Ruth Ellen Brosseau

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to join my voice to those of my official opposition colleagues.

We are opposed to Bill C-6 under its current form because it contradicts and undermines the international treaty it is meant to implement. That is unfortunate. We proposed amendments to the bill at committee stage, but, true to form, the Conservatives allowed just one small change. We are again trying to amend the bill at report stage, but if the government does not agree to further improve the content, then we will have no choice but to oppose it.

In November 2013, the NDP called on the government to amend Bill C-6. According to lawyers, representatives of other countries and groups from civil society, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, the new legislation would seriously hinder the implementation of the treaty. The Conservatives' bill to implement the convention on cluster munitions is largely recognized as the weakest and worst in the world. It undermines the spirit in which the treaty was created. These inhumane and cruel weapons must be banned. The Canadian legislation allows Canadian soldiers to continue to use these cluster munitions. It is unbelievable.

Canada actively participated in the Oslo process to develop a convention to ban the use of cluster munitions. The Oslo process came on the heels of the successes of the Ottawa Treaty to Ban Landmines. This treaty was very successful and we are very proud of it. I am talking about the treaty to ban landmines. We built on that treaty in order to rid the world of the horrific weapons known as cluster munitions. The convention was signed by 118 countries, which is significant since that represents more than three-quarters of the UN member states. A total of 84 countries ratified it. When the Dublin process and Oslo process negotiations were complete, we implemented a convention that was important in terms of disarmament and ridding the world of these horrific munitions.

The NDP fully supported the creation of a treaty to ban cluster munitions. This bill undermines the convention it is supposed to implement. That is unfortunate. We oppose this bill as it now stands. In committee, we worked hard to improve it with civil society groups. Even if the amendment the Conservatives allowed is an improvement, it is not enough for us to support this bill. At this stage, the best thing to do would be to completely remove clause 11 from the bill, which is what we are proposing.

I would like to quote the Canadian Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross. In their opinion, clause 11 would permit:

...activities that could undermine the object and purpose of the CCM and ultimately contribute to the continued use of cluster munitions rather than further their elimination.

Once the treaty is signed, it has to be implemented, and that takes legislation. This bill has been criticized by many experts and those who strongly believe in ridding the world of cluster munitions. The reason is clause 11 primarily, but also other provisions. Clause 11 allows the Canadian Forces to be in theatre when cluster munitions are used. That goes against what we did in the land mines treaty wherein, if we were in theatre with any country that had not signed on to the Ottawa treaty, we would not participate in joint operations with them while they were using those particular weapons.

This bill has a loophole, which basically says that we can be in theatre when one of our allies is using cluster munitions. That is unacceptable

At the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the NDP supported the Canadian and foreign organizations demanding that the bill be amended. We worked closely with the government, publicly and directly, and were able to convince it to expressly prohibit the use of cluster munitions by Canadian soldiers.

Unfortunately, there remain flaws in the bill. If they are not corrected, Canada will only be able to superficially honour its commitment to ban cluster munitions. In fact, if Bill C-6 is not amended, it could even undermine the convention internationally, in that the withdrawal options and exemptions it contains could be invoked as precedents by other countries.

Canada should show more leadership and meet its commitments. The government has shown its lack of vision in other matters as well. In this regard, I will quote Malcolm Fraser, the former Australian prime minister:

It is a pity the [current] Canadian government, in relation to cluster munitions, does not provide any real lead to the world. Its approach is timid, inadequate and regressive.

I would like to remind the House that 98% of the victims of cluster munitions are civilians, innocent people, mostly children. That is why the world wanted to ban these munitions. Why is the government trying to destroy these efforts?

Moreover, in 2006, 22 Canadian Forces members were killed and 112 wounded in Afghanistan as a result of landmines, cluster munitions, and other explosive devices. Children and adults were maimed and killed by these weapons. We have wanted to get rid of cluster munitions for a long time.

The bill was also condemned by Earl Turcotte, the head of the DFAIT delegation that negotiated the convention. He resigned a few years later in protest against the Conservative government's watered-down version of the convention. Mr. Turcotte said that the proposed legislation is the worst of any country that has ratified or acceded to the convention on cluster munitions to date.

Why is the government refusing to hear what the experts have to say? It is not the first time we have seen that. It is like déjà vu. On several key issues, the government turns a deaf ear. In this case, though, human lives are at stake, which is why I feel that the government should work constructively to amend the bill.

In an open letter published last year, Mr. Turcotte stated that the bill betrays the trust of sister states who negotiated the treaty in good faith. I want to conclude by quoting from an article by Marc Thibodeau in La Presse on June 15, 2013:

After playing a leading role in the fight against landmines, Canada is now being chastised for not fulfilling its commitments in the current campaign to get rid of cluster munitions.

In the same article, Paul Hannon, executive director of Mines Action Canada, says that there are no logical reasons to explain why Ottawa would act this way. He thinks that “the situation is tarnishing Canada's reputation as a leader on humanitarian issues”.

