and action plans for Canadians in the event that we are faced with the human strain.

It is evident that the avian flu crisis was mismanaged in the worst way from the top down. As we know, the CFIA operates under a hodgepodge of legislation and that has prevented it from doing the job it needs to do when responding to emergency situations affecting Canada's food supply.

What is worse is that it has taken the Liberal government seven years to develop legislation to correct this legislation. Bill C-27, which is currently before the House of Commons, seeks to amalgamate the inspection and enforcement powers of the CFIA. It is my opinion that the delay and inaction from the Liberal government in regard to the operations and function of the CFIA is partly to blame for the mismanagement of this particular crisis.

The CFIA's inability to deal effectively in a crisis recently came to light in a troubling internal review of the CFIA's handling of the BSE crisis. The review entitled “CFIA BSE Emergency Response Assessment Report” was made public by the Vancouver Sun through access to information. It underscored some worrisome findings, stating that the Liberal government's response to the BSE crisis was “plagued by poor planning, staffing problems and repeated failures to share information”.

Furthermore, it highlighted several gaping holes in the CFIA's ability to deal with, at that time, future emergencies such as a possible outbreak of avian flu or hoof-and-mouth disease.

The review was completed for the CFIA on December 10, 2003 by an outside consultant and it warned that if the CFIA did not take steps to fix some of the problems identified they “could undermine CFIA's ability to respond to more complex or time-critical emergencies”.

This raises several questions. A mere two months after this warning was made, the CFIA was faced with the outbreak of avian influenza. I have to wonder if there was any attempt during that time to initiate corrective action, actions that could have prevented the gross mismanagement that occurred in the Fraser Valley.

In the report that has been tabled in this House, the standing committee has developed seven concrete recommendations to better manage the outbreak of contagious disease in Canadian agriculture. These recommendations cannot be ignored. If they are left ignored, the Liberal government will once again fail to ensure necessary protection for our Canadian livestock producers facing potential new and emerging threats.

While we can all agree that consumer protection is essential, we must not forget the threats that face the farm.

The avian flu crisis confirmed that the Liberal government has no concrete action plan in place for threats that require the massive destruction of Canadian livestock. For example, if foot and mouth disease ever entered Canada, this disease would have the potential to devastate our livestock industry.

Canada is in grave need of an organized, pre-planned livestock destruction system. We must prepare for the airborne disease of foot and mouth before it happens. We cannot afford to be scrambling to contain the disease without a plan, much like what happened in the Fraser Valley. It would be an agricultural nightmare. The seventh recommendation of the committee recognizes this fact. The time to act on it is now, not to send it back to the committee from which it came. It has already done what it wanted to with it. We need to take the action now.

I would like to address one of the other recommendations, which relates to compensation.

The CFIA ordered a cull of 19 million birds in the Fraser Valley. There was a protocol for compensation according to the type of birds involved, but the then agriculture minister was unable to provide any information at the time as to how or when producers in British Columbia might be compensated.

Producers later found out that they would be compensated based on outdated bird values laid out in the compensation for destroyed animals regulations under the Health of Animals Act. The compensation available to producers was an insult to the hard-working men and women of Canada's poultry industry.

Furthermore, the standing committee's report points out that the Health of Animals Act has the following deficiencies: It does not have the capacity to distinguish between the species of different industries. It lacks recognition of the value of genetic material and rare breeding stocks. It completely disregards compensation for forgone income.

Compensation amounts for broiler breeders and layers were determined using a specific formula. The widespread nature of the outbreak limited the replacement market for these birds, making it difficult for owners to restock their flocks with adult birds. It is clear that the formula failed.

Specialty bird owners incurred a large amount of damage. These producers are not supported by supply management and suffered the loss of irreplaceable breeds, the loss of niche markets and the loss of capital investment required to start all over again.

To emphasize the necessity of addressing the issue of compensation, I would like to read in its entirety the recommendation of the committee:

That, in its review of the existing compensation program under the Health of Animals Act, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency must ensure fairness and consistency among all types of production. In recognizing the intrinsic value of genetic material so important to some industries, flexibility must be allowed in compensation. The Agency, in consultation with the affected industries, should also consider how equitable compensation might be offered for forgone income, and for one-time losses.

