Linda Duncan

[Petitions, February 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition in the House signed by Canadians from across Ontario calling on the House of Commons to enshrine the Canada Health Act and the five principles of medicare in the Canadian Constitution to guarantee the national standards of quality for publicly funded health care for every Canadian citizen as a right.

The petitioners express their belief that this would protect the five principles of medicare: universal coverage, accessibility, portability, comprehensive coverage, and federal funding based on non-profit administration in the provision of health care.

[The Environment, February 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Canada committed under the NAFTA environment agreement to directly engage concerned Canadians in decisions impacting the environment, yet Canadians remain shut out.

The government supported my motion for a comprehensive public review of environment and safety risks from unconventional oil and gas development, but it refused to commission the review.

The Conservatives ran on a platform of openness and transparency, but opposed my bill to enshrine Canadians' rights to participate and hold the government accountable.

Will the government finally deliver on these promises and support passage of Bill C-469?

[The Environment, February 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Canada committed at the Cancun climate change negotiations to deliver a national low-carbon development strategy, but while the world waits and watches, the government does nothing. Despite promises at the G20 to end perverse subsidies to fossil fuels, it continues to give billions to coal-fired power and oil sands while investing peanuts on alternative energy solutions.

Time is running out. Why will the government not level the playing field for cleaner energy solutions and give Canada a clean energy future? Where is the strategy, and who is being consulted?

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, February 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear a speech by the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, the homeland of my ancestors and my wonderful grandfather.

He made cogent and thoughtful arguments, but I have to add some things, to which I would appreciate a response from the hon. member. He speaks of the need to balance interests, to ensure that Canadians are secure against terrorists, and the need to balance rights. I would ask him why he did not initially say the bill before the House should at least include the minimum conditions that the Europeans sought and obtained from the United States of America in order to protect the interests and security of the citizens of Europe.

Why did the Liberals not propose amendments on reciprocity? Surely that is what would secure us. This bill is not going to secure Canadians. It may, in the minds of American lawmakers and security officers, provide greater security to them because many still believe the terrorists all came from Canada, but I fail to see how any of these measures are ensuring the security of Canadians.

I have heard some of the speeches in the House, including the one by the hon. member. Despite the fact that he provided very cogent arguments and interesting information on the background of the no-fly list and so forth, it is important for the House to remember we are not talking about mere friendly principles. We are talking about our basic constitutional rights, which include the constitutional right to the security of the person, the right not to be deprived except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice or due process, and the right to notification. The government is now attempting to deal with that, but my question would be whether it is enough to simply notify, or is that going to be in fine print at the bottom of the ticket.

The charter provides the right to be heard, for Canadians to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure and not to be arbitrarily detained and imprisoned. These are not minor friendly principles; they are overriding constitutional charter rights. We cannot talk about a balance to ensure that Americans feel secure against potential terrorists coming from Canada and flying over their airspace, against our constitutionally entrenched rights.

I can assure everyone that if we called for the same kinds of impingements on the freedoms of Americans, there would be a great hue and cry. Where is the reciprocity in what the member is proposing, to make sure this act does not throw the scales out of balance and impinge on our constitutional rights in the interests of the fear of Americans?

[Petitions, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to table in the House today a petition from Calgarians who are urging public hearings on the proposed purchase of 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters at a cost of roughly $30 billion over 30 years.

They state that the immense and unknown future costs of this proposed expenditure must be prioritized, along with the need for icebreakers to patrol the Arctic, transport aircraft for military and civilian personnel to respond to crises beyond our borders, a major boost to Canada's diplomatic core, a massive increase in foreign assistance and increased funds for environmental, health and education needs.

The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to hold public hearings to enable a thorough, informed and frank national debate on this purchase.

[Status of Women, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, on this Monday, Valentine's Day, men and women took to the streets of Edmonton for the sixth annual Memorial March for all the Missing and Murdered Women. The march was led by aboriginal drummers. Families carried pictures of the loved ones they had lost.

Danielle Boudreau organized the Edmonton march following the murder of two friends, Rachel Quinney and Ellie May Meyer, whose bodies were found on the outskirts of our city.

Project KARE, a joint task force of the RCMP and Edmonton Police Service, continues to investigate more than 20 cases of Edmonton women killed or missing since 1983. As in other Canadian cities, a disproportionate number of the missing and murdered women are from our aboriginal community.

