Joël Lightbound

[Bernard Carignan, November 14th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on August 22, 2015, one of my best friends, a former roommate, died in a cycling accident at the corner of Saint-Denis and Jean-Talon, in Montreal. His name was Bernard Carignan and he was 27 years old. He was a decent man, lived life to the fullest, and he was a brother, a son, a friend, and a hero.

His life came to an end when a car door was carelessly opened in front of him. His death could have been prevented with a very simple technique: the Dutch reach. Instead of opening the car door with your left hand, you use your right hand, which forces you to look for approaching cyclists in the rear-view mirror.

Every year in Canada, 7,500 cyclists are seriously injured or killed in the country, and some of these accidents are preventable through a simple technique called the “Dutch Reach”. It is easy.

I encourage all Canadians and all members to practise all winter long so that when the summer comes, in this land, from coast to coast to coast, we do the Dutch reach.

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. Since being elected, we have shown tremendous openness and transparency by complying with the law.

The very commissioner they talk about in their motion said this to us: “I will conclude by reiterating that, despite any potential for improvement, the Act and the Members’ Code have, in large measure, done their job”.

We are complying with the act and the code.

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix for her question. Her riding is beautiful.

Not only did the Conservatives introduce the rules and laws we are following, but in 2009, they also brought in the guidelines that today's motion is about. At the beginning of my speech, I asked why the Conservatives did not adopt the motion they put to the House today during the six years in which they could have done so.

Seems to me that to ask the question is to answer it.

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Let us talk about our laws, Mr. Speaker.

The commissioner also mentioned something quite interesting regarding our laws here in Canada. She said:

I will conclude by reiterating that, despite any potential for improvement, the act and the members’ code have, in large measure, done their job.

Yes, they are doing their job, because in Canada, contributions made to political entities are governed by the Canada Elections Act. That act provides a framework to ensure that the funding of our political system is done transparently and fairly. The Canada Elections Act limits the amount an individual can donate to $1,525 per registered party per year. Nine jurisdictions in Canada also limit the amount an individual can donate to political entities. The amounts vary from province to province, but the principles of transparency and fairness remain the same.

The federal electoral system governing contributions to political entities serves as a model not only for the provinces and territories, but also for other countries. Canada is a model, an example, for many countries around the world. Not all countries have created regulatory frameworks that are as detailed and rigorous as ours. Once again, our system calls for increased transparency and ensures greater accountability.

In Australia, for example, in the last election, contributions and donations to registered political parties came mostly from large corporations and unions, which, as we know, is not permitted in the Canadian federal system.

Another difference between us and Australia is the upper limit on the amount that can be given to a registered political entity. Australia’s regulatory framework sets no limit on the contributions that can be made by an individual, a union, or a corporation. The ceiling on contributions that are not subject to a disclosure requirement, for example, was set at 13,200 Australian dollars for Australia’s 2016 election.

In Canada, the threshold at which the disclosure requirement kicks in for an individual who contributes to a political party is $200. The individual’s name and address must be provided. That also goes well beyond the upper limit of $1,525 that an individual can give to any registered political entity.

Let’s look at another example, New Zealand. In that country, there is no ceiling on contributions by individuals. The only ceiling set by law is on contributions from other countries, which is 1,500 New Zealand dollars. In Canada, contributions from other countries are not permitted.

In New Zealand, only contributions in excess of 15,000 New Zealand dollars have to be included in the annual reports of political entities. Once again, these are measures that go well beyond what is permitted in Canada.

In the United Kingdom, as in Australia and New Zealand, there are no limits on contributions made by individuals. In fact, under British regulations, any contribution of less than 500 pounds sterling is not considered a donation and may come from individuals, corporations, unions or even, oddly enough, another political party.

Also in the United Kingdom, disclosure of donors’ names is required only for donations that exceed 7,500 pounds sterling in a calendar year. Once again, we see that Canadian limits are well below the limits permitted by the three jurisdictions I have just mentioned today.

