Joe Comartin

[Seeds Regulation Act, February 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I rise with some pleasure to speak to Bill C-474, a private member's bill which has been presented to the House by my colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior. It addresses what is a very fundamental problem that not only Canada is confronting, but food production and food-producing countries around the globe are confronting it as well.

Before I go into more detail, I want to acknowledge, as a number of my other colleagues have, the work that has been done by our colleague from British Columbia Southern Interior, in particular the campaign he has waged right across the country to deal with the issue of food safety and with the issues around protecting our producers and our farmers. He has done it in a way that gives great credence to what an individual member of Parliament can do to advance a cause and, in effect, how well a person can perform as a parliamentarian on an individual basis. As much as we constantly hear, mostly from columnists and pundits, about the demeaning of parliamentarians, the role he has played in this over the last number of years since being elected to the House is really quite phenomenal.

In addition, he has done it in a way that appeals to me because of the fundamentally democratic way he has done it. He has gone across the country and talked to people who are active in this area. I am not talking about the experts, although he has talked to them as well. However, he has talked to the front-line workers, the producers of our food, on a one-to-one basis and in collectives as well. Most important, he has listened to them and he has learned from them. He has brought back the information gained from that learning to the House in the form of the bill before us. He has done it in a number of other areas as well.

It is very fundamental to the production of food in our country that the contents of the bill become the law of this land. I am not over dramatizing that reality. We are faced with the classic confrontation of very powerful multinational corporations whose singular goal is to develop seeds that they will be able to monopolize. We do not know for how long, but over the next 10 to 50 years, if they continue down this path of success they have had up to this point, these 4 or 5 major multinational corporations will control the vast majority of the food production on this planet.

As I was preparing some notes on this evening's speech, I could not help but think about some of the experiences I had growing up on a farm in Essex county. We get these assurances from the multinationals that there is nothing to worry about for genetically engineered seeds. The European Union and Europe generally and a number of other countries around the globe have taken a different position. However, Canada and the United States in particular have allowed those multinationals to move ahead and put these genetically engineered products into the environment.

We always get those assurances from the manufacturers of these products and from the government agencies that, oftentimes blindly, give their authority to allow them to experiment on the human body with these products. It reminded me of when I was growing up on that farm. I was fairly young when they used to still allow the spraying of crops. Most of it was DDT at that time.

We hear from these multinational corporations, and in fact we heard it from some Conservative members earlier in this debate, that we do not really have to worry about it because it will be contained.

I remember standing on my family's farm when spraying was being done two farms down, as much as half a mile away, and the spray from the plane as it was crossing that acreage sprayed on to my family's farm and on to me.

Another incident makes me think of the assurances that we get that these types of products are fine. I remember working at a landscaping company when I was in university. This company also had an orchard and part of my duties included spraying the fruit trees. One of the products being used at that time was malathion. About five or six years after I finished that job, malathion was banned because it turned out to be a cancer-causing agent. There were no signs of that when it was first approved and not obviously adequately tested.

We are faced with the same type of thing with GE seeds. It has been made very clear in the work that has been done in Europe that there is no way of knowing about the safety of these products until they have been used for as much as a generation or two. The human species becomes the guinea pig with respect to what the health consequences will be. It does not take into account at all the risk that we are at as we use these types of products and they become the monopoly product. We do not have sufficient seed product that is not genetically engineered. If anything ever happened to the genetically engineered product, we would have no way of replacing it on this planet, and that is a great fear.

It was for those types of reasons that Europe said that it would not allow those seeds into its jurisdiction. At the same time, it also said that it would not allow products that come from genetically engineered seeds into its jurisdiction. We saw in 2009 that flax in this country became contaminated by GE seeds from other farmers. We were then blocked from moving our flax, which is a major export, into the European market. A great deal of it was quarantined but some of it was actually taken off the shelves and taken out of the market completely.

That was a significant loss that is not being paid by the producers of that GE flax and those seeds, but by the producers in the rest of the market here in Canada. They are paying for their product to be tested on an ongoing basis with the hope that they can show that it has been cleaned of GE seeds, which would allow them back into the European market. Producers are also paying for the cleanup, which means taking the seeds out of the environment on their farms. They are bearing the cost of this, not the Monsanto's of the world, not the multinationals of the world who produced that seed originally.

