Laurie Hawn

[Spinal Cord Injuries, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in this House in support of the sixth annual Chair-Leaders Campaign that runs in the month of May, with the goal to raise awareness for people living with spinal cord injury.

Every day I am inspired by people in my riding and throughout Canada who live with a spinal cord injury. We all believe in promoting inclusion and accessibility because everyone deserves meaningful opportunities to lead a fulfilling life.

Today and every day there will be approximately 11 new spinal cord injuries in Canada. That is over 4,000 new injuries a year, with over 86,000 Canadians affected. Historically the highest incidence of spinal cord injury is in young men between the ages of 18 and 24, but in recent years there has been an increase in the rate of new injury to seniors.

I and about 30 of my parliamentary and Senate colleagues have made the commitment to spend May 22 in wheelchairs to help raise awareness about ability. We need to do everything we can to support treatment and, importantly, research and development.

We have made a lot of progress, but there are many steps left not taken.

[Sodium Reduction Strategy for Canada Act, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the opposition's Bill C-460, an act respecting the implementation of the sodium reduction strategy for Canada.

I am also pleased to speak to our government's efforts, which are already starting to work, to address sodium reduction, as it is an important issue to all Canadians. Our government is fully committed to working with our stakeholders to reduce the average amount of sodium that Canadians consume.

However, we cannot support the heavy-handed approach to sodium reduction as proposed in Bill C-460. The approach to sodium reduction creates unnecessary red tape and additional financial costs to the taxpayers that may also result in unintended risks in food safety.

I will be walking through some of the highlights of how the measures proposed in this bill compare to the actual recommendations of the sodium working group and to the actions our government has taken with respect to sodium reduction.

I think it is important to highlight that the sodium working group recommendations were pan-Canadian recommendations. Pan-Canadian, in this context, means the recommendations were addressed to all levels of government, and even to individuals.

I would point out that Bill C-460 has excluded the province of Quebec. As was highlighted in the first hour of debate on this bill, it would seem rather impractical and costly to try to impose mandatory labelling requirements on the food industry to only selected parts of the country.

This side of the House wonders why it is only Quebec that is spared the heavy-handed provisions of this bill. If Quebec would benefit from an exemption from the bill, why not the rest of Canada? The experts did not recommend that Quebec be exempted. They recommended a pan-Canadian approach, which is what our government is pursuing. The experts also recommended a voluntary approach. The call for mandatory compliance with guidance levels as described in the bill stands in direct contrast to the working group's recommendations.

A voluntary approach is what we have in place now, with guidance for the food industry on reducing sodium in processed foods. The guidance provides direction to the food industry to continue with the sodium reduction efforts and help Canadians lower their average sodium intake.

The guidance, which provides specific benchmark levels for over 100 categories of processed foods, directly supports one of the working group's core recommendations, and that was to reduce the average amount of sodium consumed by Canadians from 3,400 milligrams per day to 2,300 milligrams per day, by 2016. Our government, along with provincial and territorial governments, endorsed this recommendation back in September 2010.

The bill also proposes that consumers be alerted to additional mandatory labels on packaged foods with sodium content that is above “target levels”. Again, this is not one of the recommendations of the working group, and for good reason. By focusing on a warning label just for sodium, Canadians could be misled into believing that sodium is the only nutrient about which they need to be educated. It is overall diets that have the greatest impacts on health, not any one food or nutrient.

This government has developed a number of tools to help Canadians make informed decisions about the foods they eat. This includes mandatory nutrition labelling for most packaged foods. There are also set criteria for phrases such as “low in sodium”, “salt-free” and “reduced in sodium”. These phrases can be used on food labels to help consumers identify foods that are lower in sodium.

Our government has invested $4 million for new activities as part of the healthy eating and awareness initiative. The goal is to help Canadians move towards healthier diets, which includes supporting them in reducing sodium intake.

The sodium working group recognized the importance of engaging all stakeholders, as does our government. However, this bill has overlooked this critical component of a strong sodium reduction strategy. Governments, Canadians and industry have important roles to play.

This bill proposes the establishment of an independent sodium reduction committee that excludes the food industry from the committee. This exemption would limit the successive activities already in progress and undermine the spirit of the working group's recommendations.