He really gets at the heart of what is becoming a very palpable reality: Canada's international reputation. We have to stop playing and start acting. We need to take a leadership role so that innocent people are no longer killed. We have a job to do. We can resolve this right now. We are here until midnight and we are trying to use this time to have a proper debate.

As was mentioned earlier, we are the only party taking part in tonight's debate. There is still time to amend the bill and delete clause 11. I am confident that we will be able to do something good with this bill.

[Housing, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the pyrrhotite problem is a serious one. It is quite troubling to see the Conservatives refuse to assume their responsibilities. Homes in the greater Mauricie region are ruined. Families have to cover the very high cost of these renovations.

It is not just the NDP calling on the government to do something about this. A judge is ordering the government to take action. Will the Conservatives respect the court ruling and update the standards?

[Housing, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Justice Michel Richard of the Superior Court made his decision on the class action suit filed by homeowners affected by pyrrhotite. The NDP has repeatedly asked the government to change concrete standards in order to prevent another such tragedy. The Conservatives keep refusing.

In his decision, the judge wrote that the standards have to be adjusted. Can the government commit to respecting this decision?

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, since this bill was announced I have done a lot of consulting in my riding, with different stakeholders on the Hill, and in communities. I had the chance to go to Saskatchewan for the grain crisis and meet with farmers to get a more in-depth feeling of what was happening on the ground. We did talk a lot about Bill C-18.

The government is trying to push this forward. We will be breaking for summer shortly. I will continue to consult with my colleagues from Welland and also Edmonton—Strathcona. We could all be very present with our constituents and consult and continue to make sure that we are hearing the voices of the people who want to express their concern or approval of this bill. However, it is important to be present. We cannot forget that UPOV was signed by the Liberals. They brought it in, but then they kind of dropped it. Now the Conservatives have picked it up and they want to ratify it. We just have to make sure it is in the best interests of farmers and the vision for agriculture in the long term.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, this is an omnibus budget bill. We cannot forget that there are some aspects that we do support, but then there are some contentious aspects that worry us.

I am present in the House for petitions and I have seen colleagues from across the way, Conservatives and Liberals, who have tabled many petitions expressing concern for farmers and for Bill C-18. I mentioned in my speech that we often debate agriculture issues because we are reacting to something. This bill should definitely be separated.

We will support this bill. We are looking forward to having great witnesses come to the agriculture committee to have their voices heard and to voice their opinions. We are hopeful to amend this bill to make it better, but I know the government does not like to work together.

[Agricultural Growth Act, June 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-18, an omnibus bill that will alter a number of aspects of farm life.

Bill C-18 proposes nine amendments to federal laws and will affect almost every aspect of farming. The statutes that will be amended under the Agricultural Growth Act are the Plant Breeders’ Rights Act, the Feeds Act, the Fertilizers Act, the Seeds Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Plant Protection Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. Currently, all these statutes fall under the CFIA. The bill also amends the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act and the Farm Debt Mediation Act, which fall under AAFC.

I will now get to the heart of the matter: the issues surrounding plant breeders.

According to the government, this bill will stimulate innovation, which will benefit farmers by increasing the choice of crops and in turn increasing revenues.

However, many stakeholders are worried that the bill will limit farmers' use of seeds. Like me, farmers have concerns about the proposed amendments to the plant breeders' rights legislation that would commit Canada to UPOV '91. The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, or UPOV, an intergovernmental organization established in 1961, promotes the interests of plant breeders by allowing them to claim intellectual property rights in countries that sign the agreement. Canada is currently part of UPOV '78, a former version.

Those who support joining UPOV '91 allege that it would result in greater investments by seed breeders in Canada. Those opposed believe that this will cost farmers more money, not just at the time of seed sale but also when crops are sold and beyond.

This is a very delicate subject and we must understand the nuances. We must strike a balance between the interests of seed breeders who want to be compensated for their work and farmers who work hard every day to feed our country. We absolutely must ask ourselves what consequences all the amendments proposed in this omnibus bill will have for both Canadian farmers and food safety.

Has the government done its homework? Is the bill part of a long-term vision for farming in Canada or, once again, is the government blindly making decisions that will benefit the same people?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you are aware of this, but the NDP is the only federal party to propose a Canada-wide food strategy, which was unveiled last week. We have received a lot of support for this. It is not something we put together in one day; we have been working on it for years. We consulted not only Canadians, but also producers across the country. I am truly proud of this document.

I want to focus on the farmers' privilege aspect for a few minutes. It is a key piece of the legislation that needs clarification. The bill states that farmers' privilege is an exception to subsection 5(1). This article states that the holder of the plant breeders' rights has the exclusive right to produce and reproduce, condition, sell, export, import, or stock seed, and authorize any of these actions. Farmers' privilege allows farmers to produce and condition seed only for their own holdings.