Now, we should also look at our neighbours to the south. The United States has a distinctly different approach from ours to regulating its political funding system. The United States Supreme Court’s January 2010 decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a historic ruling, since it puts the United States on an odd path with regard to funding. It allows businesses to participate financially in political campaigns, with no limits.

True, businesses are prohibited from making contributions directly to political campaigns, but they can spend as much as they want independently on promoting the candidates they support, allowing them full freedom of expression, which is the argument used by the court. That is one of the biggest differences between us and our neighbours to the south.

Here in Canada, our approach is to encourage full participation in the voting system in order to encourage full participation in the political dialogue. One of the objectives of our system is to keep the influence of money in check. That being said, I take comfort in knowing that our regulatory framework is robust and reflects Canadians' values.

We can learn a lot from countries like Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Each of those countries, as well as the provinces and territories, have their own system and accountability mechanisms in place.

The Canadian federal system is one that evolved over time and now offers Canadians more transparency while allowing for greater accountability.

Canada is a leader in political financing. Our system has, for example, a limit on large financial contributions, and it also imposes more requirements for disclosures by political entities to the public.

I believe that we should be proud of the evolution of our regulatory framework and the financing system for our political parties.

In fact, our government spends a lot of time working with Canadians across the country, meeting with them individually or in groups, as well as listening to consumer groups and small and medium-sized businesses. There is no favouritism. The goal is to have the most open and transparent approach. We are working on keeping our promises to Canadians and I believe they realize that.

We promised to hold an unprecedented number of public consultations to ensure that we respond to the real challenges facing Canadians. That is why we adopted such measures as the 1% tax increase for the wealthy, the middle-class tax cut, and the Canada child benefit. Canadians wanted these measures and we adopted them.

For more than a year now, the opposition has been criticizing the fact that our government is trying to be too involved with Canadians, that our government is too open and accessible, that Canadians are consulted too regularly, and that our government has shown itself to be the most open and accessible government that this country has ever known.

There is no doubt that our democracy is better served when everyone has the same opportunity to be heard. All we are doing is following the rules that were already in place. We promised Canadians that we would be open and transparent, and that is what we are doing.

As members can see, our government continues to work with and serve Canadians in a fair, transparent, and responsible manner, while, of course, respecting the laws as they are written. Our laws are some of the strictest in the world, as I just demonstrated by comparing them to those of New Zealand, the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom.

I think that we can be proud of our system, which ensures that only individuals can contribute to a registered political party and sets a low donation limit. If that system needs to be improved, we, the members of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, would be pleased to look into different options.

I look forward to questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Business of Supply, November 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, first, I was somewhat surprised when I read the motion. I sit on the ethics committee. I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

The Ethics Commissioner testified before the committee a short while ago. One of the things she mentioned was that these guidelines being referred to have been in place since 2009. In fact, they came to light after the investigation of a Conservative member and the then Minister of Natural Resources in 2009. Why did the Conservatives not bring this motion forward in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2015? I just wonder.

Second, I heard a member on the opposite side say, “If the only thing you have to say is that you did not break the law, you probably did something wrong”. I can only imagine how wrong it must have been for the Conservatives when they did break the law. What kind of wrong was that?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, November 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which was very interesting.

He mentioned the International Monetary Fund in his speech. What would he say to Christine Lagarde, head of the International Monetary Fund, who said that Canada's approach, which is about investing in infrastructure when interest rates are low and the economy is in a slowdown, should go viral.

I have a second question for him. He talked about the previous government's corporate tax cuts. We now know that Canadian companies are sitting on $630 billion in dead money that is not being reinvested.

Does the member think there should be a tax cut across the board or more targeted tax credits for things like innovation and hiring?

I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

[Andrée P. Boucher, October 31st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on this last day of Women's History Month, I want to talk about a wonderful woman who inspired me a great deal.