The Conservative Party of Canada supports the compensation of affected producers based on the same principles as any other disaster beyond their control. A Conservative government would ensure that compensation flowed quickly and effectively to producers.

Clearly, the compensation for destroyed animals regulation failed farmers. The Conservative Party demands that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food make sure that these regulations are thoroughly and properly adjusted.

As recommended by the committee, we trust that the government will consult with agricultural and agrifood stakeholders in a responsible, open and transparent manner.

In closing, I would like to once again recognize the producers in British Columbia who were so seriously impacted by this situation. The Liberal government failed producers in the Fraser Valley and for that, it should be ashamed.

The Conservative Party recognizes the importance of producers' hard work, the benefits it offers to our safe food supply, and the contribution it provides to the Canadian economy. I would like to assure Canadian producers that their next government, a Conservative government, has an inherent appreciation for agriculture. Conservatives recognize the importance of respecting producers and the welfare of animals in times of crisis.

There are several problems that have been addressed through this report. A lot of them obviously have to do with the avian influenza outbreak in British Columbia. This is not the first time we have encountered difficulties with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In fact, there were problems with the BSE situation. Too many producers across our country encountered difficulties of an unnecessary nature on a daily basis.

One particular producer in my riding has been having problems. She has been trying to import chemicals that would work on her sweet potato crop. These are chemicals that are used and approved in the United States for sweet potatoes. In fact, the same chemicals are approved in Canada for use on apples.

This producer is trying to build a brand new industry in this country, sweet potatoes. When she applied to bring in that chemical from the U.S. to put on her sweet potato crop, she was denied permission. Why? Believe it or not, she was told that somebody might eat the sweet potato skin to which the chemical had been applied. Most people I know eat the skins of apples, but not many eat the skin of a sweet potato. That is the kind of nonsense I am talking about.

There was another situation just last week where one of my constituents had a problem bringing in frozen fish from the Far East. All of the paperwork had been approved by the CFIA in advance. Yet when the ship docked in Vancouver with that very time sensitive load on board that had survival characteristics, because let's face it frozen fish is a time sensitive commodity, the constituent was told, “Too bad, it is Friday morning and we are not going to inspect your product until Monday”.

As a result, my constituent was in breach of the contract. The person was also to receive a bill for $1,300 for off loading, inspecting and reloading those goods that are no longer of use and for which business was lost.

We have to have accountability from this agency. That is why in Bill C-27 the Conservative Party is working so hard to add amendments that once and for all would cause the CFIA to be held accountable.

There is one thing I found frightening during the briefing regarding Bill C-27. When I asked what methods and means of accountability would be included in Bill C-27, I was told that the CFIA would be training its inspectors on the new rules and regulations. That is it, it would be training them.

That is not accountability. Canadians know that is not accountability. That is the first step in preparing for accountability, letting people know what their jobs are and what are the constraints and parameters of performance. Accountability is when people are expected to operate within those constraints and parameters and consequences are imposed if they do not do so.

We are talking about accountability for all of CFIA's actions, not just in the handling of the avian influenza outbreak, not just in the handling of the BSE crisis, not just in its day to day operations, but in everything it does. We need a safe and secure food supply system, granted. However, we also need to know there are no abuses of the system, that the processors who have to work within the system can do so in a fair and reliable way knowing that the government agencies that are there to help consumers are also there to help them succeed. If the producers cannot succeed, then none of us will have anything to eat, and who will be held accountable for that?

[Committees of the House, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is saying we need to move faster. Today's motion is to enable that: to make it go faster. Instead of going back to committee for more review and having it go to the minister to sit on his desk for 120 days, we are trying to get action now.

It has been two years since this has been in review and study, two years in which the CFIA has had an opportunity to get its act together. If its act had been together beforehand, we would not have been in the mess and we would not be debating this today.

After two years, even without these studies, the hon. member has just said that the CFIA is reviewing protocols, that it is “working toward developing a plan”. That is progress at the rate of a worm. That does not get things done, this “working toward developing a plan”, not even developing the plan. What kind of action are they talking about? I certainly hope it is something other than action at a worm's pace for a change.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Wetaskiwin on his passion. Agriculture is obviously something near and dear to my heart as well, and I thank him for sharing his concerns on this subject.

