Leon Benoit

[Petitions, January 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.

In the first petition, the petitioners call upon Parliament to condemn the discriminatory practice of sex-selective pregnancy termination of girls.

[Drug-Free Prisons Act, December 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the opposition complain about what the former Liberal government did in trying to search out root causes, which is fine, but it also did not hold people accountable for their actions. We are trying to change the system, so people will be held accountable for wrongdoing. It has clearly been effective because the crime rate for serious crimes is going down. Crime rates are dropping.

The other thing that opposition members complain about is that what we are doing is crass politics because it is appealing to the Canadian public. If it is appealing to the Canadian public, could it not be that we are doing the right thing?

[Petitions, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on Parliament to condemn the use of gender selection abortion in Canada.

[Petitions, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the Canadian government to adhere to the precautionary principle and ban the use of neonicotinoids in Canada.

[Petitions, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today.

The first petition notes that there are hundreds of thousands of displaced Christians in Iraq and that they are refugees in every way except that they are still in their own country. They call on the Government of Canada to try to find a way to help these people who are in effect refugees.

[Committees of the House, November 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B) 2014-15”. It includes votes 1b under Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, vote 1b under National Energy Board, and votes 1b, 5b and 10b under Natural Resources.

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, because in my understanding, the reality is that until now, there has been no guarantee that farmers can save and reuse their seed. For the first time we will have the guarantee in legislation that farmers can do exactly that. I see a really good-news story when it comes to that issue.

I encourage the opposition members to talk about the good news in that story and about the reality, instead of just what someone might have indicated could be the case. That is what the case actually is.

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this demonstrates the difference between Conservatives and members of the New Democratic Party.

We do not think it is just the number of public servants that determines how much work can get done. We think that is determined by the system they are operating in, a system that actually gives rewards for good work. We think that type of system allows more work to be done by the same number of people, and we have proved it, by the way, in many of the changes we have made in the public service, so I do not agree with the premise of the member's question or comment. I do think that with a better system in place, we can get an awful lot done with the same number of people.

However, the earlier question from the Liberal member opposite that I forgot to answer was to do with farmers in third world countries. I think this aspect is very important, because the reality is that the type of innovation spawned with this new UPOV '91 enactment is exactly what will allow Canada to continue to feed the world.

We have seen the amazing benefits of genetically modified food in feeding 200 million people in the world every year who would otherwise starve. I would suggest that the changes that this legislation would bring about would allow that number to increase from 200 million people being fed instead of starving.

It is a really good-news story and I simply do not see the potential negative impact that the member has referred to.

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that on examining what is in this legislation and on looking at UPOV '91, I see that the reality is that that these changes will help farmers.

The premise of the member's question is not entirely accurate. I do believe that once examined, this legislation and its regulations will be seen to be good for farmers. I can assure the member of that.

I am sorry, but I forget the second question, so I will leave my answer at that.

[Agricultural Growth Act, November 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to pooh-pooh the member's comments on what some farmers are telling her because, quite frankly, I too heard comments from some farmers in my area expressing concern about what was in this bill. Of course, once their commodity groups examined what was being put forward, they changed their minds.

I think we have to be open. I would encourage the members opposite to be open to looking at what is actually in the bill as opposed to what some people say is in this piece of legislation when it is not reality.

When making changes like this, it is really important that the changes be based on science, not just on rumours that are going around. As I said, I heard from some farmers. In fact, I tabled a couple of petitions in the House that probably had 100 or 150 names. Most were not farmers, but some were. They expressed concerns, and because they were constituents who had given me a petition to table, I tabled the petition.

The reality is that the more the commodity groups and the individual farmers actually looked at what we have done, the more they supported it. When the bill is implemented and the regulations are being put in place, I encourage all the members opposite, and the farmers they have talked to, to have input into the regulations. That is always an important part of legislation.