What we currently have in place is the food expert advisory committee. This committee has been extended to ad hoc members with expertise in areas of sodium to provide advice to this government on sodium issues. Members include some members from the former sodium working group, as well as some new experts.

Finally, the bill proposes that industry be required to report the sodium content in prepackaged food so that a public registry of this information could be established and maintained. We have heard about registries before. As has been previously stated, this registry would be ineffective. The cost to taxpayers to implement these measures would be significant. Maintaining a public registry for the 100,000 prepackaged food products sold in Canada would require considerable new resources and additional regulations and red tape. Again, this bill's proposed sodium registry was not recommended by the sodium working group.

Before I summarize, I want to point out that budget 2012, which both opposition parties voted against, contained measures which were in fact recommended by the working group and the red tape reduction committee. Both called for a streamlined approval for food additives, and budget 2012 delivered. I would point out that the opposition did not support those proposals.

Mr. Speaker, please allow me to summarize. The bill unnecessarily regulates mandatory sodium limits in prepackaged food. This is not consistent with the working group's recommendations. Our government is advancing a voluntary approach to sodium reduction, just as the working group recommended. The bill calls for misleading warning labels on foods that exceed sodium limits. This is not one of the sodium reduction strategy recommendations.

Our government will continue to take into account the full diet of Canadians in its approach to nutrition labelling and awareness and education initiatives, so that Canadians can make informed choices about the food they eat. My family and I read food labels all the time. I know it is simple to say and it may be tough to do, but if Canadians would simply take that one step before they put something in their shopping cart, we could avoid the necessity for bills such as the one proposed.

The bill would legislate the creation of an advisory committee that excludes the food industry. This is not in line with the sodium reduction strategy recommendation to take a multi-stakeholder approach. Our government will continue to seek the expertise of all stakeholders regarding sodium reduction initiatives.

If the bill is in fact to support the recommendations of the sodium working group, as the opposition claims, it has failed to meet that objective. It took a team of stakeholders nearly three years to develop the sodium reduction strategy for Canada. We are making progress, but time is needed to reach our sodium reduction goals. That is why provincial and territorial health ministers agreed to a 2016 deadline.

In closing, I cannot support this bill. It is not consistent with what the experts have recommended. It increases costs for Canadians and red tape for industry in its heavy-handed proposal for a wasteful and ineffective sodium registry, just like the other wasteful and ineffective registries we have finally taken off the backs of Canadians.

It is unnecessary because our approach is working. My hope would be that all members of the House will continue to work with our government on this important file. We will continue to work collaboratively with stakeholders to reduce the sodium intake of Canadians. By increasing education, awareness and guidance to the industry, we believe it is the balanced approach that will deliver results.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that when it comes to doing business, we take a different approach than the opposition, whether it is in Canada or abroad. Frankly, its approach of leaving the country and trashing our industries is quite shameful.

There is no question that the resource industry in Alberta is a key driver of the Canadian economy. It sure as heck is not a disease of any particular nationality. It is the driver of the Canadian economy. A job in the oil sands in Alberta means a job in manufacturing in Ontario or Quebec or somewhere else in the country. A very high percentage of Ontario's manufacturing process is tied to the oil sands. If the oil sands were ever shut down manufacturers in Ontario would shut down, the steel industry would shut down. I know some members across the way would like the oil sands to shut down, and they can take that view, but that would be the result. They lose perspective entirely on the interconnectivity of all businesses in Canada.

A lot of it is geographical. Alberta has an oil industry because of geography. Quebec has hydro power because of geography. B.C. has a forest industry because of geography. It is the sum of the parts that makes Canada strong, not focusing on one at the expense of the other.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague specifically mentioned the resource industry. Canada is a leader in the resource industry. We have tremendous capacity for foreign investment in Canada to help us develop that industry. We are always going to do that with the best interests of Canadians in mind first, but that does not mean....We have to operate with foreign investment; it has helped to develop our resources to this point and it will help in the future. We have to deal with people who can be challenging from time and time and that is why we put measures in place to protect Canadians. It is not going to be a one-way negotiation. It will always be two-way.