This morning we heard the minister, who presented this legislation and who led the debate, refer to numerous consultations that had been done with industry. She rhymed off at least a dozen different groups that she said had been consulted. Yet shortly after her presentation, a representative of one of those groups called my office and said that the group's definition of consultation was something different. Representatives of the group had attended a session, along with many others, and listened to one of the representatives of the government talk about the issues. They did not consider that consultation.

Would the hon. member for Wetaskiwin be willing to share with us his views on the importance of consultation, particularly in light of the amendment that I will be proposing, which is that a full review and study of the Canada Grain Act be conducted within 12 months and that review would include a complete look at the role, responsibilities and governance of any organizations that operate under that act, including but not limited to the Canadian Grain Commission?

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague from the neighbouring riding of Oxford, the answer is yes. The government has been down the path of reviewing the Canadian Grain Commission. That was done in 2002 by a review panel of producers from the prairie provinces. The industry did have input into that review but sadly, we have not seen the results of it. The report is gathering dust on the minister's desk.

On February 24 the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food requested a copy of the report to be presented to the committee. Unfortunately, some two and a half months later, we still have not seen anything.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last summer a World Trade Organization panel ruled against Canadian policies affecting the importation of grain from the United States. The panel ruled that Canada should not treat imported grain differently from Canadian grain when it is mixed or authorized for entry into the system. The panel also found that the rail revenue cap treated imported grain less favourably than western Canadian grain.

The Conservative Party recognizes that implementing the WTO's decision is critical if we are to respect our international trade obligations. We understand it is important to treat foreign products the way we would want Canadian products to be treated in foreign countries. We recognize that there is a tight timeline regarding passage of this bill. However, if the Canada Grain Act is going to be amended, then the concerns of farmers and others in the grain industry should be formally recognized.

The Canadian Grain Commission is integral to our country's system of grain handling, but unfortunately the commission has been unable to keep up with changes in the industry both in Canada and abroad. The result has been a restrictive approach to regulating Canada's grain industry, an industry that demands that it has influence in establishing and maintaining a seamless grain handling system.

The Western Grain Elevator Association, an organization that represents major grain handling companies, has described in detail to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food how the grain commission is not enhancing the international position of Canada's producers; rather, it has become an obstacle to growth. In order to put the commission back on track to keep pace with the industry, simple amendments to its governing legislation, the Canada Grain Act, are no longer a viable option.

The obvious place to start would be to focus on the single barrier to realizing change, that being the governance structure of the grain commission. It is obvious that the role of the chief commissioner and the entire governing board must be looked at. The current governance structure of the grain commission has created a reporting relationship of commissioners that does not take into account the best interests of the industry. We would like to see the commission led by a more accountable body whose objective would be to serve the industry.

Those of us on this side of the House care about accountability. We recognize that a democratic process requires accountability to ensure that those who are subject to the decisions of a governing body are treated fairly.

This may be shocking to hear, but the regulatory decisions of the Canadian Grain Commission are not subject to appeal. These decisions can and do have far-reaching consequences for producers as well as for the entire grain sector. Nearly all commercially oriented transactions have dispute resolution mechanisms, so why does the Canadian Grain Commission leave industry participants without recourse? The answer is to amend the act to give members of the industry the ability to appeal decisions of the grain commission in a quick and cost effective manner.

The mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission must also be addressed. The principal objective of the commission is clearly stated in the Canada Grain Act. Clearly, it leaves out the interests of participants that handle grain after it has entered the system.

A key role of the grain commission is to protect primary producers from the risks of industry participants going belly up. The commission requires that all elevators post a bond to the commission, an amount equal to the value of the grain they are handling, but a frequent complaint in this regard has been a lack of enforcement on the part of the grain commission. Rather than address the lack of enforcement, the commission instead warns producers that the onus is on them, that they should only deal with licensed grain dealers.

Unfortunately we have seen that despite the licensing regime, the bonding system does not necessarily protect producers from the financial failure of grain elevators. Even if an elevator is bonded, the security held by the grain commission is occasionally not sufficient, and producers are still left with the loss if a company goes under. A requirement that results in such a major lack of operating capital within the industry should at least work.

