Wayne Marston

[Human Rights Situation in Iran, February 16th, 2011]

Madam Chair, I am not overly surprised at the news but I am disappointed.

Regimes such as this remind me of a magician who keeps someone occupied with one hand while picking his or her pocket with the other hand. Sometimes some of the rhetoric and over-the-top expressions or actions externally outside of the country is used to draw attention away from the very nature of what is being done to the people within a country.

We need to keep our focus right now on the Iranian people and the suffering that is happening there and the courage that is being expressed as they take to the streets once more.

[Human Rights Situation in Iran, February 16th, 2011]

Madam Chair, what is critical from the witness testimony is the documentation, the collecting of the facts so that the people of the world, as well as the people of Iran, understand what that government is guilty of and that the Government of Canada can support the development of a centre which helps with that documentation, be it in Canada or elsewhere, because the one thing that will change governments is the information and the understanding by the people of that country the extent of the abuses. They know that their friends and neighbours disappear. But as to the extent of the physical abuse and deaths, I doubt very much if they really understand the depth of the damage being done to the population of that country. The report speaks to this. I would invite people to go online and look at the subcommittee report on Iran because it lays out 24 recommendations.

The key is to get information out and educate the world on what is actually happening.

[Human Rights Situation in Iran, February 16th, 2011]

Madam Chair, I thank the member for introducing this in this way. Our own passion for this is below the surface. When we see Shirin Ebadi or we see the professors and the various people who come before us with tragic stories, it is not just the physical abuse that gets to us. It is the systemic repression of a people and what should be their democratic rights that at two levels we are pulled on this.

On the international front we could talk about the threats to the world community. There is debate as to whether those threats are real or maybe not that real. However, the threats internally to the people on the ground in Iran are extremely real. As I said, the hangings are every eight hours. When we know that they hang juveniles in that country, we are further disgusted and further troubled.

I could probably go on even further, but perhaps there are more questions.

[Human Rights Situation in Iran, February 16th, 2011]

Madam Chair, I am pleased to join this important debate tonight. I want to thank the members who have presented so far.

A number of speakers have talked about the subcommittee on human rights and its report. I have the report here. I will be commenting to some degree on it.

The speakers have gone on at length regarding the threat of Iran against Israel, which is very real. I believe that people understand that very clearly.

The Ahmadinejad regime, through its leader, has repeatedly made threats in different locations around the world, which have disturbed much of the world community. There are some people who revel in those threats, and there will always be such people. However, I want to take a few moments to talk about the regime's threat against its own people. The previous member also spoke somewhat about that.

As late as Tuesday of this week, the committee called back some of its previous witnesses to talk about the state of affairs in Iran today. It is very troubling, because we know that the uprisings that took place in Tunis and Egypt are not going to recur in that way in Iran. I can remember seeing on television the people in Egypt walking up to soldiers and shaking their hands. To a certain degree, people were even free to surround the tanks and climb up on them and mark them. It will not be that way in Iran. There is no doubt that the regime, since the elections in 2009, has put down the efforts at that time to drive the country more toward democracy. However, a stark part of the testimony that we heard, and something that stays with me, is the fact that in Iran today someone is hanged every eight hours.

We need to pause for a second and think of the other countries that have had revolutions for democracy. Although these other countries may have had a war or had their militaries fighting against those who were also armed, in the case of Iran it is a civilian population that is being put down and young people's lives taken. Therefore, it is very important to pause in our debate tonight to consider these young people.

What is so troubling is that while we talk about the war on drugs, and the United States regularly talks about the war on drugs along the border with Mexico border and all that is happening there, in Iran its drug laws are being used to take out the leadership and the activists who are giving voice to the fight and struggle for democracy.

I think that part of the context we need to look at is era of 1979. It was a different time and place and there was a different regime in power. There was a student uprising that was very effective, but the clerics took it over. Today, the current uprising will be very much at odds with the clerics, who are very much a part of the power structure.

