We already did that. That was the biggest tax cut in Canadian history. You guys voted against it.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 41% of the vote.
Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2 December 14th, 2004
We already did that. That was the biggest tax cut in Canadian history. You guys voted against it.
Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2 December 14th, 2004
Talk about the surplus.
Supply December 9th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I, too, have been on a previous fishery committee that looked at the issue of the salmon on the B.C. coast and in the Fraser River.
I agree with a lot that has been said in terms that there are serious problems, but a judicial inquiry is not the way to go from my point of view. We are parliamentarians. Committees can work in a non-partisan sense. I think we should accept our responsibilities as parliamentarians to do that work, to make the recommendations and to demand that the minister and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans abide by those recommendations.
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Enforcement Act December 7th, 2004
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to begin debate today on Bill C-27, the proposed Canada Food Inspection Agency enforcement act. The objective of the bill is to enhance the protection of Canada's food supply and animal and plant resources by modernizing, consolidating and enhancing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's inspection and enforcement authorities.
The House would find it useful to consider this bill as a second step in a three part process. The first step was the creation of the Canada Food Inspection Agency in 1997. It brought together under one agency the responsibilities to administer and enforce 13 federal acts and their respective regulations. Of these 13, 10 have provisions for inspection and enforcement.
The second step today is included in this bill, which is the modernization and consolidation of our enforcement and inspection legislation.
In the future we will begin work on the third step which will involve the modernization, consolidation and enhancement of a regulatory base as part of an overall government move toward smart regulation.
In the meantime, we must take this step to address inconsistencies and gaps between the powers and authorities that were brought together when the CFIA undertook responsibility for the various patchwork of legislation within its mandate. At present, in certain cases, we have an antiquated and inconsistent approach to inspection and enforcement activities. This bill would l change that. It would modernize, consolidate and enhance our inspection and enforcement powers to meet present and future needs.
I would like to assure the House that the bill would not alter the basic structure of the regime we have put in place. It would not change, expand or diminish the minister's authority or that of the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health remains responsible for setting policies and standards for food safety and nutritional quality. Through the CFIA, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will continue to be responsible for enforcing these standards, as well as setting and enforcing other standards, such as those for animal and plant health.
What the bill would do is it would enhance, modernize and consolidate current inspection and enforcement authorities.
Members who were present in 1999 will recall Bill C-80, the Canada Food Safety and Inspection Act, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued that October. It too sought to consolidate the federal inspection and enforcement authorities. Members may recall that we consulted widely with stakeholders in preparation for Bill C-80. Those who were consulted included consumers, producers, industry, the provinces and the territories. Although this initiative is not Bill C-80, it does include similar enforcement and inspection authorities to those contained in the previous Bill C-80, which were generally supported by stakeholders.
For example, Canadian industry associations have been requesting several of the proposed authorities, such as a provision prohibiting a person from tampering with, threatening to tamper with or falsely claiming to tamper with products. This bill would allow the CFIA to address, for instance, the issue of injection of cyanide into turkeys. Industry has also been asking for a “hold and test” provision similar to that contained in United States legislation. Both industry and producers have been asking that domestic and imported products be subjected to the same regulatory requirements thereby creating a level playing field. This legislation would do that.
In the past, the CFIA has faced some criticism from members of Parliament, standing committees and stakeholders for its outdated and inconsistent inspection and enforcement authorities. This legislative proposal addresses those issues.
The bill addresses several inconsistencies in the current patchwork of legislation which the CFIA relies on to deliver its mandate. It would provide new and enhanced enforcement and inspection powers and authorities, thereby streamlining existing powers and authorities.
The bill would give all inspectors the same powers. Currently, because they are governed by different acts, inspectors responsible for fertilizers have different authorities from those who inspect meat. These are different, again, from those who inspect fish, or feed or seed.
We want to strengthen the authority to administer food, agricultural and aquatic commodities, agricultural inputs, animal and plant legislation by giving all inspectors the same arsenal of inspection and enforcement powers that they need to do their job, ensuring, therefore, the integrity of our food supply and animal and plant resource base upon which safe food depends. We want every inspector to have recourse to the entire group of powers available.
The bill would reduce overlap and duplication of inspection enforcement authorities. For example, some inspectors now have the authority to examine records but not copy them, while others do not have the authority to examine or copy records. The proposed authorities would allow inspectors to be guided by a single piece of enforcement and inspection legislation, resulting in consistent inspection and enforcement activities throughout the system.
With the bill, all inspectors would have the same authority to stop the operation of equipment used to prepare a product or a production line in order to carry out an inspection. All inspectors would have the same authority for seizure, detention and forfeiture, and the authority to conduct searches and administer oaths.
The bill would also bring inspectors' powers in line with modern information technology. Innovations, such as telewarrants and the use of electronic information, would allow inspectors to more effectively and efficiently do their job.
The bill includes enhanced enforcement and inspection authorities needed to protect Canada's food supply and animal and plant resource base from such dangers as toxic substances, animal pathogens and viruses such as anthrax or ebola. The bill would enhance this ability by licensing persons to contain, use and dispose of animal pathogens, animal disease agents, toxic substances, veterinary biologics and plant pests.
The bill helps to create similar authorities and powers to that of our largest trading partner, the United States. The Canadian and U.S. economies are highly integrated. There are many similarities between our regulatory objectives and systems but we need to modernize our system. The bill contains a number of powers and authorities similar to those contained in the recent United States legislation.