Foreigners have to benefit as well from doing business in Canada, and we understand that, just like Canadians have to benefit from doing business in other countries. We do not live in a bubble. We have to work within the environment of international co-operation and international law. We will put in place, as we already have put in place, measures that will protect Canadian investors. At the same time we have to work in the much broader world market.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak about Canada's economic action plan 2013, which would continue to deliver results for Canadians, keep us in the lead among G7 nations and keep Canada on track to return to balanced budgets by 2015.

One of the ways that we would accomplish that is by creating jobs by building equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces in Canada. We owe it to our men and women in uniform to give them the best equipment possible to fulfill the demands we place on them and to bring them home safely. We owe it to Canadian industry to give it the opportunity to play a major role in that process and develop a stronger manufacturing base with the capacity for leading-edge technology and innovation. Finally, we owe it to Canadian taxpayers to ensure that their dollars are spent for the maximum benefit of Canada in all respects.

Building on the success of the national shipbuilding procurement strategy, the government would better ensure that purchases of military equipment create economic opportunities for Canadians by developing key domestic investment capabilities to help guide procurement, by promoting export opportunities and by reforming the current procurement process to improve outcomes.

The recently released Jenkins Report frames the unique once-in-a-century opportunity presented by major investments in Canada's Armed Forces to create jobs and economic growth, while enhancing Canada's ability to defend its sovereignty.

Many highly industrialized countries have clear strategies to promote their defence sectors, based on a recognition that it is in the national interests to have a strong domestic defence-related manufacturing base that produces leading-edge equipment. For Canada, such a strategy can generate high value exports and support high paying jobs for Canadians.

A key opportunity for doing so is by targeting the $49 billion in industrial and regional benefits obligations that foreign companies are expected to accumulate by 2027 to support high skill and high value opportunities and jobs in Canadian industries. These opportunities would be selected based on the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces, the potential to access global markets and the potential for increasing investments in Canadian research and innovation. Our government would work with industry sectors and stakeholders, such as the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries, to identify areas of Canadian competitiveness and trends in global supply and demand in defence-related industries.

Further, we would ensure that major procurements include a plan for participation by Canadian industry prior to approving the project. We would develop a refined set of key industrial capabilities for use over the long term, and examine how existing policies and programs can be tailored to support a government-wide strategy, while remaining cognizant of Canada's international trade obligations.

In parallel, the government would reform the current procurement process to improve outcomes. This would include thorough and rigorous options analyses, a challenge function for military requirements, early and frequent industry involvement, and strengthened oversight with the use of third-party expertise.

Canada has many success stories to tell in using the purchase of equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces to create jobs and economic growth in Canada.

CAP Inc. sells its products and services to over 190 countries and employs more than 8,000 people. CAE is the world leader in simulation equipment, commercial aviation training, helicopter aviation training, military virtual air training and health care simulation technology. I had the pleasure of using CAE products for many years in one of my previous lives and I can attest to their excellence.

General Dynamics Land Systems Canada , or GDLS, based in London and Edmonton, is a world leader in the design, manufacture and support of wheeled light armoured vehicles, or LAVs. It is a multi-billion dollar firm with over 2,300 highly skilled employees. As a result of procurements and related support from the government, GDLS Canada has generated direct sales of light armoured vehicles in excess of $17 billion over the past 35 years. It has created approximately 500,000 person years of employment in Canada and established a supplier base of over 400 Canadian companies, located in every province.

Recently, I had the pleasure of attending the rollout in Edmonton of the first of the LAV III upgrades. Having ridden around Afghanistan a few times in its predecessor, I know that the upgrades will be welcomed by our soldiers.

The $35 billion national shipbuilding procurement strategy, announced in 2010, means jobs and economic growth for the country, stability for the industry and vital equipment for the men and women of the Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Coast Guard. Over the next 30 years, it is estimated that 15,000 direct and indirect jobs may result from national shipbuilding procurement strategy projects, including skilled work in a variety of sectors.