Thus we are now seeing a different kind of push for democracy than in the other countries we have just seen. They are facing a much different government. The risks are high and the level of courage required by these young people is great, particularly now, after the brutal way in which people were put down following the election, including the disappearance and torture of young people. One witness described how a woman went to pick up the body of her son at a makeshift mortuary in a meat plant, only to find hundreds of bodies there. Many of them were disfigured from various forms of torture.

I know that part of this has already been put into the record, but I want to speak for a moment or two in regard to the subcommittee report. We held 16 meetings and concluded a report on the state of affairs in Iran. As I recall, it was put forward in December of 2010. I would like to read a bit from the executive summary of that report. It says:

In the summer of 2009, Canadians and the rest of the international community looked on with concern as Iranian security forces cracked down on protesters in the wake of that country's June 12 presidential election.

If we can imagine for a moment, what we actually saw on our TV screens was probably to some degree a sanitized version and only the cellphone pictures that got out were showing the reality of what was happening on the streets.

We all remember the young woman who was, to some extent, just standing by when she was shot by one of the security people. The video of that went viral on the Internet. I believe we can see it on YouTube. The sadness we felt when we saw that young woman's life bleeding away on the ground was in knowing that it was the revolution or the push for democracy that was bleeding with her, because the security forces were being very successful at that point in putting this down and controlling it. Over a period of time we saw, with sadness, it fade.

It did not mean that the people gave up on their need for democracy and to stop the tyranny that comes from this particular regime, but that election gave us a very rare glimpse inside a country that is very controlling.

The dramatic protests in Iran last summer and the response of those Iranian forces and authorities, and then the reaction of the international community, gave our subcommittee a focus to revisit that report again. At the end of the summer, we thought we were finished and yet we had to go back and look at it some more in the context of the more recent events. Again, as I just indicated, we have done the same thing this week.

This is an ongoing tragedy on the one hand, but the courage of the citizens of Iran is uplifting on the other hand, so it draws us back. It is somewhat like that line from The Godfather when they were talking about the man who was trying to get out but kept getting pulled back. The striving for democracy in this country does exactly that to anyone who takes the time to study it, or even to those engaged in casual discussions with friends. We cannot help but go back to the struggle of these people.

Our committee was very concerned with the deteriorating rights in that country. We broadened our study to the mistreatment of the Iranian population itself, which I think, if we consider the number of executions, is putting Iran on the level of China. In the world we tend to point to China as the place with the most repression on the face of the earth, but we have to pull ourselves back to what is happening in Iran at this point in time and say that it is very similar.

We heard from expert witnesses and human right activists representing non-governmental organizations, academics and lawyers, and in light of their testimony the subcommittee made a number of recommendations. In our assessment, we recognized that the regime has a long history of systemic and widespread violations of the human rights of its own people.

The abuses violate the population's right to life and freedom from discrimination based on religion. For example, the Baha'is, the Jews and the Christians in that country live a very quiet life, trying not to draw any attention to themselves at all, because there are huge penalties to be paid.

There is discrimination according to sex, language, sexual orientation and political opinion. Normally we talk about political parties where there is dissent, but if someone is expressing a political opinion that is not in line with the regime's, they are opening themselves to horrific torture. It should be noted that oftentimes the Iranian regime is violating its own country's laws. That is how far it is prepared to take it.

The recording and reporting of these violations has been problematic, because domestic human rights organizations are routinely shut down. Government officials, journalists and activists are regularly harassed. I think it goes beyond harassment in many cases.

One of the people who spoke to our committee was Shirin Ebadi, who has been before our committee twice. We were struck by the courage of this woman.

I am getting the signal to wrap up. I am just beginning. I had a ton of notes and got a little carried away.

However, that is the important part of what we have to understand, the need for a passion in support of these people.

[Pensions, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, with the deadline for RRSPs just around the corner reminding Canadians, they are very worried about their retirement. After years of Liberal and Conservative neglect, the Canada pension plan will not be enough.

Many middle-class families cannot afford to buy RRSPs and those that can, cannot afford the high fees plus the HST. The Canada pension plan must be expanded. It is our most secure, reliable and least costly option.

