Pierre Lemieux

[Ban on Shark Fin Importation Act, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking in response to Bill C-380. It goes without saying that this is a difficult issue.

Our Conservative government is committed to addressing the serious problem of shark finning. We are taking action on a number of fronts to end this deplorable activity. It is very important to note that shark finning has been banned in Canada since the mid-1990s.

The ban applies to Canadian waters and Canadian licensed vessels fishing outside our territorial waters. Canada is one of the first countries to implement a national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks.

Our government believes that working through regional fisheries management organizations, such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, to ensure strong management and enforcement practices globally, is the most effective way to prevent unsustainable practices such as finning.

We take seriously our legal obligation to prevent the import of products from shark species that are currently listed as endangered and are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

These species are the great white shark, the whale shark and the basking shark.

I will speak specifically about the proposals in the bill that pertain to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's food safety obligations and the proposed changes to the Fish Inspection Act.

Let me begin by reiterating our government's unwavering commitment to food safety and the role of the CFIA. The CFIA is already exploring what can be done on the importation of shark fins. Shark products for human consumption fall under regulations that address the importation of fish and seafood products. These regulations set standards for quality, safety and identification and are enforced by the CFIA.

The CFIA focuses solely on food safety and quality as well as consumer protection. All licence holders for Canadian shark fisheries and for fisheries where sharks are landed as bycatch are subject to licence conditions that prohibit them from engaging in shark finning. All licensed shark fishing vessels in Canada are subject to 100% monitoring. Non-compliance with a licence condition constitutes an offence under the Fisheries Act, as enforced by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

As my hon. colleagues are aware, Bill C-380 proposes to prohibit the importation of shark fins unless authorized by a permit issued by the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The expertise and jurisdiction to make these determinations lie with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which therefore renders the licensing scheme in the bill through the Fish Inspection Act completely unfeasible.

I would first like to analyze this proposal in relation to Canada's existing Fish Inspection Act and then in relation to the new Safe Food for Canadians Act.

The Fish Inspection Act regulates issues related to the quality and safety of fish and seafood intended for human consumption. The importation ban set out in the Fish Inspection Regulations applies only to fish products that pose a risk of harm to human health.

However, there is no evidence that shark fins post a risk to human health.

If CFIA were to restrict the importation of shark fins for any reason other than food safety, it would leave Canada vulnerable to a trade challenge at the WTO. The proposed ban on shark fin imports does not prohibit the legal production and sale of domestic shark fins in Canada; it prohibits imports of shark fins that were legally produced in other countries. It is a protectionist policy, one that is not good for trade. This could pave the way for other countries to impose protectionist policies on Canadian imports with little to no basis. In fact, Canada is currently challenging the EU at the WTO on a similar type of ban on Canadian seal products.

Bill C-380's recommendations go beyond the framework of the existing regulations and the new, forthcoming regulations on food safety.

The bill also comes at a time when Canada's Fish Inspection Act will be repealed as our government's Safe Food for Canadians Act comes into force. The Safe Food for Canadians Act, which received royal assent this past fall, strengthens and modernizes our food safety system to make sure that it continues to provide for safe food for Canadians.

This legislation will provide appropriate measures to ensure that Canadians can continue to have faith in the effective protection provided by the CFIA. The main objective of the new legislative measures on food safety is to strengthen our ability to protect Canada's food supply and the health of Canadians.

The Safe Food for Canadians Act will allow us to achieve that by incorporating the provisions of various acts and regulations, including the Fish Inspection Act, in order to ensure more uniform treatment of food products.

Our government is unable to support the bill. However, it will continue to support responsible, legal shark harvesters and will crack down on those who break the rules.

I appreciate my hon. colleagues' full attention on this matter.

[Food Safety, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, safe food for Canadian consumers is our top priority. Since 2006, our government has increased the number of inspectors and the budget of the CFIA by roughly 20%.

However, I must point out that every time we impose or implement a measure through our budget to increase finances or funding for food safety, the opposition, and the NDP in particular, vote against each and every measure. It is shameful.

[Food Safety, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, food safety is our top priority.

Since 2006, the government has increased the number of inspectors and CFIA's budget by roughly 20%. The government will continue to provide CFIA with the resources it needs to keep our food supply safe.

[Canadian Grain Commission, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and section 4 of the User Fees Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a copy of the Canadian Grain Commission's proposal to Parliament for user fees and service standards. User fees will be payable as soon as the proposal comes into force.