This raises many concerns. For example, can a farmer have his seed cleaned by a neighbour as a favour? Or does the farmer need to condition the seed on their own holding? What about saving seed? The bill clearly says farmers can only produce and condition seed. That means that farmers will have to pay a royalty in order to stock their seed. No matter how many assurances the minister provides, I want to be sure that these provisions are clearly stated in the bill and will not be left open for interpretation.

We need to carefully study the bill to fully understand its effects. I look forward to calling experts to the agriculture committee on this issue in order to hear about the effects of the bill. I hope my colleagues from across the way will be open to amendments to improve and clarify the bill to ensure it is advantageous for all of our farmers.

There is another aspect of farmers' privilege that worries me. Farmers' privilege is explained in the negative. It does not look like a right to me. It looks like an exception. The fact that farmers' privilege can be changed through regulation is more worrisome. These limited exceptions to seed companies' total control on seed could change or disappear without having to consult Parliament. That would give the minister a lot of power. I am not sure I trust the minister with that much power and control over farmers' lives and livelihoods. He does not have a very good track record. I do not think I need to remind members of the grain prices, XL Foods, or listeriosis.

When it comes to plant breeders' rights, I believe that a balanced approach is essential. We need to protect Canada's farmers and public researchers.

The minister has said the bill would increase investment to our agriculture sector by creating incentives for companies to come to Canada. My concern here, again, is the farmer. Innovation needs to benefit farmers. We want to ensure that all Canadians can access and benefit from our agricultural legacy. This is why I would like to see more public funding of innovation, which is something that our party has called for.

In order to prevent the privatization of existing varieties of seeds deployed, we must ensure a variety registration system that would ensure new crop varieties are as good as, or better than, existing ones. We also have to ensure that farmers would continue to have access to existing cereal varieties that were developed by public plant breeders.

Turning to another aspect of the bill, I was pleased to see increased flexibility in the advance payments program. The APP provides producers with a cash advance on the value of their agricultural products during a specific period. This would improve producers' cash flow throughout the year and help them meet financial obligations to benefit from the best market conditions. The grain transportation crisis has shown the value of such a program. It is too bad it was not in place at that time to help grain producers.

Allowance for multi-year agreements would allow the administrative burden for those who are applying to the advance payments program in consecutive years, which would make the program more accessible to producers and program delivery more efficient, hopefully. It is unfortunate to see that the maximum amounts have not been increased. The CFA has called for an increase in order to address rising farm costs. Overall, the changes to the APP make the program more accessible and flexible, which is something I applaud.

I would like to end my remarks on the bill by reflecting on the policy direction of the government. The bill's short title is “agricultural growth act”. Whether the bill would actually help grow the agriculture sector is yet to be determined. Once again, can we trust the current minister? It is questionable. I would like to see the government have a comprehensive vision for agriculture in this country. Agriculture is such an important sector. It represents one in eight jobs in Canada. It is vital to our economy.

The minister is bringing in pieces of legislation that seem to be reacting to an issue, rather than leading the way on agriculture issues. That is very sad. It seems we only have the chance to debate agriculture when there is a problem or a crisis. That is something that I do not want to see. I want more positive things. I want to be talking about agriculture more positively in the House, rather than reacting.

The latest grain transportation crisis is a good example. Once again the government waited months before acting, then scrambled together a piece of legislation that could help farmers but would not be a long-term solution. We can all agree on that. The government only acts when it needs to, and it delays the action as much as possible. I wish we could work with the current government on a forward-thinking vision for agriculture in this country that would be dedicated to supporting big farms and small farms and would also give farmers the tools they need to succeed.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, how can anybody believe the minister's claim of standing up for farmers? Even by his own measure, he is failing them: CETA is in limbo, and the grain transport crisis cost farmers billions of dollars. Now he is turning an agricultural trade dispute with the U.S. into name-calling and finger-pointing, calling the Americans schoolyard bullies. He just loses credibility, and farmers are actually paying for it.

Beyond juvenile outbursts, what is the minister doing to actually improve this agricultural trade crisis, and where is his plan?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, according to Reuters, the Minister of Agriculture has single-handedly launched a trade war against the United States by calling the country a schoolyard bully. The minister tends to see enemies everywhere, particularly when his own negligence is involved, as in the listeriosis and E. coli crises and the grain transportation fiasco.

Rather than insulting our main trading partner, why does the minister not seek to improve the living conditions of our farmers?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 9th, 2014]

According to the government's figures, the current grain transportation crisis is costing farmers $8 billion. The Conservatives' inaction has therefore resulted in significant losses for farmers, despite the repeated warnings that were issued about this problem last fall.

Today, the government's long-awaited bill is being criticized because it does not address the issue of transportation corridors, even though the NDP suggested in the past that this problem needed to be corrected.

How much more will farmers have to pay before the government takes action?

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, according to the government's figures, the current grain transportation crisis is costing farmers $8 billion. The Conservatives' inaction has therefore resulted in—