When will this government expand the CPP so that all Canadians, regardless of income, can retire with dignity?

[Seeds Regulation Act, February 8th, 2011]

I certainly will abide by that, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to stand this evening to offer my perspective on Bill C-474 which was tabled by the member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

Members will know that Bill C-474 calls for an amendment to the Seed 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”. Members will also know that this amendment was introduced because currently safety alone is the basis for the approval of genetically engineered crops for human consumption and environmental release. At this time there is no consideration given to any potential harm to Canada's export markets and the resultant economic harm to Canadian farmers.

I represent the urban riding of Hamilton East--Stoney Creek and I have been receiving emails and calls from farmers across the country who are concerned and want a fulsome debate on Bill C-474.

In the fall of 2009, our European customers, as well as Canadian farmers, found that an illegal genetically engineered flax seed called CDC Triffid had contaminated Canadian flax exports. The result was that 35 countries were contaminated. I should point out that these European countries have a zero tolerance policy for unapproved GE crops and products. So we can understand how this incident would destabilize Canadian exports.

Almost immediately, European countries began removing our products from their shelves and quarantined all shipments of flax from Canada. With 60% of our flax exports going to Europe, the almost immediate impact was a plummeting in the price of flax. To this day, the market is still uncertain and Canadian farmers are now being forced by this situation to pay for testing and cleanup.

Earlier we heard the member for Winnipeg Centre express his concern with the fact that there seemed to be an effort to shut down debate on Bill C-474. I share his concern.

Recently, Monsanto has re-launched its genetically engineered wheat research. Our international customers that buy 82% of Canada's wheat crops say that they will stop buying wheat from us, GE and non-GE alike, if we allow the introduction of GE wheat. Why in the world would any member of the House not want to debate something that has such serious ramifications? I am astounded by it. Monsanto is also poised to introduce genetically engineered alfalfa into the U.S. and Canada.

We have had speakers tonight from the government side and we have had speakers from the NDP side but where are the rest of the members of this House? Why are they not debating this?

I want to be clear. Monsanto has been awarded the necessary health and environmental approvals and now there is only variety registration left to do before genetically engineered alfalfa can be legally sold in Canada. There is a broad consensus in the farming community growing alfalfa that the introduction of genetically modified alfalfa would be highly destructive for growers of conventional and organic alfalfa.

One thing we will not hear from the purveyors of genetically modified products is an acknowledgement of the market reality that exists internationally toward genetically modified crops.

The recent loss of our flax markets due to that contamination clearly demonstrates that GM technology is not accepted by our major export markets and so not only does it not have any economic value whatsoever but presents an unacceptable high risk to our farmers and growers across Canada. It is little wonder that they are contacting members of Parliament and asking why we are not debating this issue and why we are not speaking up. They are shocked because we have members on all sides of this House who purport to stand up for farmers but where are they tonight?

We know that the likelihood of negotiations leading to lower tolerance levels in other countries is far from guaranteed.

Simply put, Canadian farmers cannot rely on such an unlikely future change in policy as it leaves them no protection whatsoever. Would it not be more prudent for our government to take concrete measures to protect our export markets?

Industry warns that introducing politics into genetically modified foods approvals in Canada would be terrible. That is when the representatives elected by the people stand in this place and do our best to protect our interests when the government clearly is not prepared to do so.

What are the economic realities for farmers if GM alfalfa or GM wheat are introduced, for example? There is the very significant possibility of a market closure and for farmers that is an unacceptable risk. Do we introduce new GM crops at any cost, even if that cost is the loss of our own markets?

Canadians had to stand by and watch as the softwood lumber agreement led to the shutdown of much of Canada's softwood lumber industry. Much of our production of softwood lumber is completely gone. Why would we want to see the same thing happening to Canada's farmers?

The reality is that GM contamination happens and that is hurting Canadian farmers. Flax farmers knew that the threat of the GM contamination was a very real danger to their European markets and, unfortunately, now we know they were correct.