Through this process, our government is helping small and medium-sized enterprises to participate in global supply chains that will result from these projects, creating growth and jobs throughout the country. A good example of that would be the supply of landing gear assemblies on about 4,000 F-35s by Héroux-Devtek of Longueuil, Quebec.

The Government of Canada acts as a first user of pre-commercial innovations through the Canadian innovation commercialization program, or CICP. Through CICP, federal departments test prototypes developed by Canadian businesses and provide feedback to help improve these innovative products before they are marketed to customers. This program is particularly useful for small and medium-sized enterprises, which often find it difficult to find the resources to bring innovative products to market.

Participating companies have been strongly supportive of CICP since it was launched in 2010, and our government will officially launch the military component of the program in the near future.

Canada's aerospace sector is a global technology leader and a major source of high quality jobs, directly employing 66,000 people across Canada. It is among the most research-intensive industries in the country.

The hon. David Emerson, head of the Aerospace Review, delivered his final report to the Minister of Industry on November 29, 2012. The report detailed a series of recommendations aimed at strengthening the aerospace and space sectors in Canada. Our government is carefully reviewing the advice of the Aerospace Review and will take action over the coming year to improve the focus and coordination of programs and practices of relevance to the aerospace and space sectors.

The largest aerospace-specific innovation support program is the permanent strategic aerospace and defence initiative, or SADI, which provides repayable contributions to support strategic innovative projects by aerospace, space, defence and security companies. Since its launch in 2007, SADI has authorized $826 million in assistance to 25 projects, of which $411 million has been disbursed to date. Two examples of Alberta-based companies supported by SADI are SemBioSys Genetics Inc. and AeroMechanical Services Ltd.

We will continue to provide stable funding for SADI, close to $1 billion over five years, and will review the programs, administration and operation over the coming year to ensure that it continues to respond to the needs of this dynamic sector.

Economic action plan 2013 would provide $110 million over four years beginning in 2014-15, and $55 million per year on an ongoing basis thereafter for the creation of an aerospace technology demonstration program. This program would support large-scale technology projects that exhibit strong commercialization potential and promote collaboration among industries, including simulation trials, systems integration testing and refinement activities. A component of the program would support research costs at post-secondary institutions that serve wider industry needs. As recommended by the Aerospace Review, a portion of these resources, rising to $20 million annually, would be reallocated from the strategic aerospace and defence initiative.

We will also launch consultations in the coming months regarding the creation of a national aerospace research and technology network to be led by Industry Canada in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. The network will engage stakeholders and industry, post-secondary institutions and government laboratories to identify strategic technology areas and encourage collaboration in research and development.

The motto of the Royal Canadian Air Force is per ardua ad astra, “through adversity to the stars”. It is not just within our atmosphere that economic action plan 2013 will have effect.

Canada's space industry is a sophisticated research and innovation leader, successfully turning investments in knowledge into a global advantage in several niche areas, including robotics and satellite communications. Canada's space capabilities will be showcased through the ongoing development of the RADARSAT Constellation Mission for which a $706-million satellite construction contract has recently been signed with MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates.

Canada's leading role in space is also demonstrated through continued participation in the International Space Station mission and the command of Expedition 35 of the station by Canadian astronaut, Chris Hadfield. Commander Hadfield has made all Canadians proud and I have been privileged to fly CF-18s with him in the past in Cold Lake and Bagotville.

The Aerospace Review has made important recommendations with respect to policies and programs specific to the space sector, and our government is currently examining these recommendations carefully to determine the way ahead.

Canada's high-tech defence-related aerospace and space industries have a bright future. Our government will continue to encourage growth of Canadian capacity to lead the world. Economic action plan 2013 takes several steps that would enhance that process. I encourage all members of this House, indeed, all Canadians to get on board, work hard and enjoy the ride.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we all listened with interest to our colleague's comments. Before I get to a question, I want to mention something that I think she misstated.

She talked about many things in this bill that are unrelated to the budget. I do not always agree with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, but I know her to be extremely thorough. She mentioned in a question today in question period that everything in this bill is in fact related to items in the budget, so I would take exception to that misrepresentation.

I want to ask the member a more specific question about the forecasts by the minister widely acknowledged to be world's finest finance minister with respect to growth forecasts.

