Linda Duncan

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to stand in the House to join my colleagues in debating the bill. I am deeply troubled that the government moved to limit debate on the bill. I am deeply troubled that apart from some questions which have been useful, I am not seeing colleagues in the Conservative Party rising to speak to this. If it is so wise to blow a cannon-ball through this treaty, then those members should stand and defend why they should do that.

Bill C-6 allegedly is an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but absent the amendments that my colleague from Ottawa Centre has brought forward, it will not be a bill to ban the use of cluster munitions. I will speak to that.

As my colleagues have spoken to, in order for Canada to ratify an international convention, the government of the day must table a bill in the House to enact legislation which brings into force in this country the terms of the treaty. As has been mentioned, Canada actually signed this treaty in 2008, and has waited until now to bring a final conclusion to the legislation that it has brought forward.

It is regrettable that our country, unlike Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and most of the European nations, has chosen not to take the treaty and enact it in legislation. Conservatives have taken this treaty and they have blown a cannon-ball through it. Canada has made a choice. Canada has signed the treaty, and it could choose not to ratify the treaty.

We heard questions today asking about our allies. The only ally that Conservatives have talked about is the United States. The whole point of the treaty was to deter nations from continuing to produce and use cluster munitions. What possible excuse can there be, if we only want to sort of ratify the treaty because we like to hang out with countries that do not respect the treaty? I do not think that is much of an incentive, to those who have not yet signed or ratified, to do the proper thing.

What is the significance of the treaty? What are cluster bombs? We have talked a lot about that tonight. These are explosive weapons that release many smaller submunitions. What is particularly dangerous about these—as if they do not cause enough damage and harm and maiming of families and children in the course of a war—is that, like land mines, many are left behind unexploded. Apparently they are very brightly coloured. They are very attractive to children, and a lot of children become maimed.

There has been a lot of talk in the House of late about how much we care about the plight of families suffering through this debacle in Syria. Let me share what has gone on in Syria with cluster bombs. The Syrian army, in Aleppo, has been issuing cluster bombs. What has happened is that a little boy of seven, shaking like a leaf, is seen moaning, with lacerations to his abdomen and legs. Three-year-old brother Nizar's body was ready for burial. Six-year old Mustafa Ali was lying in a bed with shrapnel injuries to his head, neck, and shoulders. There was a nine-year-old boy, with a nasty shrapnel injury to his left leg. These stories go on and on. This is what these weapons do. They are reprehensible.

To the credit of the nations around the world, at one time also including our nation, in 2008, they agreed to come together and draft and implement a convention through a treaty to ban the use of these reprehensible weapons.

Who supports its ratification in whole? The Secretary General of the United Nations supports it. He has expressed increasing concern about the humanitarian impact of explosive weapons, particularly when used in densely populated areas. The International Committee of the Red Cross has spoken out with great concern regarding the proposed legislation by the Canadian government to provide this major exemption. There are others: the British Action on Armed Violence, the International Network on Explosive Weapons, and Amnesty International.

Who has opposed the cluster bombs treaty? Well, it is the nations who have been producing or stockpiling significant quantities of cluster munitions. Those are the ones who are opposed to the convention and have not stepped forward either to sign or ratify it, and they include China, Russia, and the United States, reprehensibly.

In response to the remonstrations by the U.S., Canada and this group of nations have brought forward this treaty. However, now, Canada is introducing a loophole. A number of the parties that I have mentioned are concerned about Canada's move. They are suggesting that this move by Canada to include clause 11 may end up dismantling the effect of this treaty.

Who has criticized Bill C-6?

My colleagues have mentioned the former prime minister of Australia, Malcolm Fraser, and I will read what he has to say:

In a rare public attack, the former prime minister has lashed out at Canada for what he says is “a lack of commitment to an international treaty to ban deadly cluster munitions.” He has accused the current government of departing from Canada's traditional international leadership, and said, “Canada used to be in the forefront internationally in leading the world in good directions”. He then said that Canada cannot claim to have banned cluster bombs when it proposes to allow its military to help others to use the weapons.

That is a good point.

A second party who has spoken very strongly against Bill C-6 is one who should be very worrisome to Canadians, and that is Earl Turcotte.