Last but not least is a serious concern which the minister is well aware of but has not corrected. The issue is surrounding the certificate finals which are issued by the Canadian Grain Commission. These certificates are issued to grain companies identifying the grade of grain stocks that are destined for port. They are not so final. In some instances the grain commission has carried out tests of grain stocks after they have left for port, or even after they have left port. At that point certificates have actually been withdrawn and revised certificates have been issued. As the Western Grain Elevator Association puts it, this is like making an offside call in a hockey game and adjusting the score once the game is over.

Companies cannot manage their risk nor their business under such a system. The issue is so serious that it ended up in a federal court. The court recommended that either testing be done on a timely basis, or that a system of insurance be implemented so that grain handlers are not exposed to unreasonable liability due to no fault of their own.

Unfortunately, the court also pointed out that the commission can simply enact new regulations that allow it to cancel inspection certificates and issue new ones. That is exactly what the Canadian Grain Commission intends to do. This will not fix the problem though. It will simply allow this unacceptable situation to continue. This is indicative of the government's approach to agriculture policy. It is a top down approach with a certain disregard, if not outright contempt, for Canadian agricultural producers.

As previously mentioned, we recognize that there is a tight timeline regarding passage of this bill, but the current state of the Canada Grain Act must be formally recognized. The concerns of producers and others in the grain industry cannot continue to be ignored.

That being said, opening up the Canada Grain Act would be like opening up a can of worms. The worms are the concerns of primary producers and elevator operators, disgruntled participants in Canada's grain handling system. Opening up this legislation would present an opportunity to address many needed changes to the Canadian Grain Commission which is mandated by this act.

From a pragmatic point of view, the reforms needed cannot be made within the timeframe allotted to pass Bill C-40. That is why the Conservative Party of Canada will, among other things, propose an amendment that upon passage of this legislation the government initiate a mandatory comprehensive review of the Canada Grain Act and all organizations mandated by the act to be completed within one year of the bill coming into force.

Our amendment would draw attention to concerns raised both by primary producers and the grain industry. It would ensure that the concerns of the industry were formally recognized in a timely manner, paving the way for a comprehensive bill that would legislate much needed reform for the Canadian Grain Commission. We will be asking for the bill to be amended to reflect our party's concerns and those of the Canadian grain industry.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on Bill C-40, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act. Before I continue, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the hon. member for Macleod.

[Civil Marriage Act, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the issue at stake, there are several reasons why I, as the member of Parliament for Haldimand—Norfolk, will be voting against extending marriage to same sex couples.

First, I believe that the traditional definition of marriage is important to maintain the very clear distinction between opposite sex conjugal relationships and same sex ones. The traditional definition of marriage affirms the distinct nature of heterosexual bonding and its potential to sustain life and assure the continued existence of society as we know it.

To suggest that heterosexual marriage and same sex marriage are the same, runs roughshod over any distinction between homosexual and heterosexual bonding in an effort to create a one shoe fits all sizes category. It demolishes any meaningful recognition of the difference between same sex relationships and opposite sex relationships.

Different relationships have different words to describe them. Why? Because each is very distinctive. Parental relationships are distinctive from sibling relationships. Platonic relationships are distinctive from romantic relationships. Social relationships are distinctive from professional relationships. That is why we have different words to describe different distinctive relationships. That is another reason why same sex relationships should have a different definition from heterosexual relationships.

In light of the reasons I have mentioned, I believe our leader has taken not only a reasonable compromise position, but the only true middle ground position in this debate. This position opts to retain the traditional definition of marriage, while affirming legal recognition for same sex partnerships with equivalent rights and benefits. It is my view that this position is in accord with the views of the vast majority of Canadians.

The Conservative Party intends to amend the government's legislation to present this reasonable compromise position to preserve the traditional definition, while maintaining legal rights and privileges for same sex partnerships and explicitly protecting religious freedoms.

Protecting religious freedom is something with which the government likes to pretend it is concerned. It promises that freedom of religion will be protected in Bill C-38. These promises are cold comfort though and ring completely hollow to those concerned with protecting the rights of religious individuals and organizations. Why? Because these promises come from the same individuals who promised not only to defend and uphold the traditional definition of marriage, but to take all necessary means to ensure that the traditional definition was upheld.

How can religious officials and organizations believe that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister will protect religious freedoms when they are acting contrary to their own votes of just a few years ago? Both promised to defend the traditional definition of marriage. They now are doing the exact opposite. I guess this is just another case of Liberal promise made, promise broken.

