Rob Merrifield

[Interparliamentary Delegations, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation at the 47th Canadian-American Days, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, United States of America, March 25-30, 2008.

[Committees of the House, May 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents).

[Food and Drugs Act, May 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in debate and add my voice on behalf of the people of Yellowhead in regard to this private member's bill, Bill C-517.

I have to qualify my remarks prior to proceeding. I have worked with genetically modified foods. I have farmed all my life. I have also worked with conventionally grown crops and have a background in understanding crop development, how species grow, and what benefits or risks may exist with regard to genetically modified foods, as I have had the experience of growing them for several years.

On first looking at this bill, the question has to be asked: what is the problem with labelling the food that is grown and products that are on our shelves in Canada? My argument is that whatever label goes on those products has to be accurate. It cannot be misleading. It must inform the consumer in Canada as to exactly what they are eating and the risks that may or may not be associated with foods.

This is where I would like to start my remarks, because Canada has some of the very best foods in the world. Canadians know that, but they need to be reminded, and I am reminding them here and now that we have some of the safest and best quality food products in the world. That is important, because so many in the population now do not grow their own foods. That generational shift has happened over the last couple of generations in Canada and around the world.

Therefore, it is more important now than ever before that the safety measures are in place to ensure that safety is never compromised. Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency together have the mandate to make sure the products on our shelves are as safe as they can possibly be.

The OECD nations, as well as the World Health Organization and the FAO of the UN, all have worked together on genetically modified foods to make sure there are standards and an agreement not only in Canada but around the world and across many jurisdictions to make sure these products are safe.

The argument is this. If there is any health risk at all with genetically modified foods, we should not just label them but eliminate them. If there is not a risk, we should accept them and use them as an advantage for our crops and foods so that we provide them not only for Canadians but our trading partners.

It is also important to know that when a genetically modified food is put on our shelves or examined by either Health Canada or the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, there is an extensive seven year process of analyzing, assessing and determining whether the product meets the safety standards in Canada. It is very important to understand that.

Some labelling of our food is very important. We fully recognize that when it comes to allergens. Some foods contain allergens and it important to label them because they can cause serious health risks for consumers. We make sure those allergenic foods are labelled. It is very important to do so.

With what we are seeing with genetically modified foods development in Canada and around the world, it is crucial that we understand the risks and perhaps the benefits, because if we do not understand them, then we are really not fully understanding as consumers what we are trying to do.

My fear is that if we put a label on genetically modified foods the electorate would not quite understand what it means. In fact, I would suggest that there is a real strong debate, both in this room by many members of Parliament and by members of the public, as to what is a genetically modified food. Is it just a food that has been developed by taking better foods and the best of generation after generation to enhance the performance of that commodity? That is one way of doing it.

When a food is genetically modified, we can be looking for dealing with a pesticide that is much safer and easier to use. One way of genetically modifying some of the canolas that we have been working with is to spray a light amount of pesticide on them. Those plants that survive are bred to one another so that eventually a product is developed that is resistant to that herbicide or pesticide.

That is one way of doing it. We have seen some tremendous advancements in some of the canola products that we grow in Canada. In fact, canola is a Canadian product, and that is why I refer to it. It is our own invention, which has provided a tremendous product. It is one of the lowest saturated fat food products on the planet. Compared to corn, which is about 20% saturated fats, soy, which is about 15%, and palm oil, which is about 50%, canola is only 7%. It is a tremendous alternative to some foods we have.

While we are looking at labelling, I note that there is a massive debate going on in the House and across Canada as to whether we should get rid of trans fats. A perfect alternative to trans fats is to move to non-hydrogenated canola oil, which is 7% saturated fat rather than 50%.

As we move away from trans fats, we are looking for options that will be healthier for the population. I say that in the context of why it is so important that we label. We have moved to labelling on trans fats. Why? Because trans fats are not healthy and there is scientific evidence that they should not be in the marketplace. The food industry is checking itself by making sure the consumer is not having an overabundance of trans fats. We have moved so that at least 40% and probably closer to 50% of the trans fats are eliminated from our diet.

Genetically modified foods are different from that. After 14 years or more of those products being on our shelves, and after 20 years or more of genetically modified foods being in our products, there has yet to be scientific research that shows those novel foods are less safe than the conventional ones. In fact, the last study that I saw was out of Europe. Europe has not embraced genetically modified foods, although France is now starting to flirt with using genetically modified corn and so on, so it is progressing. To date, though, I would say that broadly the continent has said no, that it will shy away from genetically modified foods.