As National Chief Shawn Atleo has said, “It is time to raise a national action plan that will address the seriousness and scope of violence and discrimination facing indigenous women in a coordinated, effective fashion”.

If we make communities safe for our most vulnerable, they are made safe for all of us.

[Seeds Regulation Act, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this debate tonight following many of my colleagues who have already spoken in the House.

I am pleased to see the great number of members of Parliament who have come forward to speak in defence of my colleague, the member of Parliament for British Columbia Southern Interior. He has been an incredible advocate for the future of healthy agriculture, healthy production and healthy food in Canada. He has produced an incredible food strategy for Canada in consultation with growers and those who enjoy Canadian produce across the country.

I stand in strong support of Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm). As many have said, the bill's intent is very simple. It proposes that the seed regulations be amended to require advance completion and consideration of an analysis of the potential harm posed to export markets by any new genetically engineered seed. I find it incrdible that not all MPs support this pragmatic, precautionary and important measure in the interests of Canadian agricultural producers, exporters and the Canadian economy.

Time after time government members state that their number one priority is to build greater markets for Canada, to build a strong economy into the future. Surely agriculture, which has been the backbone of Canada's economy, should be included in that basket.

The Minister of Agriculture raised concerns in the House earlier about all of the intrusions on agricultural production in Canada. He said that agricultural farmland, for example, is being paved over for parking lots. What he failed to mention is the government and some other governments' failure in Canada to prevent the intrusions on agriculture production by pipelines, the expansion of oil sands upgraders, massive power lines for the export of power, and the expansion of coal mines for coal-fired power. We have already seen the impact of climate change on our farm producers as documented in a report produced by NRCan. The report clearly indicated that significant problems have already been identified.

The last thing that we need to do is to put a barrier in the way of our agricultural producers to grow and market their produce and build our economy.

I am told that more than 12,000 Canadians wrote in support of the bill, and I am not the least bit surprised.

In my career as an environmental lawyer I had the opportunity to represent and work with many farm communities. It was a great pleasure to work with those stalwart souls. I am proud to have a lifetime membership in the Preservation of Agricultural Land Association, which was granted to me in the 1980s.

I have worked long and hard alongside my neighbours in Alberta. They work hard to produce grains for our use and for export. It is high time that the government stood up for those people it professes to support.

The very essence of Bill C-474 is to protect our Canadian producers against the incursion of major corporations that want to introduce some kind of biotechnology.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food heard clear and strong testimony from a broad sector of society in support of the bill. The committee heard from agricultural producers, agricultural marketing and trade organizations, scientists and experts from Canadian faculties of agriculture and institutes and legal experts.

What did we hear from these agriculture producers? The National Farmers Union, an association of agricultural producers across the country in existence for many years, spoke up continuously in support of our farmers.

As far back as December 2009, the National Farmers Union president Mr. Terry Boehm, who had testified at committee in support of Bill C-474, continued to express concerns about the economic impacts on the agricultural market economy, absent careful advance assessment of the potentially detrimental impacts of genetically modified varieties contaminating crops.

In so doing, he raised examples where crop contamination had harmed previously solid export markets.

A statement by Mr. Boehm, the president of the National Farmers Union, read as follows:

The devastating and sudden closure of the European market for Canadian flax exports, due to contamination by genetically modified flax variety proves the current regulatory system needs to be strengthened.

Canadian farmers have borne the financial brunt of the market collapse. While the flax market disruption is bad, the potential for even worse calamities exists. With the possibility of GM wheat on the horizon, the likelihood of GM contamination in that crop could spell unprecedented disaster for the large Canadian export wheat market.

It is critical that the system be reformed to prevent further market disasters. It is imperative that new and existing GM crops be looked at through the lens of potential market harm. Recent changes to the variety registration system could accelerate these market disasters for Canadian farmers. We have seen what GM contamination of flax has done, and surely no one should doubt what would happen to wheat if we allow GM varieties to be registered.

The current regulatory system would not stop any new GM varieties from “killing our markets”.

The National Farmers Union shared with the committee the impacts on flax producers of their crops becoming contaminated by GM crops and of nations beginning to ban the import of Canadian flax. My colleagues in the House have outlined well over 30 countries that were impacted by the turning back of Canadian exports.