Not only is the Liberal government turning its back on defending the traditional definition of marriage, but it is going one step further. It is usurping the rights of religious individuals and organizations by failing to do what it said it would; that is protecting the rights and freedoms of religious organizations and individuals. This is not just my personal opinion, it is the opinion of the highest court in the land.

In its advisory opinion, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the clause of a draft bill that was designed to protect religious freedom was unconstitutional. This clause, as drafted in the proposed legislation, deals with the solemnization of marriage which falls under provincial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Liberal government has provided no specific statutory protection of religious freedoms in areas of its own jurisdiction. As a result, Bill C-38 offers no protection to public officials who for religious reasons refuse to fulfil a state imposed job requirement that might conflict with their personal conscience or religious beliefs.

For example, in B.C., Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland marriage commissioners have already lost their jobs for standing up for their religious beliefs. This lack of protection for both religious and civic officials, individuals and organizations is reason enough to defeat this legislation.

Our leader has said that he intends to legislate the traditional definition of marriage while protecting the equal rights, benefits and privileges of same sex couples and giving concrete assurances of religious freedom. That is his commitment now and it will remain his commitment when he becomes Prime Minister.

In closing, I believe that the traditional definition of marriage must remain as it has always been, that is, between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The majority of Canadians firmly believe in equal rights, but they also want to see the traditional definition of marriage protected, and that is how I will be voting.

[Civil Marriage Act, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that is of extreme importance to our country, our families and our children.

For many in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk, this issue is the most fundamental issue before our Parliament. In fact, my recent polling indicates that well over 90% of my constituents are committed to preserving the traditional definition of marriage as that being between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

However, before I go on, I want to take this opportunity to state for the record how absolutely disgusted I am at the Liberal government's attempts to portray anyone who is in favour of the traditional definition of marriage as being either stupid or homophobic. The Liberal Party's slogan of “It's the charter, stupid” and the foreign affairs minister's recent comments that the church should stay out of the debate on same sex marriage are both degrading and shameful. They underline the Liberal government's intolerance of anyone who contests the Liberal government's dogma that people are entitled to their own opinions, as long as those opinions are the same as the government's.

This blatant attempt to stigmatize those who are against this proposed legislation is typical of this arrogant Liberal government. This arrogance continually attempts to stifle legitimate debate whenever it is confronted with an opinion that is contrary to its own.

As Rex Murphy recently said:

If same-sex marriage is a fundamental issue, it deserves a full debate. And the voices and interests of those who view the march toward same-sex marriage as carrying deep and negative consequences have every right to a full and honest hearing of their concerns.

However, even more concerning than all of this Liberal arrogance and disdain is the fundamental Liberal disregard for the democratic process. The Prime Minister pinned his leadership of the Liberal Party on addressing the democratic deficit. His refusal to allow a true free vote on this issue is the height of his hypocrisy.

If the Prime Minister were truly serious about addressing the democratic deficit, he would allow all members of the caucus, including his cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries, to vote freely on this legislation. To force his cabinet and parliamentary secretaries to vote in favour of this legislation is an assault on the democratic process and a violation of members' rights to vote according to their conscience or to the democratic will of their constituents.

On such a fundamental and historic issue as the definition of marriage, I urge all members of the Liberal caucus to consider seriously, regardless of the Prime Minister's threat, that they remain free to choose how they will vote in this House on this issue.

[Haldimand--Norfolk, March 24th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to some special people in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk, who have recently been recognized for making our communities a better place.

Congratulations to Cindy Huitema and Ian Van Osch, Haldimand's farm woman and farmer of the year.

Ditto to Norfolk's Annie Zaluski, a retired strawberry farmer.

A toast to Port Dover's Walt Long, my hometown's citizen of the year.

In Delhi, hats off to pharmacist and friend John Stanczyk and student Jeremy Wittet.

Congratulations to Hagersville's Heather Peart, a future farm leader, and to Hewitt's Dairy for being named Haldimand's business of the year.

Kudos to Caledonia's Barry Snyder and Jim Martin, as well as to Simcoe Composite School principal Bob Foster and Lynda Bain of Dunnville.

I wish to thank them all for their selfless dedication to our communities.