The theme of this year's Women's History Month was “Because of Her”. Because of her, I fought my first political fight to prevent the closure of the Myrand ski hill, where I would go snowboarding. I was eight years old. Because of her, I fought my second and third political fights, with her in fact, against the forced municipal mergers. Because of her, I enjoyed Plage-Jacques-Cartier park during my entire childhood, and I still enjoy it today. Because of her, thousands of children back home in Sainte Foy have enjoyed affordable playgrounds. Many have also benefited from affordable housing because she thought it was better to invest in families than in bricks and mortar. She inspired me to get into politics. She knew how to navigate a man's world.

I am talking about mayor Andrée P. Boucher. Unfortunately, she left us too soon. She was a generous, kind, and genuine woman to whom we owe a great debt, as do all citizens of Quebec City and Sainte Foy.

Thank you, Mayor Boucher.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, October 28th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague and neighbour from Louis-Saint-Laurent. I always appreciate his eloquence and theatrics. It will probably take me the entire weekend to lead us out of the intellectual labyrinth he lured us into with that speech.

Still, let us start with the $2.9-billion surplus he says the Conservatives left us. Does he realize that that surplus was achieved in large part by selling GM shares? That is like me telling my spouse that we are mortgage-free but that I had to sell the car.

Does he realize that the previous government and the former prime minister, whom he so admires, left behind a $150-billion debt and that, despite the debt, we had the worst GDP growth in 69 years and the worst jobs growth since the Second World War? It is pretty rich of him to say all those things with all the conviction in the world when Paul Martin's Liberal government left the Conservatives a $12-billion surplus.

Since my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent said it was important to tell Canadians the facts, does he know how many people in his riding were benefiting from the increase in the TFSA contribution limit, which benefited only the wealthiest 10% of Canadians?

Does he know how many people in his riding benefited from income splitting, which also helped only the wealthiest 10% of Canadians?

Does he realize that it was the previous government that liked to give tax breaks to the rich?

Now, does he know how many children in his riding will benefit from the Canada child benefit? I will tell him: 20,820 children in his riding will have more money thanks to the Canada child benefit. It is just unbelievable that the Conservatives are voting against this measure.

[Victims of Sexual Assault, October 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, last weekend, at least 15 break-ins were reported at one of Laval University's residences, which is in the heart of my riding and my community. During four of these break-ins, sexual assaults were also committed. To show solidarity for the victims, more than 1,000 people gathered yesterday evening for a vigil in honour of the courage of these young women who reported their perpetrator. On behalf of all members of the House, I wish to express our sympathy and solidarity.

October is Women's History Month in Canada. It is a time to honour the exceptional women and girls who built our country and who helped bring us closer to gender equality. However, we know that there is still much work to be done, and one of the first things we must do as a society is to combat rape culture in all its forms, today and in the future.

[Fight Against Food Waste Act, October 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is our job as parliamentarians to discuss ideas that can help make Canada a better country. That is why I want to congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on her bill. I have no doubt it is well-intentioned, but for various reasons that I will get into in my speech, the government will not support it.

To start with, food waste is a very complex issue. There is some debate around the nature and scale of the problem. For example, one question that comes up often has to do with figuring out where we can have the most impact in terms of curbing waste. Is it on farms, at processing plants, at grocery stores, or in Canadian households? We need answers to those questions before we can proceed.

We think that the best way to get those answers is to have inclusive conversations about a national food policy. In fact, the government committed to introducing just such a policy by consulting stakeholders and Canadian families.

We are aware that food loss and waste are serious issues of concern to people across Canada, to our government, and certainly to your humble servant, Mr. Speaker, and rightly so.

In 2014, Value Chain Management International estimated the value of food waste and losses in Canada to be $31 billion. The organization also indicated that the equivalent of 30% to 40% of food products are wasted in Canada. Approximately 50% of the food waste in Canada occurs in households, whereas about 20% occurs in processing.

There are several causes of food waste, including purchasing too many perishable products, the inability to properly prepare food, which is generally the case for me, poor storage, inadequate portions, and quite simply purchasing food that we do not like.