He says it is 1.6% and the IMF says it is 1.5%—close enough—for 2013, but that puts us well above the average for all advanced economies. We do not operate in a vacuum. We are about even with Japan. The only one we are behind in that group is the United States, which is clearly coming from much lower to start with. In 2014, it is the same story. We are behind only the U.S. and we are above the average in the advanced economies.

Would my hon. colleague admit that there is perhaps some context that could be put around the numbers, rather than just simply picking a number and saying that number is not good enough?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have three or four quick points and a quick question.

The speaker from Windsor West was lamenting the lack of a flowery title. I point out that the short title of the bill is very descriptive. It is called strengthening military justice in the defence of Canada act. That is pretty descriptive.

I will say that I believe that my hon. colleague is only 20, so he has lots of time to have a career in Parliament and then to sign up for the military. I would encourage him to do that. It is a great profession.

I will point out that the Provost Marshal, in discussing Bill C-41, said that he had faith in the independence of the system, which goes to one of the situations to which my hon. colleague has taken exception.

On the point of counsel, the vast majority of cases are minor in nature. For summary trials and other measures, people all have either counsel or an assisting officer who can assist them through the process.

One of the important features of the military justice system is timeliness, especially in a field of operation like Afghanistan. We would want to get the individual through the system and back into ops to conduct the mission of the forces. The vast majority of cases are minor, and timeliness is of the essence.

Does my hon. colleague have any comments on the necessity for timeliness in the military justice system?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. He talked about having done nothing and that only 29 of Chief Justice Lamer's measures were fully implemented. The government accepted 83 of the 88 recommendations, and outside of the ones we accepted, the rest are in progress. In fact, 36 more will be fully implemented by Bill C-15.

Therefore, I would not call that doing nothing exactly. It may be slower than people would like, and I grant that things do not move as fast as anybody would like, including me. I will point out that one of the reasons for the slowness of this in some people's minds is the fact that the process in Parliament can be very convoluted. As was said previously, this bill has gone through three iterations and three parliaments. In fact, Bill C-41 died the last time due to the opposition calling an unnecessary election. It is a bit rich to blame the government for delays when we have legislation that could have passed, but the opposition brought down the government for an unnecessary election. Canadians have spoken on that.

As far as cutting this short goes, I do not think 100 speeches is exactly cutting this short.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague, as a person who was involved in the military justice system for over 30 years, on the receiving end for very minor things and on the dispensing end for some things that were minor and some that were somewhat more major.

We are talking about the equitableness of the system. In my experience within the system, it was equitable within the context of the military, which is different, and we acknowledge it is different. I do not think it will ever be precisely like the civilian system, for some very good reasons.

My colleague talked about reform and bringing more civilianization to the system. That is being done. One of the things that is being done with Bill C-15 is another advancement on that. The bill has been through three Parliaments in various forms and three bills in various forms.

The previous speaker talked about taking the advice of Ruby over the advice of the parliamentary secretary. I would certainly take the advice of Justices LeSage and Dickson over that of Mr. Ruby. He has agendas that I am sure are pure at heart, but some others may attribute something else to it.

We have had more than 100 speeches this time on this subject. As I said, it has been through three Parliaments and three bills. It is not perfect. It will never be perfect in the eyes of the opposition members, and that is fair ball. The member talks about wanting to do an end-to-end review and come back in another year. If they want to pursue that, it is fine, but is it not time to quit this continuous 100-speech marathon and just get on with it because it is improvement and we can work on it as we go forward?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, April 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's dissertation, and his tinfoil hat may be on just a bit tight.

He talked to Bill C-15, which has been debated through three different bills in three different Parliaments. I really think it is time that we moved on. It may not be perfect in every aspect, but it makes great progress on an issue that is important to the Canadian Forces and it is important to the men and women in the Canadian Forces, who understand it far better than my hon. colleague does.

The members rambled off into other issues that have nothing to do with Bill C-15, other than the aforementioned headpiece. I believe I heard the member say that members of Parliament are being denied the ability to be involved in day-to-day policing. Unless I misheard him, is he saying that members of Parliament should be involved in day-to-day policing discussions with the RCMP?