House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 29% of the vote.
Food Safety October 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, what the NDP did was vote against the cuts, and we are proud of that.
Am I to understand that what the Conservatives are now saying is that the documents they tabled in the House of Commons were inaccurate?
The government's own financial documents show that food safety is down by 5%. Food safety and biosecurity risk management systems are being cut by 27%, and that is a fact. How can the Conservatives expect families to believe that their cuts will have no effect?
Food Safety October 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, $116 million was spent on food safety and biosecurity risk management systems in 2011. The government is cutting that number by nearly $32 million to just $85 million for 2012-13. Our food safety program is being cut by 5%. This information can be found in the government's financial documents that the Conservatives themselves tabled in the House of Commons.
Why do they insist on saying the opposite? The question remains: can we rely on their financial documents, yes or no?
Gilles Roy October 5th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, this week, the Lower St. Lawrence region lost a great man who made his mark on the area's recent history. Gilles Roy was the founder of Opération dignité III and a strong supporter of rural living and regional development.
It is builders such as Mr. Roy who have kept the Lower St. Lawrence region vibrant and dynamic. The launch of the Opération dignité movement in the 1970s was a defining moment in eastern Quebec. People throughout the region took a stand and told the Quebec government that they would not allow their towns to be shut down. This was a major popular resistance movement that caused the government to back down.
Gilles Roy was on the front lines of this fight, and he then continued to show his commitment to the survival of the regions for many years after that. I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Roy in April when he received an award from the Université du Québec à Rimouski. This week, he was supposed to receive the 2012 Grand prix de la ruralité award, but fate decided otherwise.
On behalf of my colleagues from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, I would like to salute this man who devoted his life to his region, a region that I am fortunate to represent in the House of Commons.
Mr. Roy, your work, your dedication and your commitment to the Lower St. Lawrence region will never be forgotten.
Food Safety October 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the Conservatives are trying to confuse the matter.
As I said in my speech, what we are seeing now could just be the tip of the iceberg. In budget 2012, the Conservatives imposed cuts by reducing the number of inspectors at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which means that we cannot be sure of what will happen with regard to the processing of meat in processing plants.
The government finally increased the number of inspectors to 170, but the work was not done in the slaughterhouses. Answer the question would really take a complete review and verification of what is being done in terms of food inspection.
I cannot give a specific answer to a general question.
Tonight, I would have liked the parliamentary secretary to give us much more specific explanations instead of relying on rhetoric and the talking points imposed by the Conservatives since the crisis began.
Food Safety October 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Guelph is quite right.
In fact, not all of the Weatherill report's recommendations have been implemented, and the comprehensive audit recommended in the report has not been conducted. He is quite right about that, and the Conservative government is denying it.
As for the second question, it is unfortunate that Bill S-11 is being introduced in the Senate first. A number of my colleagues mentioned that we would support it, but that we would also recommend, among other things, an in-depth study of the situation we are presently facing and an assessment of the current status of the audit.
Bill S-11 will not be a panacea. We are currently dealing with a situation caused by a problem: the cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which have made it impossible for on-site inspections to keep up with the growth of such businesses as slaughterhouses. In that sense, Bill S-11 will not work miracles.
The Conservatives must first re-examine the cuts and their commitments to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Food Safety October 3rd, 2012
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say that I am going to share my time with the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.
We are here to discuss a major issue. My thoughts are with the families affected by the tainted meat. That is why we are here tonight. We have heard a lot of background and many facts. What I would like to do tonight is get to the bottom of this, to get to the real heart of the problem. The heart of the problem comes down to two things: the Conservative government's lack of accountability and transparency, which resulted in the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board's refusal to assume his ministerial responsibility, among other things. There is also the matter of the cuts and the impact that the Conservative government's decisions have had on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Let us look back to April 2012. Hon. members will no doubt remember the budget, which was Bill C-38 at the time. The Conservative budget had a number of impacts. First, many public service jobs were eliminated, including—and this was announced in the media—the 825 employees who received a letter in April 2012 informing them that their job was in danger. Of these 825 people, 59 inspectors—people on the ground to investigate and to check the meat, among other things—received a letter confirming that their position had been eliminated. Approximately 40 other inspectors were expected to receive the same message as a result of the Conservative cuts.
A reporter from Postmedia News, Sarah Schmidt, asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board and the department a number of times to specify which positions would be affected by the cuts. She wanted to know whether veterinarians, people responsible for examining seed and inspectors would be affected. She repeatedly asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board these questions but never received an answer.
We could probably talk about the Parliamentary Budget Officer's repeated requests for details about the cuts announced by the Conservative government. The Conservatives refused to provide this information, despite the Accountability Act, which should force them to do it.
For a government that has made accountability and transparency its bread-and-butter issue since 2006, that is unacceptable and irresponsible.
What should we make of these 700 new inspectors mentioned time and again by each of the members who spoke this evening and, I would note, who repeated almost the same speech practically word for word. Once again, there are no details about these 700 new inspectors.
A Canadian Press journalist contacted the minister and the Department of Agriculture to obtain additional information, namely what kind of positions were included in these 700 new jobs. These are not 700 inspector jobs, and the Conservative government is deliberately trying to confuse the issue.
The Agriculture Union and the Public Service Alliance of Canada tried to find out the assignments for these 700 new inspectors. They did not get an answer. They managed to come up with an estimate. Of the 700 inspectors, 200 were assigned to monitor imports of invasive alien species, 330 were assigned to technical categories, such as seed examination, and 170 positions were inspectors assigned to processing plants, not slaughter houses.