Who is Earl Turcotte? He was the senior coordinator for the Conservative government's Department of Foreign Affairs in negotiating the treaty. He led the Canadian delegation in negotiations on the convention. He resigned, given the Conservative government's position on this section, which essentially blows a cannon-ball through the convention.

I do not think I have time to mention all that Mr. Turcotte has said, but I can assure members that he has been very strong in his admonitions. He said, “...the proposed Canadian legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention...” He has called for the bill to be strengthened. He said that, “The innocent victims of cluster munitions deserve nothing less.” I tend to agree.

The Red Cross has said clearly that if clause 11 stands in the bill at passage, it could have the effect of undermining the entire treaty. The Government of Norway has also very strongly spoken against the bill.

Concerns have been expressed that unless clause 11, this wide exemption, is removed from Bill C-6, it could put Canadian Forces at risk, yet when we read the details of the bill, it is very hard to argue that.

I look forward to one of those members standing in this place tonight and giving us their argument on why this provision is needed in the treaty. No other nation who has ratified the convention has included this provision. Canada did not argue for this provision to be in the treaty. It is highly unusual for a nation that has signed and shown intent to ratify, to add a provision that would essentially undermine the treaty itself.

The treaty already allows for interoperability, so why do we need this additional provision? Surely it should be the obligation of our country, when we get into the fields of war, to look very closely at what our partners in those activities are doing.

What could be an appropriate action by Canada? Well, it would be the same as all of the others who have ratified this convention, which is to stand up and say that one shall not use cluster munitions.

The case that Canadian Forces could be at risk simply by the fact that they go into the field of war with a country such as the United States that still has a stockpile of the munitions, I do not believe is a sound argument. I have yet to see that argument.

If we are in the field of war with a country and it is using those cluster bombs, then shame on us. We should not be participating in that activity. We have signed on to this treaty, and we are professing that we are going to ratify it, which is supposed to do away with the use of these cluster bombs.

I fully support the NDP amendments, which would strike clause 11. That would then bring Canada in line with all of the other reputable nations of the world that have signed and ratified the treaty.

[Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I find troubling the suggestion by some of the members on the other side that this debate was triggered by this side. It was the government that brought forward the time allocation motion instead of debating a very important bill. Our country signed on to a treaty in 2008 and we have waited this long to have legislation in this place that we can debate.

Yes, this bill merits a lot of time debating. There have been serious concerns raised about the bill by the former prime minister of Australia, by the Red Cross, by the country of Norway. The bill, as put forward by the government, has some deep seated problems that some nations have suggested could completely unseat this convention.

This is a convention that is meant to protect the world's children from being maimed or killed. If ever there were a time when a bill merited hearing the voices of the representatives in our country, I would suggest this is the time. Shame on the government for trying to shut down debate.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that unlike current legislation, this legislation introduces an increased role for the Government of Canada, and that means further expenditures. I have not had the time to check to see if the budget provides for these additional funds should this bill become law this year. It is important for that to be revealed. It certainly needs to be revealed at committee.

I am deeply troubled that we are going to use public resources to protect the rights of plant breeders but not necessarily public resources to protect what should be the rights of farmers. That is the area where we need more discussion. I am told by the producers themselves that they are discouraged that the government keeps cutting back on agricultural research funds. It certainly cut the funds for the research based in Saskatchewan and Alberta and it cut back on the community pastures. That is a sad day for the small producers of Canada.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as the member is aware, at the outset of my speech I raised concerns over the manner in which this bill has been brought forward. I repeat this concern over and over again when the government brings forward legislation in this way.

My particular concern is with legislation that allows for regulations that could deeply constrain even the privilege accorded to agriculture producers. As I mentioned, the law provides certain privileges for farmers to do certain things with seeds, subject to regulations, yet nobody knows what those regulations will say. A good number of measures in this bill allow for that.

Indeed, something as significant as plant breeders' rights merited debate on its own, let alone the eight other laws that would be amended by this legislation. Let us hope that the consultation in committee is extensive, and again I recommend that this bill be taken out to the fields of Canada.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I have smoked them out of the weeds. I am glad to see some members on the other side commenting on the debate today. It is very welcome.

I am not going to apologize for the fact that on this side of the House, we actually reach out to those who are impacted by the bills and find out what their issues and concerns are, which is precisely what my colleagues and I have done. Agricultural producers are telling me there are some significant issues with this bill, and they look forward not only to the opportunity to come to committee to discuss the bill but also to be consulted on the planned regulations.