In 2010, I was at a meeting of the National Farmers Union in Stratford, Ontario where over 100 farmers and producers were in attendance. A number of them were aware of the legislation being proposed by my colleague and they were adamant about the need to get the bill through the House so that the experience we had with flax would never repeat itself in the future. I do not think I am overemphasizing this, but there was a palpable fear in their voices when they were talking about this. They knew what had happened to our flax farmers in the west and the big fear now is the alfalfa crop because there are companies that are trying to get that GE seed into the market.

I would urge all parliamentarians to support this legislation and for Canadians from coast to coast to coast to get behind it as well.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there is a practical answer to that question. I do not see it being advanced because of the inability of individuals in Panama to use that.

It comes down though to the basic model. There is the Mercosur trading arrangement in South America in which maybe eight countries take part. I have had various discussions over the years with people from some of those countries who have told me there is a whole different model and the one in the European Union is the one they would prefer to enter into. It would be multilateral and resources would flow from the centre to new countries coming into the agreement. That would be a major plus.

When we were having multilateral discussions with South America, there was some discussion about there being some financial incentives from the wealthy countries to build the infrastructure and move technology into the country so it could advance. However, those discussions were broken off. That is the kind of model that we should be looking at and doing it at a multilateral level.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there are two answers to that, one a general one.

It is in the interests of Canada to protect our reputation at the international level, but the government has done a great deal of damage to that. That includes our relationship with countries that are quite prepared to abuse human rights. Every parliamentarian has the responsibility to protect Canada's reputation in that regard. That is the general answer.

With respect to his claims around Panama's democracy, we could have some strong arguments about that if we actually studied the country and in particular when we think of people like Noriega. I do not think that was a democratic government. Things have not changed a lot since then.

My colleague's real question was whether that government was a vibrant representative democracy. Even if we concede that it is, and I am not, it still comes back to our responsibility to uphold human rights, including the right to organize collectively and the right of a worker to have a safe working place and in the environmental field to have a safe environment for the community as well. We have a responsibility to be involved in that when we enter into these kinds of agreements.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we are at report stage of this bill. My colleague has moved a series of amendments at this stage which, although they are only a small part of the overall bill, would have the effect of destroying the bill by deleting some key clauses in the bill.

It is quite appropriate that the House should support those amendments for the deletion of those provisions. This is another in a series, the Colombia free trade deal being the most egregious example, of bilateral trade agreements that we have entered into that are not in the interests of Canada. In many cases they are downright exploitive of the country that we negotiate them with.

If we analyze trading arrangements, the ones that are the fairest, as opposed to the nomenclature of being freest, are clearly the ones that are done at the multilateral level rather than the bilateral level. With a few notable exceptions, Canada is in a position with a country like Panama. We dominate it. We have heard figures that trading is relatively modest between the two countries by international standards, but it is much more to our advantage.

In this kind of relationship the smaller, weaker party is at a distinct disadvantage once the agreement goes into play. That is particularly true when one understands the history of this model of trading agreements. We accord what in effect is state status to very large multinational corporations under the NAFTA agreement. We have seen very clear examples where we have been the negative beneficiary of the clause that gives them that status and the right to sue national governments, in effect being on par with them.

A classic example where we were the negative beneficiary was the one involving a chemical substance that Canada wanted to ban and did so. Part of the refining process for this substance was in Sarnia near my community. We ended up paying something like $13 million or $18 million to a multinational corporation, without even fighting it. The Liberals at that time just caved, which they are really good at.

The one that really bothers me is when Mexico was at the receiving end of this type of a lawsuit. A multinational corporation based in the U.S. was moving toxic materials into a very poor community in Mexico. The national government simply did not have the financial wherewithal to fight the suit and ended up having a judgment awarded against it for many millions of dollars. I think it was $20 million to $30 million U.S. which it had absolutely no ability to pay.

We see those kinds of abusive processes and it is why there are many countries in Central America and South America that will not enter into negotiations with Canada on those kinds of bilateral agreements because of that clause and because in a number of cases we are the dominant partner.

It is not good for our international reputation if we enter into these agreements with these kinds of countries. That is particularly so, as we saw with Colombia and its history of abuse of human rights, but it is also true with Panama.

We have heard repeatedly today, and it is conceded by all sides, it is a tax haven and a centre for money laundering and organized crime. Some 400,000 corporations are registered by the Panamanian government, hundreds of times probably out of proportion to the normal economic activity that many corporations would represent. They are all shell companies and a good number of them are used to launder money through organized crime syndicates. Others are there purely to avoid their tax responsibilities in their domestic countries.

That is the kind of country and government, maybe government more so than country, because I do not want to disparage the people of Panama, with which the Conservative government is entering into the agreement. The end result, when we enter into an agreement with like this with a country with those types of practices, we are condoning those practices.