The case of tainted meat that we are debating this evening occurred in a slaughter house and not in a processing plant.
That is an important distinction to make. Every single Conservative member who has spoken tonight has refused to address this issue and tried once again to confuse the matter.
In budget 2012, the government reduced the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's budget by $56 million. It is in budget 2012 in black and white. The government boasted about having invested $51 million in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and said that there would be no budget cuts, that everything would be fine.
That $56 million represents real cuts. The $51 million, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands pointed out, was distributed among three agencies: the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada. This $51 million was invested to renew existing food safety programs. These were not new investments. This money went to maintain an existing program, which was created after the listeriosis crisis that hit the country not too long ago, so that it could continue focusing on food safety. So this was not new money. It went towards an existing program. However, the $56 million was cut directly from the agency's funding.
This crisis could end up being a crisis of trust. The Conservatives are accusing us of fearmongering with this issue. We are not fearmongering. It is our role as official opposition to hold the government accountable for its decisions. The budget cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will have a significant impact.
What happened at XL Foods is the tip of the iceberg of what might happen if the government refuses to take responsibility, if the minister refuses to assume ministerial responsibility, which is absolutely essential in our parliamentary system, if the Conservatives continue to deny their responsibility in the budget cuts and to provide misleading information on the true state of things when it comes to meat inspections.
Repeating left and right that they added 700 new inspectors is not helping. No inspector was sent to XL Foods. What is more, one of the most problematic things about XL Foods is that there was a shortage of inspectors on the floor of the abattoir for a very long time. The union sounded the alarm many times about this. New positions may have been created, but not many. The Conservatives are talking about two or six inspectors, depending on who is talking. Those inspectors are filling existing positions that had become vacant. No new investment had been made for XL Foods.
The hon. member for Welland, our agriculture critic, was very clear about this. We are talking about a plant that sped up its processing line. It slaughters 4,000 to 5,000 head of cattle. There are 46 inspectors there, but they work two shifts. Twenty-three inspectors work one shift and the 23 other inspectors work the other shift, at a plant the size of several city blocks. It is a very large plant. Having 23 people on site at all times is just not enough, and XL Foods employees have to pick up the slack. It is absolutely irresponsible of the Conservatives to deny this fact and to try to hide it behind various figures.
I know there are Canadians still watching us this evening. It may be 11:10 p.m. here, but it is 8:10 p.m. in British Columbia and 9:10 p.m. in Alberta.
For the people watching us at home, whether in western Canada, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec or the Atlantic provinces, I simply wanted to point out that this is the government they are stuck with at the moment. The comments they have heard this evening demonstrate that this government is happy to throw around half-truths. They have a government that cares only about covering its butt when facing a crisis. They have a government that refuses to accept responsibility. Above all, they have a minister who refuses to accept his primary responsibility, his ministerial responsibility, whereby he should be assuming full responsibility for a tragedy like the one we are facing.
This government's first instinct when faced with a crisis like this one is to blame everyone else apart from the Conservative Party or the Conservative caucus, whether it be the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or the opposition parties. Quebec and Canada deserve better than that. As the official opposition, we have a duty to demand that the government be accountable and remain transparent, which it refused to do in all of the cases we have dealt with here, cases for which the Parliamentary Budget Officer is asking to see the specific data regarding the cuts to be made by the Conservatives. They refuse to provide that information.
It is the government's duty to accept responsibility for what happens, to stop hiding behind numbers, to stop spreading misinformation and, ultimately, to act for the health and well-being of all Canadians. Based on what I have heard here this evening, the government is still refusing to do so.
International Trade September 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in his speech in New York, the Prime Minister did not announce new cuts to seniors programs. Instead, he launched into a diatribe against international consensus.
Let us speak about the international consensuses that the Conservatives tried to scuttle: the consensus on the ban on asbestos, the consensus on the fight against climate change, the consensus on cluster munitions and the consensus on arms trade.
In these areas, the Prime Minister agrees more with the rogue states than with our allies. Is this something to brag about?
International Trade September 28th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Conservatives, the NDP believes that we need clear criteria to assess trade agreements.
The Conservatives said that they were going to table any new trade agreements in the House of Commons for 21 days of debate and comments, but they did not say whether they would put such agreements to a vote. I am wondering if they are worried about the result.
In the trade agreement with China, a secret arbitration system has replaced the courts and, according to experts, this agreement is based on the Chinese model, which will certainly benefit China.
Will the Conservatives allow the House to debate and vote on this agreement without imposing a time limit?
Asbestos September 27th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, there was recently an NDP opposition day on the asbestos issue. That day, particularly when the vote was held, a rather interesting phenomenon occurred: several members, Conservatives in particular, withdrew from the House prior to the vote and they did not vote. For me, this demonstrates malaise within the Conservative caucus on the issue.
I would like my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and the riding that neighbours my own, to explain what he expects in connection with the vote on this motion. Does he expect the Conservative caucus to change its position on the matter? How does he think the Conservatives will vote this time?
Helping Families In Need Act September 27th, 2012
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska for his speech. He spoke about some shortcomings. We agree because we will support the bill at second reading, but certain shortcomings, certain omissions should be pointed out. I hope that they will be addressed in committee. I am not a member of this committee, but I hope that my colleagues who are will be able to address them.
Aside from injured children, there is also the issue of missing children. I focused on this topic in my speech and in an earlier question. I would like my colleague to comment on the omission of cases of missing children where illegal activities or crime are not suspected of being behind the disappearance. A child may run away, which does not diminish the amount of distress felt by the parents, for whom a program like this one could be appropriate.
Does my colleague have any recommendations to make with respect to this issue?