There is nothing stopping the government, frankly, from distributing proposed regulations right now, even before the bill goes to committee. That would then mean that we could vote from a fully informed standpoint in representing the interests of our constituents.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

I have to say that I am absolutely stunned that thus far, and perhaps it will happen but perhaps not before we recess for the summer, we have not heard any Conservative members speaking to this bill. It is clearly a very important bill. We often hear those on the other side talking about how they are the party that represents agricultural producers. We would welcome hearing from them, and hearing the perspectives of the farmers they allegedly represent.

There is not enough discussion in this place about the contribution made by agricultural producers to this country, particularly to the Canadian economy. I am proud to share that my ancestors were fishers and farmers. My great-grandma Sarah Duncan moved to Alberta from Saskatchewan when her husband died. She ran two homesteads, raised four kids, and got them all university educated.

The Steeves family, who I come from, emigrated from Germany, first to the United States and then to New Brunswick, in the mid-1700s. One of them became a Father of Confederation. They farmed since that date. My ancestors then moved to North Dakota and then, by wagon at the turn of the last century, up to Alberta.

My grandfather Pike, who came from a family of fishers in Newfoundland emigrated to this country in 1898. When he was relocated with the bank to Alberta, he was a person who liked to get his hands dirty in the soil and started a ranch in northern Alberta. Sadly, he lost that ranch in the 1930s. I did not discover that ranch until my uncle wrote a history about that.

I have very proud agricultural roots. I spent many childhood days visiting farmers with my father. I was in tears frequently because I could not have a lamb or a baby pig. I am also proud to share that I am an honorary member of the Preservation of Agricultural Land Association, based on the years that I worked with Alberta farm producers who fought long and hard for stronger protections for our prime agricultural lands.

This is a shout-out to the Prairie producers. I certainly value their contribution to this country. I would like to give particular thanks to Lynn Jacobson, who is with the Alberta Wheat Commission, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and the Alberta Federation of Agriculture. He has been very generous with his time, in sharing his knowledge with me when I go through proposed legislation.

Bill C-18, as has been shared previously, is yet another omnibus bill. It is a very important bill. As I understand it, it changes nine laws. It is regrettable that the time allocated to us in this House does not give us the time to review the entire bill. My concern is that when this omnibus bill goes to committee, there will not be time to review the changes to all nine laws in detail.

Mr. Jacobson thinks that it would be useful for this bill to be taken out to the fields. Here we are tabling this law in this place, and discussing it, when many farmers are still seeding, weeding, and so forth, and are going to be harvesting right up until late fall. Let us hope that this bill is not rushed through, and that the farmers have an opportunity to genuinely participate.

Mr. Jacobson and others have expressed concerns to me that there has not been sufficient consultation to date. There has certainly not been any consultation on the regulations proposed under this bill.

In the brief time I am allotted, I intend to speak to the plant breeders' rights section. It is an issue where we are hearing the most concerns.

In order for Canada to ratify the convention, Bill C-18 must actually enact legislation. That is precisely what is intended by Bill C-18. The legislation as it sits right now was put in place because Canada intended to ratify the previous convention on the protection of plant varieties. That was in 1978.

In 1991, a new convention, which extended greater protections to plant breeders, was signed by many nations. Since that date, Canada has not brought forward legislation. That was 13 years ago. Finally, the government, in its wisdom after being in power for six or seven years, has decided it will bring forward legislation. Let us hope it does not rush it through, because it is a very complex bill.

The difference between the previous convention and the current legislation of the proposed bill is it expands the rights of those who develop and essentially “copyright” seeds to include the exclusive right to produce, reproduce, condition, sell, export, import, or stock other propagating material. It is much more extensive than the previous rights, which were simply the copyrighted right to produce or sell the seed.

It is really important to recognize that debate has gone on around the world for many decades about whether or not there would be greater rights accorded to plant breeders—who, generally speaking, tend to be large corporations like Monsanto. It is absolutely critical for those extended rights to be balanced off with the rights of farm producers. It is generally recognized that saving, reusing, selecting, exchanging, and selling seeds have been understood to be a traditional practice and an inalienable right of farmers.