The remaining waste occurs on the farm, at retailers, in restaurants, and during transportation. When we see the statistics, we cannot simply remain indifferent about this issue, and the government certainly is not. Reducing food waste benefits consumers, farmers, processors, retailers, and restaurateurs. It benefits society as a whole. Furthermore, reducing food waste can help farmers and businesses reduce operating costs.

It is also possible to take full advantage of the by-products. Food waste residuals can be used or converted to make animal feed. Granular biomass can be used for heating or in dyes. Other examples of derived products include ethanol or fertilizers and detergents.

Reducing food waste can also improve food security and help the environment through better use of water and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the decomposition of organic materials at landfills. Those are a few examples.

The entire world, including Canada, is addressing food waste. Recently, a number of UN agencies and other international groups launched a global standard for measuring food waste and loss. The purpose of this new accounting and reporting standard for food waste and loss is to have governments, businesses, and other organizations measure food waste and loss internationally in a more consistent way.

In the United Kingdom, leading supermarkets have pledged to drive down food and drink waste by a fifth within the next decade. Retailers there are backing a voluntary agreement that also targets a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions created by the food and drink industry.

By way of example, the United Kingdom's biggest grocery chain also committed to sending no surplus food to waste from its stores by the end of next year by redistributing it to charities.

In Canada, I am proud that retailers are also taking a leadership role in reducing food waste. For example, recently, we saw a large supermarket chain expand its offering of imperfect fruits and vegetables. Canadian consumers can now buy this produce for approximately 30% less than the cost of the other fruits and vegetables that are usually sold in supermarkets. That prevents food waste. Based on the success of the trial period, consumers in Quebec and Ontario can also now buy imperfect peppers, onions, and mushrooms.

The provincial and municipal governments also have an important role to play in managing food waste. For example, in 2014, Ontario implemented a tax credit for food donations made by farmers to food banks or other similar organizations in order to help reduce food waste.

In its latest budget, Nova Scotia announced a similar tax credit for its farmers. Our own government is working hard to fight food waste in a number of ways. For example, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada supports research into reducing food waste at the primary production stage and research into analyzing how much food is wasted or lost.

Our science and innovation investments are also helping to reduce food waste. We have researchers looking for ways to transform vegetables that would normally be thrown out into marketable food products. That is just one example of how our government is working on fighting food waste.

That being said, we clearly need to do more. We definitely have to tackle food waste. However, we believe in giving the matter careful consideration and gathering input from a broad range of stakeholders before crafting a comprehensive, coordinated approach. That is exactly what we are proposing because this issue affects the entire supply chain from farms to families.

One crucial part of the equation is raising awareness of how food is produced. That is why the Government of Canada is planning to include discussions about food waste in our national food policy consultations.

Our government is committed to working in partnership with all stakeholders and Canadians to develop a national food policy. To achieve that, we plan to consult with provincial and territorial governments, stakeholders, and Canadians in order to better shape our food policy and better guide potential initiatives to tackle food waste.

As part of a national food policy, we will first put forward a vision, principles, and objectives and then propose a more collaborative and more integrated approach with regard to the food policy issues. This notion is supported by the Canadian agriculture industry and various stakeholders, particularly the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Food Secure Canada, the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, and the Conference Board of Canada. Each of those organizations has published reports and made an invaluable contribution to the discussions on food policy.

We will begin extensive public consultations with the food industry and Canadians next year in order to come up with a Canadian food policy worthy of the name. We believe it is important to study this issue as a whole, that is, from farm to table.

Despite the good intentions behind Bill C-231, the government will not be supporting it. We believe that developing a national food policy is the right way forward, which will enable us to hold consultations and focus on future initiatives to tackle food waste in Canada.

In closing, I want to emphasize that this is a very important issue. Let there be no doubt that the importance of reducing food waste warrants an in-depth discussion. With that in mind, I want to thank the member for Berthier—Maskinongé for raising this crucial matter.