I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say about this important proposal.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, February 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are proud that our agenda includes a national food and agriculture strategy.

Our trade approach, which focuses on scientific principles, is enabling us to have a greater presence than ever before on the markets. We are providing high-quality, safe Canadian products to those who need them, both within Canada and outside our borders. In order to feed the world, we must learn to obtain better yields with less. With biotechnology, we will be able to do so.

[Food Safety, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this government has made a number of investments in the past few years to make sure that the CFIA has the resources it needs to keep Canadians and their food supply safe. Since March 2006, the agency's field inspection staff was increased by more than 700 net new inspectors, an increase of approximately 25%.

I would like to stress that the inspection work done is just as important as how many inspectors are doing the work. That is why in budget 2011 this government provided the CFIA with $100 million over five years to modernize food safety inspection in Canada. The member voted against that. Canada's food safety system is one of the best in the world and this government is committed to ensuring that Canada's food safety system continues to provide consumers with the protection that they expect and deserve.

It is time for opposition members to stand in their places and vote for these positive measures for CFIA in terms of the resources and financial commitments to do their jobs in the service of Canadians.

[Food Safety, December 10th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about the measures that the government is taking to improve Canada's food safety system.

We have acted on every one of the recommendations in the Weatherill report to strengthen this system. The measures taken are set out in the final report to Canadians. Today, organizations responsible for food safety and public health are better equipped to work together to prevent, detect and respond to food safety risks, and Canadians are better informed about the steps they can take to protect themselves.

Canada's food safety system is one of the best in the world, but food safety is not static. It requires constant vigilance and action. That is why we introduced the Safe Food for Canadians Act, which will modernize the federal legislative framework for food safety. We have also provided the CFIA with additional funding in each of the last four budgets we put forward.

In budget 2011, we committed $100 million over five years for our government to build science capacity and implement inspection modernization, including enhanced training as well as inspection tools for inspectors. In budget 2012, we provided $51 million over two years to the CFIA, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada for continuing key food safety activities. The recent budget is strengthening, not weakening, this government's commitment to the health and safety of Canadians.

The member speaks of what happened at XL. I invite him and all members to go to inspection.gc.ca to get the facts. However, the CFIA has not and will not reduce staff or cut programs that would put the health and safety of Canadians at risk. As the CFIA continues to modernize its inspection approaches, it will ensure that there continues to be enough inspection staff to protect the health and safety of Canadians. This government is committed to ensuring that Canada's food safety system continues to provide consumers with the protection they expect and deserve.

[Gender Selection, December 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last June the CBC exposed a disturbing trend in private ultrasound centres around the country. It reported that a majority of clinics were willing to do a gender test in the early stages of pregnancy for people who were considering terminating their pregnancies because their unborn baby was not the right gender.

This followed upon studies that suggested that unfortunately when it comes to unborn baby boys and girls, it is unborn girls who are most discriminated against. They are terminated simply because they are girls.

Canadians are both shocked and upset that this is happening in Canada. When the CBC report was televised, the practice of gender selection pregnancy termination was condemned by all political parties, and by gynecologists, doctors and human rights groups across the country.

Canadians do not tolerate gender discrimination, particularly when it is directed against women and girls, and Canadians definitely do not support the practice of gender selection. I encourage Canadians to speak up, to write their MPs and to publicly voice their grave concern regarding gender selection.

[Food Safety, November 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian consumers are our government's top priority when it comes to food safety. Listeriosis bacteria was detected by the CFIA in products produced by Capital Packers through surface testing introduced by our government.

Capital Packers' licence has been suspended. The plant will only reopen once the Canadian Food Inspection Agency has determined that the plant is safe.

[Safe Food for Canadians Act, November 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my colleague's speech, she made reference to the fact that she felt that more time was needed for the committee to study this matter.

When I gave a speech earlier today, I pointed out that this bill has been debated over years but that in this last few months it has been debated in the agriculture committee both here in the House and in the other place.

When it comes to our agriculture committee, we had offered to the opposition, both parties, that we would sit whenever they felt we needed to sit in order to hear more witnesses and to have more time to study the bill if that is what they wanted.

I would like to know why the member is raising, now, that she needed more time when she did not raise it when we actually made a very sincere offer to sit additional hours as an agriculture committee in order to hear from more witnesses and to hear more testimony.

I am wondering if the member could answer that question here in the House.