Farmers are clearly frustrated at the failed government intervention to prevent similar future problems despite the duty of this government to apply the precautionary principle.

These concerns were reiterated by Nettie Wiebe, past National Farmers Union president and partner in Maida Vale family farm near Delisle, Saskatchewan.

Published statements by Professor Wiebe in The Western Producer read as follows:

This question is raised by the recent debates over Bill C-474, a proposed amendment to the Seeds Regulations Act to “require that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.” The key argument mounted against taking market acceptance into account when registering new varieties is that it goes beyond the single science-based criteria now used. The appeal of sticking with science-based is obvious. It seems to offer a simple, reliable, unbiased, universal set of rules to follow. This should prevent any political, economic or social considerations from intruding and making things complicated.

But whose science are these rules based on? Most of the research on genetically modified crops is financed and controlled by the corporations that own the technology. Those corporations have withdrawn from participating in independent canola plot testing. This prevents public comparisons between seeds and denies farmers science-based information that has not been filtered through company screens.

The committee also heard from the Manitoba Forage Seed Association. According to Kelvin Einarson, director and secretary treasurer of the association, Bill C-474 is the first step in offering some protection in the future for Canadian family farms. Market acceptance must be made part of the evaluation process and be incorporated into the seeds regulations.

These concerns were also echoed by Jim Lintott as chair of the Manitoba Forage Council.

What about testimony by marketing and trade associations?

The committee heard from the Canadian Organic Trade Association, which spoke strongly in support of these measures to protect their trade. In addition, the Canadian Wheat Board expressed similar concerns about the implications GMOs may pose for cereal grain exports.

Similar concerns were expressed by Kurt Shmon, president of Imperial Seed Ltd. As he said, with the lack of protection in the current regulatory system:

One of our large trading partners, the European Union, has also made it very clear: they will not accept any non-approved GMO seeds. The market has spoken.

The government has said that it is reaching out to the European Union to expand trade. At the same time, it is harming the potential trade by our producers. I call upon the government to respect the precautionary principle, the energy prices and high input costs that farmers are facing, and support them in doing away with yet another hurdle to their production.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech and the one presented earlier by his Liberal colleague. I would have to say that I am very puzzled because I specifically remember his saying that side agreements are important. Let us backtrack from this. What is very important for fair and balanced trade is that we enter into trade agreements that provide for a balancing of trade to further economic development and looking after human rights, labour standards, and environmental protection. The scholars would tell us that we do that by making sure there is one trade agreement that contains all those measures and is legally binding.

If there is anything we should have learned from the failings of the NAFTA and its side agreements, is that it was a mistake. As I recall with two previous U.S. presidents and moving on through to President Obama, there were great concerns about the frailties of the NAFTA.

I think the member is confusing apples and oranges. Actions by the government to command another party to agreement are different from corporate social responsibility where obligations are imposed on an independent corporation.

I wonder if he could speak to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, a lot of good points were made by my colleague. It is obvious he thoroughly researched the matter. He raises a lot of concerns about this agreement, which are not being responded to fully.

Within the context of how Canada holds itself out to the world, we hold ourselves out to believe in fair working standards, reasonable pay, protection of the environment, livable communities. It is a real stretch to entertain an agreement with a country such as Panama. My colleague has raised a number of critical points.

In her testimony before the committee, Dr. Teresa Healy, senior researcher for social economic policy department of the Canadian Labour Congress, pointed out a number of important issues, which I was not aware of before. One was this. In 2010 apparently President Martinelli announced unilateral changes to the labour laws. One of those changes ended environmental impact studies on projects deemed to be of social interest. He is even undermining basic environmental assessment which is internationally recognized.

How can we conceive of entering into an agreement that he will balance environment and the economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's concern regarding this agreement is the lack of requiring adherence to critical environmental principles.

We had discussions in the House previously on the bill, in which I and others raised a number of problems, including the fact that the Government of Canada had severely downgraded the environmental side agreement it entered into with the United States and Mexico.

In the series of trade agreements that the Conservative government has entered into it has consistently downgraded environmental provisions. These provisions should be included within the trade agreement if the government really believes in balancing economic development and environmental protection.

Should the government at least have a strengthened agreement requiring that environmental obligations be lived up to by both sides including the effective enforcement of environmental laws?