There is nothing in our current regulations to prevent the commercialization of GM seeds that we now know would lead to economic disaster for Canadian farmers. The biotech industry may wish to avoid this economic reality but the Canadian people's government should not have that luxury.

Bill C-474 is meant to ensure that the government provides an analysis of the level of market acceptance before permitting the introduction of new GM seeds. That would be a very prudent step in the face of what has happened in the European market. I believe it is necessary to ensure that farmers are protected from unwanted GM contamination that could actually destroy their businesses.

Today, it seems that the Conservative government believes that the biotech industry should be the only industry with any real say over marketing decisions on GM seeds. One might ask how our government came to confer this enormous privilege on big biotech. Devlin Kuyek, a researcher from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, who has written extensively on the seed system in Canada, recently provided the standing committee with his views on this particular matter. He noted that billions of taxpayer dollars had been spent over the last 30 years to support biotech companies and that, at the same time, public plant breeding programs had been slashed or privatized.

The NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior found it very disturbing that we had not had a full and democratic debate at committee because it was shut down.

It is completely unacceptable that witnesses from any country brought to Ottawa at taxpayer expense to provide testimony were turned away from the committee's door when they had arrived to make their presentations. What kind of slap in the face is that and what reputation will Canada have if it proceeds with the support of Monsanto and big biotech, resulting in the loss of the Canadian family farm.

[Seeds Regulation Act, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask your guidance. I know we are not allowed, in this place, to talk about members who are not here. However, are we allowed to say that two Conservatives are here, that the NDP is speaking and that there are no—

[Volunteer Service Medal, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lance Corporal Joyce Robertson.

This coming Friday, February 11, Mrs. Robertson will be presented with the Canadian volunteer service medal. As we know, the Canadian volunteer service medal was created to honour those citizens who gave of their time and in many cases their lives for Canada during World War II.

Mrs. Robertson was one of the original individuals who, many years ago in 1943, posed for the Canadian volunteer medal. To this day her image still appears on the far right of the medal. Now, at 85 years of age, Joyce Robertson herself will receive the volunteer service medal in a ceremony at the Stoney Creek Legion which is located in my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

I take great personal pride in being able to stand in this House to offer, on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and all Canadians, our thanks to Mrs. Robertson for her service to Canada.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I said in my remarks is that the NDP supports multilateral agreements, but we also support sectoral trade agreements. An example of that would have been Auto Pact, which served Canada well for years and, to a great extent, the surrounding industries. The parts industries were all sustained by that particular agreement that was allowed to lapse in recent years. That was an example of sectoral trade. We do not need to put all our eggs in the one basket of the free trade agreement, particularly in a relationship such as we have with the United States. In those famous words that a free trade agreement is great, like an elephant with a mouse, until the elephant decides to roll over.

We saw that in the capitulation of the present government in that softwood trade deal to which the member referred. We were winning time and again at the World Trade Organization. We were up for what would have been the next win. Everybody was sure that would happen so they signed the deal.

I toured B.C. with my pensions tour and in community after community workers from those mills came forward telling us how they had lost their pensions because of that particular side agreement. In the famous words of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, “the softwood sellout”.

In many instances, the trade agreements that we have been signing as a country have sold out human rights and have sold out the workers in the countries with which we are partnering. We should not be standing, as a country for anything less than equal human rights for all workers in both countries.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that prior to being a member here in 1988 I fought against the Canada free trade agreement. I am very proud to have done so because that free trade agreement ultimately failed Canadian workers. That trade agreement cost Canadians.

I see the Liberal member sitting there laughing at the fact that 504,000 Ontario workers lost their jobs because of the Canada free trade agreement. I do not think they are laughing.

As we look at the subsequent agreements, yes, the investment community may have done well in these but family after family across this country were practically destroyed by those agreements.

I am proud to say that I fought the trade agreement in 1988 and that I fought it again in 1993 when the Liberals said that they would not support NAFTA and turned around and sold out Canadian workers.