The concern with this bill, which extends greater rights to the plant breeders, is that the farmers' rights will be cut back. I am advised by the farmers who have been looking at this proposed legislation that there will be even deeper concerns if the Canada-EU comprehensive economic trade agreement is signed, because that bill could potentially extend the plant breeders' rights even further and thereby limit the farmers' rights.

I want to share what some of the issues are. In the bill are accorded certain of what are called “farmers' privileges”. The only provisions in the bill on plant breeders that are accorded to farmers are the rights of the plant breeder, which are enforceable in civil law. As I understand this new legislation, the government will assume responsibility for enforcing these laws, with additional costs assumed by Canadians, including farm producers.

Privileges only—in other words, not really enforceable rights—are extended to the farmers, but they are very limited rights. They include allowing the farmer to use those seeds for the purpose of propagation, but the farmer then cannot sell the crop or the seeds. Many have suggested this is a very hollow privilege.

In addition, the law allows for even further limiting of this privilege by regulation, but the government has not yet revealed what it intends to do by regulation. There are concerns about that.

As I mentioned, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture submitted a brief on the bill. It is presumed that members of this group will be key witnesses at committee, and we encourage them to do so. They are concerned about claims of infringement. There are scenarios in which, for example, there can be drift of seed onto a farmer's land; if the farmer then collects that seed and replants it, and it happens to include some of the seed that is patented, under this law the plant breeder can go after the farmers and sue them.

Additional concerns have been raised, including some raised by Mr. Jacobson in the case of organic farmers. We have had a number of situations of complaints being brought forward by Canadian producers over GMO seeds drifting into organic farmlands, causing their crops to become contaminated and to diminish in value. It reduces their ability to market, certainly overseas.

There are concerns with the free trade agreement that would potentially allow for the seizure of a farmer's assets upon infringement. There is concern about costs imposed on the government, including farmers, to enforce this new law, and issues about compulsory licensing.

Right now, under law there is a provision for compulsory licensing. The plant breeder must ensure that the seeds are made available at a reasonable price and are widely distributed. There is a provision in this new law that would allow them to apply for exemption. What is the problem there? As with the other regulations under the act, there are no provisions to require consultation with the agricultural producers.

With that, I will close my comments. I look forward to questions on the bill. I look forward to the government opening up this dialogue to producers across our country.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 16th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member, as usual, has widened the scope of his speech to talk about his constituency and about the rights and interests of all of our agricultural producers in Canada.

The member made a very important point. Typical of the legislation the government has been bringing forward is a law which includes provisions for the possibility of regulations to be promulgated.

A more open and transparent process would be to table the legislation and at the same time reveal what those regulations may say so that members of Parliament, the agricultural producers who are impacted, and the breeders could know what the government proposes.

I wonder if the member could expand a bit more on the fact that it is nice the bill is being tabled, but there are two significant areas where there will be regulations, and one could potentially severely limit these privileges to the producers.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I guess I could briefly reference the ombudsman's report. She has very carefully laid out a number of recommendations that would embellish and strengthen this bill.

It is certainly important that if people are going to access rights, they have to be informed of their rights. There should be an obligation on the government in this bill to inform all victims of what their rights are under the bill, who is responsible, and what the process would be.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I am afraid I cannot answer it, but it is obviously an important factor.

It will be important when the bill comes to committee that we hear testimony from the Attorneys General and the Solicitors General across the country, not simply from victims' rights groups that are NGOs and are probably grossly underfunded. It will also be really important to know which of these provisions would duplicate what is already going on in the provincial courts. Do they conflict in any cases? Are there any cases where there could be dual funding for some of these initiatives?

It is an excellent factor that should be considered in the review of this bill.

[Victims Bill of Rights Act, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, actually, that was one aspect I meant to mention but did not. My understanding is that this law would empower the courts to impose restitution orders. The problem is that in not all cases does a convicted person have the resources to compensate the victim or the family of the victim.

There are a lot of cost issues related to crime. One of them is direct compensation if one's property or person are harmed. The ombudsman has pointed out that the bill would also not accommodate people if there was damage to property in the course of a crime.

In addition to that, I note that the MP for Toronto—Danforth said that what we do not have is a fund to generally support the victims of crime who might suffer trauma. We talk a lot about support for mental health. There are a lot of needs associated with the victims of crime, and we look forward to finally seeing something in the budget to address this bigger issue. However, it should also be addressed in the bill to be a real right.