Finally, the bill consolidates and modernizes a number of inspection and enforcement related regulation making authorities that currently exist in the CFIA's legislation. It also adds new regulation making authorities to support provisions contained in the bill. Among these are the requirements to keep records, the establishment of quality management systems and a formal mechanism to address complaints respecting public health and safety issues.
These detailed regulations would be phased in and subject to standard regulatory process, specifically open and transparent consultations with stakeholders.
I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the House would welcome this new legislation. It would enable the CFIA to keep pace with and respond to new and emerging issues, and allow the CFIA to better deliver on its mandate of food safety, animal health and plant protection.
Canada's food inspection system is important to both producers and consumers. For as much as globalization and knowledge-based production have changed the food industry over the years, two things have not changed: Canada's reputation as a source of high quality foods and the right of Canadians to food that is safe, healthy and nutritious.
Canada has one of the best food inspection systems in the world and the proposed Canadian Food Inspection Agency enforcement act is designed to make a good system even better. I hope members will see that as correct and support the bill in its entirety.
Forestry December 6th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour and the consistent and forceful work that he has put into this issue for constituents in that area.
We recognize that it is causing hardship. CFIA is working with landowners in as speedy a way as possible to try to salvage the value of the timber and at the same time ensure that the pest does not go further throughout the woods in the province.
Auditor General Act December 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the press clip from the Charlottetown Guardian relates to the Byrd amendment and the favourable ruling Canada received relative to the Byrd amendment. There are a number of products under WTO rules, under the rule of law, which we could retaliate against as a result of the way the Americans use our duties to subsidize uncompetitive industries in the United States. Therefore, there is a list of trade products that we could retaliate against.
On the BSE issue, that recourse is not necessarily available to us. However, we continue to look at all options. I want to point out that we have exported to the United States 267,000 tonnes of beef so far this year--
Auditor General Act December 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that he has said in the last couple of weeks some advances have been made. All too often in the House there is little recognition for the good work of the minister and the government. I appreciate that the member has recognized this.
It is important to say that, yes, we have made every effort to reopen the border. The minister has said a number of times that we have made over 150 representations on behalf of not only cattle. It is important to mention the cattle and beef sectors. However, exporters of other animals and meat are affected by the border closure as well, such as the sheep, goat, bison and the sectors. We need to work strenuously in their interests as well.
Specifically on the member's question, we will continue to assess all the options available to us. We do not think that initiating a trade dispute at this time would be the best way to proceed. As the member himself admitted, we are making reasonable progress. We certainly want border opened quickly, if at all possible.
It was a great advance when on November 20 President Bush advised the Prime Minister that the United States rule had moved from the United States department of agriculture to the office of management and budget. That development is significant because it means we now have a timeline for the rule being implemented and borders being reopened to live animals. It remains, however, premature to speculate on the scope of the United States rule and what animals and products it will provide access from Canada as the rule will not be published until the OMB has completed its study.
From the government's perspective, we will continue to keep the pressure on the United States. The issue is mentioned at every meeting, including the meetings when President Bush was here. The minister brought the issue forward strenuously, as did the international trade minister. We are looking at it optimistically.
As well, we continue to work around the world to try to import our cattle and beef products elsewhere. We continue to increase our slaughter capacity in our country so that at the end of the day we do the best we can, as the Government of Canada, for Canadian cattle producers and producers of other ruminant animals.
Supply December 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the remarks made by the member for Fundy Royal and his research. At the end of the day, I agree with the member that there is a farmer, a farm family and a community at the bottom line on this BSE crisis. There is indeed financial hardship out there and we recognize that. We have come forward with many programs to deal with it. Ultimately, the solution is to get the U.S. border open to live cattle from Canada. Earlier the minister mentioned some of the progress we were making in that area.
We are dealing with a motion from the Bloc Quebecois. Its members gave a lot of rhetoric but no substance earlier today. They said in the motion that they want the government to implement specific measures as soon as possible. Of course, we do not get any specifics from the Bloc Quebecois members. We only get rhetoric.
Does the member for Fundy Royal or his party have any specifics to lay on the table in terms of what they are recommending the government should do in terms of dealing with the cull cow issue as it relates to BSE?
Supply December 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite extended an invitation for the minister to go to the UPA convention. There is no question about that. It would be really nice if the member would at least go home and tell the facts. The member should go home and admit to the UPA that the reason the minister could not be there is because the members opposite picked today to have the debate on this important issue. It is fundamental to have the minister here so that questions can be answered.
He just spelled out the amounts that have gone to Quebec on this issue a moment ago. I would invite the member to go home and give those facts to his producers because obviously it sounds like producers in Quebec do not know enough about the program. Maybe it is because the member opposite is not telling the people in Quebec what the Government of Canada and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is doing for producers in Quebec.
Supply December 2nd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, I did not catch all of the member's remarks but he did talk about some of the programming.
We have said a number of times that we recognize the difficulties on the farm, which is why the minister made the announcement on September 10 repositioning the livestock industry to manipulate the market so that farmers could get the price out of the marketplace, as well as continuing to work on opening the U.S. border. We have been doing our part.
It was interesting to listen to the Bloc Québécois members try to condemn government programs when they have failed to tell their own producers that the reason the dairy industry has survived in Quebec as well as it has is because of the Canadian milk supply management system that Canada implemented and has strongly maintained at the WTO.
Will the member opposite finally get up and tell his producers in Quebec that it is thanks to the strong efforts of the Government of Canada that we have a supply management system in place for the five industries, dairy, poultry and so on, which is why farmers get reasonable returns from the marketplace for the products they produce. It is that system which gives farmers marketing power in the system itself, and that is thanks to Canada.