It is really interesting that the Conservative government is doing this, the so-called tough on crime government. I have oftentimes very great doubts about whether the Conservatives would know anything about fighting crime, how to get at it, but we know, any of us who have studied it to any degree, and they should know, that if we are to get at organized crime, we get at the dollars.

By allowing Panama to continue to be a tax haven that inspires those corporations to register there, it also makes it very easy for it to launder money through there. By doing that, the drug trafficking and human trafficking that goes on within those organized crime syndicates, Panama clearly is assisting them in their operations and we in effect are condoning it when we sign on to this kind of agreement.

It is a very good reason why we should not be signing this. In addition to that, there are others. I want to deal with one in particular around setting standards.

If I have time, I will go to the environment, but I want to deal with labour standards. I must admit I was somewhat taken aback by the last speaker when he said that the Panamanian government was making progress. I am dealing now with labour standards, because this agreement, if it is processed to its final stage and is signed and ratified by both countries, does not have any meaningful provisions in it that would ensure workers in Panama would have even minimal standards of job protection, health and safety standards and environmental standards.

In 2010 there was some perception by the president of Panama that somehow the Panamanians were not friendly enough, and it is really hard to imagine this is the case, to the corporate world. Therefore, they passed a law in the summer of 2010 which eliminated environmental impact studies on projects deemed to be of social interest. That would be infrastructure programs, I assume, in many cases.

Then they went on and made it illegal to have mandatory dues collections for collective bargaining arrangements. People cannot do that in Panama, something on which my community led the way, back after the second world war. The ban formerly came out of Windsor in 1945, so now it is illegal to do that in Panama.

It allowed employers to fire striking workers when they were in the course of a legal strike. It criminalized street blockades, civil protests. It also protected police from prosecution when they abused workers in a strike-breaking situation.

That is the kind of country that we are going to be signing on to, and it is beyond the pale that we would be doing so.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, a number of South American countries are refusing to negotiate with Canada because of its free trade model. Does my colleague agree with that? Can he explain why these countries are not prepared to negotiate with us?

[Situation in Egypt, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question, because I do want to add one additional point.

They are so concerned, and this is farther down the road, one of the inquiries I've had is whether Canada would be there to provide assistance in terms of refugees if the Coptic community became a focused target of some violent extremists within Egypt. I could not give him any assurances that we would.

However, this is one of the areas that we should be prepared to deal with, if the situation turns violent or, if in some of the maneuvering that is going on, there is a fanatical group that somehow positions itself in a position of power and begins to target that community. They are quite worried about that and would like some assurances from the government that, at the very least, we are considering that.

Beyond that, as I said in my opening comments, there is a very deep sense of fear but also a great hope that this may improve their lot significantly.

[Situation in Egypt, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, this is not an evening to be bashing the government for some of its ineptitude in the past, because we still have a role to play at the UN. We still have some credibility there, albeit much less than we would have had we secured that position on the Security Council.

There is no question that at a time of such turmoil in a country like Egypt that is part of the UN, the opportunity for the UN to act as a catalyst to assist in the democratization of that country, the real democratic forces in the country, is quite substantial. A good deal of that, I have to admit, occurs behind the scenes, if one understands international diplomacy and how the UN functions. That maneuvering behind the scenes and the bringing to bear of pressure basically flow out of the Security Council. Thus if we were there and taking the position I advocated earlier in my speech, we could push that position much more effectively than we can now because we are on the sidelines.

[Situation in Egypt, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona.

This is obviously an evening for delicate debate. The situation in Egypt is, at best, one could say fluid, but extremely risky at this point. The information we are being fed from the ground is that all sorts of maneuvering is going on by the various elements of power in that country. There is really a great risk of a great number of people being injured if it turns violent, more than it has up to this point.

I want to personalize this a bit because of the feedback I have been getting from my Windsor community. We have a fairly sizable Coptic Christian community in Windsor and we also have a large number of members of the Egyptian diaspora from the Muslim community living in the Windsor-Essex county area. Although they have different concerns, there are basic concerns that they both have, and that is very much a fear for the safety of their relatives and friends still in Egypt, particularly in Alexandria and Cairo. Within the Coptic community in particular, there is a desire for change because it is the only way they can foresee any release from the bondage they have been suffering under, the systemic discrimination they have suffered under the current administration, leading, at times, as we have seen, particularly during the last few months, to a number of incidents of murder in the Christian community.