However, this study in Europe took place over 15 years for 400 different genetically modified products. The final analysis showed that the genetically modified food was healthier than the conventional foods, because much less pesticide was used. In the long run, the product was much safer as far as the health of the individual was concerned.

I am concerned as a farmer and as a Canadian about the amount of pesticides we use. When we use a genetically modified food we are using the highest of technology as far as the new pesticide products are concerned. There are virtually zero residuals. Some of the pesticides that I used to use on the farm had seven-year residuals. They would stay in the soil for seven years before they would break down. Some of the new ones now are neutralized on contact. There have been tremendous advancements in the safety of the technology of the pesticides that we use today compared to what has been used in the past.

Why is that important? Because this is not only about the safety of food. It is about the environment. If I have a concern about genetically modified foods, it does not lie in the safety of the food but in the environment. It is about making sure that we are not creating a “super plant” that could get away from us.

There are 10 groups of pesticides that we use. On the farm, we start by using one group. Then we get some resistance and a mutation in the plants and we have to go to a different group of pesticides to be able to counter that. Therefore, we have to make sure that the balance is there, that we do not grow a super plant that creates a problem in the environment and causes tremendous havoc in the agriculture community.

I am a little concerned about that with genetically modified foods, but I am also very confident that Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are watching that very closely. To date I have not seen a significant problem on that side of it. One of the reasons is that the technology has allowed for a terminator gene to be put in so that the new generation of those seeds is not allowed to reproduce and cause that kind of problem.

I said earlier that it is important to have truth in labelling. We must realize that 75% of the processed food on the shelves in Canada contains some degree of genetically modified foods or novelty foods. Therefore, if we are concerned about eating genetically modified foods, then there should be truth in labelling.

The only reality and truth that we could find in labelling would be to use what is a growing industry, which is organic foods. Organic foods not only have virtually no genetically modified foods in them, but they have zero pesticides. The option is there for the consumer.

However, if we were to put a label of genetically modified foods on every product in Canada, we would be misleading the consumer. We would be saying to the consumer that we are a little concerned about genetically modified foods or we would not be putting this on a label, and that the foods do not meet all the safety standards, which they do.

I am all for truth and I am all for more information for the consumer, but it has to be real information. This piece of legislation, although well intended, is going in the wrong direction, I believe, because it makes this compulsory. I believe we need to make sure we have the options for the consumer. If consumers are nervous about genetically modified foods, they can go to organic foods. If not, then leave it the way it is.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group respecting its participation at the National Governors Association winter meeting in Washington, D.C., from February 23 to 25.

[Committees of the House, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Finance in relation to a study on assistance for the manufacturing and forestry sectors.

[Business of Supply, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to add my voice to this debate.

I am sharing my time with the hon. member for St. Catharines , a wonderful member of the finance committee. I have gotten to know him very well. His talent is certainly appreciated by all the members of the committee. He is a well respected member on that committee. It is really good to see that members, such as the member, work hard at making sure the country brings in good, reasonable laws for their ridings. It is a privilege for me to chair that committee. We try to lower the temperature politically as much as we possibly can so we can deal with issues that come to us.

The motion brought forward by the Bloc is an interesting one. On this motion we are talking about the review of the securities regulatory system. I want to talk about the expert panel that was set up to deal with this. I want to add my voice to explain how that expert panel was set up and the quality of the people who are on it. I want to talk a little about what that means for Quebec and for all of Canada.

It is interesting to hear some of the rhetoric and the opposition with regard to the panel and how it is being set up. It almost makes it sound as though there were a conspiracy by the federal government against certain areas of the country or certain provinces. That is absolutely not true. It is being done in a collaborative way. It is not about trying to assert control. It is about trying to collaborate with the provinces and territories in the best interests of the country so that we have a plan in this country that actually works and works well.

It is not something we have sprung on the country by any means. The Minister of Finance had it well laid out in budget 2007. This is something we are working on with the provinces and territories so that we can adapt a new approach to have a common securities regulations system in this country.

It goes back to June 19, 2007 when the government convened a meeting with the provinces and territories. They were all part of this right from the very beginning. At that meeting the Minister of Finance highlighted recent achievements in implementing the capital markets plan.

In a statement following that meeting the Government of Canada announced that it would be setting up a third party expert group to advise on five areas. I will lay them out so that the House knows exactly what is going on.

The first one is the outcomes, principles and performance measures that will best anchor securities regulation and the pursuit of a Canadian advantage in capital markets. Second is how Canada could best promote and advance proportionate, more principles-based regulation, starting from existing harmonized legislation and national and multilateral regulatory instruments. Third is how this progress could facilitate, and be reinforced by, better coordination of enforcement efforts. The enforcement of these rules have to be very important. Fourth is how this approach to regulation could be implemented--let me emphasize this for members--under a passport or under a common securities regulator. Fifth is the transition path, including key steps and timelines, that participating provinces and territories could adopt to effect proposed changes to the content, structure and enforcement of regulation.