Their real hope is that if the Mubarak regime is gone it will be replaced by a democratic government that recognizes international human rights standards, including the right for that community to practice their faith free from discrimination and certainly free from the type of violence they have been subject to the last number of months and year, specifically in terms of number of murders that have occurred.

However, they also have, which was expressed very clearly to me, a very real concern that may not be what happens. This brings forth the role that Canada and democracies across the world can play. They need to make it very clear to whatever administration comes in next that those international human rights standards must be respected.

Obviously we want a democracy established there, a meaningful, informed, vibrant democracy that recognizes those international standards. Fear and hope commingle now and into the future for the Coptic community.

In terms of the Muslim community, a good number of people from the Windsor area, as I said earlier, have friends and close family still living in Egypt. They are very worried because many of them have not been able to find out about them.

There is a young woman who was a close friend of my daughter through elementary and high school. I believe she is back. Knowing her and how engaged she was in politics in Canada, she is probably very much one of those young people who precipitated this thrust for democracy in Egypt. I am sure her father is very worried about her, if in fact she is still there, as are any number of other members of the Windsor community about children, brothers, sisters, parents and friends.

They share with the Coptic Christian community the same concern, the hope that Mubarak leaves, the expectation that people will have a right to hope that democracy will be established, that there will be real freedom, a real and vibrant democracy, with the young people in particular having a major say in that. I am not talking of teenagers; I am talking of people in their 20s and 30s who, clearly, have led the way in these demonstrations and in forcing the president to announce his intent not to run again.

Both communities are very worried about what is going to happen over the next 24, 48 or 72 hours, because they are hearing the same things as us. Other groups are moving in and attempting to control the situation, groups that are operating with a significantly different agenda from the young people who created this movement in a very short period of time. If that happens, it will be a tragedy of monumental proportion.

What has happened is that a very large segment of the population, the youth of that country, in the last 8 or 10 days, has had its hopes raised that finally people would be able to live in a free society, a society, a government, an administration in which they would have full and meaningful participation. If that gets usurped by some of the other groups that appear to be attempting to move in now, it will be a tragedy.

This comes back to the role I believe Canada should be playing more aggressively, not just as an individual country. We certainly have to recognize the sovereignty of that country, but at the international level, it obviously begs the question of whether we would not be in a much better position if we had secured that position on the Security Council last year and been able to speak with greater authority from that position. It is water under the bridge, but we still have a role to play.

We have a role in saying to the rest of the democratic world that we have to bring whatever pressures we can to bear to get Mubarak and his administration out, and assisting in whatever ways we can in providing the democratic forces there, representing the Egyptian community as a whole, the opportunity, first, for an interim government and then for meaningful, free and informed elections for both the presidency and parliament.

That is a role we can play and we need to be doing it publicly. That is why the NDP foreign affairs critic, the member for Ottawa Centre, has been critical of the government for not taking a more aggressive stance in that regard. We have to be able to do that, because if we do not, there is a huge risk not only of more violence, which would be very tragic, but also that the democratic movement there will be lost, even without violence.

I urge the government to consider moving more dramatically than it has been willing to, and for it to provide some leadership at the international level as well.

[Situation in Egypt, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I just got off the phone in the last few minutes with members of the Coptic Christian community in Windsor. There is a church in a reasonably sizeable community. I had been picking this up earlier, but its greatest concern is for the safety of families and friends still in Egypt.

We all know that Coptic Christians have been a target of discrimination for a long time, either directly by the current administration or in situations where the administration seemed to step aside and let fanatics attack them. I am wondering if my colleague could give any indication of what Canada might be able to do to ensure that particular community is protected during this period of time of uncertainty.

[Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, February 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, out of the 13,500 people in our federal prisons, we have approximately 4,000 people serving a life sentence. Of the multiple murderers, not people who have committed two murders, even though it is more than one, they are different from what the member for Abbotsford is going after. He is going after serial killers. My friend from Scarborough—Rouge River is right. There are very few of those in Canada currently.

I want to make another point with regard to sentencing offenders to prison for longer periods of time and keeping them there longer that spills over into this bill. Newt Gingrich and Pat Nolan from Texas just said this month that this was tried in the United States and it has been a total failure. The U.S. cannot afford it, number one, but it does not work anyway. The rate of recidivism is going down. In the states that did not go down that route, the crime rate has actually dropped more than in the states that did take that route.

Would my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River comment on that and on whether he sees any reason for Canada to follow the U.S. model, which is what the Conservative government seems to be absolutely determined to do?