The panel will provide a concrete proposal. It is not to be some vague obscure model that will be brought forward, but a model common securities act based on advice from recognized experts for discussion among the federal and provincial ministers.That is what the panel hopefully will come forward with.

What will it do? This will help in building a consensus across the country. Why is that important? It will give the opportunity for capital markets to be established for the common securities regulatory system to work in the best interests of this country.

That does not sound to me like federal interference. It sounds like the minister is doing his very best to make sure that we have legislation that is working in the best interests of the country and for all parts of the country.

I come from the west. We deal with issues that are different from province to province. Canada is not an easy place to govern. We have to respect that it has many diverse areas, but we do so at our own peril at times. For example, trade between provinces is more restricted than trade with other countries such as the United States. Sometimes it is easier to work with outside nations than it is to work within our own borders. That is because we are governed by different rules.

A perfect example is one that is routinely debated in this House, which is the Wheat Board. From an agricultural perspective, it is very different to grow a crop of wheat in the west compared to growing a crop of wheat in Ontario, Quebec or Atlantic Canada, as to what regulations govern that and what they mean and how that disadvantages certain areas of the country.

I had the opportunity to chair the health committee for a number of years. I also worked in the health field for a number of years. Doctors cannot move from one province to another because of the regulations and that hurts the country.

This illustrates what is happening with respect to security on the financial side and the rules which govern that in this country.

This is an important issue. It has nothing to do with Quebec. It has nothing to do with whether or not Quebec will win under this. This is for the people of Quebec, Atlantic Canada, Ontario and the rest of Canada as well.

This government has appointed some very good people to the panel. One might argue that the government might be biased because we are appointing people who are biased and therefore the outcome will be biased. That is not the case whatsoever. Some very capable people are on this panel. The panel will bring forward a recommendation by the end of this year. It is not something that will happen over a long period of time. The panel is going to be focused. The recommendation will be acted on as quickly as possible. The panel will be doing important work.

It is also important that we as members of this House understand what is being debated here. It is important that we understand the issues that are behind the reason for this panel. Hopefully, we will be able to support everything that comes out of it.

I want to spend a bit of time explaining who some of the individuals are that will be sitting on the panel and tasked with this work. This is really important to clarify so people are comfortable with these individuals.

The chair of this panel is Tom Hockin, who led the Investment Funds Institute of Canada and the Canadian Institute of Financial Planning from 1994 to 2006. As a former minister of international trade he carried out the negotiations on the side accords of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993. His work has left a lasting economic legacy in Quebec and all of Canada, and in fact, in the United States and Mexico as well. Mr. Hockin will be assisted by very capable and respected members.

One such member is Denis Desautels, former auditor general of Canada from 1991 to 2001 and chairman of the board of Laurentian Bank of Canada, and a board member of Bombardier, Le Groupe Jean Coutu and the International Development Research Centre.

Another individual on this panel is Hal Kvisle, president and CEO of TransCanada corporation and a member of the board of directors of the Bank of Montreal. He is a very capable individual. His credentials speak for themselves.

Ian D. Bruce, the chief executive officer of Peters and Co., and a former member of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy is another member of the panel.

Dawn Russell, associate professor and former dean of law at Dalhousie University is a very capable member.

Terry Salman, chairman, president and CEO of Salman Partners and former chair of the Investment Dealers Association of Canada is a member.

Heather Zordel, a partner at Cassels Brock and Blackwell is a member of the panel.

They are the individuals who make up the panel. There is no secret here. They are very credible individuals. They are people we should be able to put our trust in. The recommendations they bring forward are exactly that, recommendations. They will be brought here to be dealt with by the minister who will have the wealth of their knowledge to be able to make a decision that is in the best interests of the country. But that is not all. They also have the opportunity of having some experts contribute to the panel. They include Howard Davies, the director of the London School of Economics and David Green, adviser of international affairs at the Financial Reporting Council, head of international policy coordination, EU affairs, and many other things. Peter Hogg is the other member.

It is very important that we give them the opportunity to advise an approach in full respect of all the regions of Canada, not a fragmented system that exists today but that we look at making sure that we do what is in the best interests of every province as a whole in Canada. We need to make sure that we do not make the mistakes that we made in our country with trade between provinces. We need to make sure that we have common regulations that work in the best interests of this country from coast to coast to coast. That is the objective. That is what needs to take place. That is what we are debating today and the Bloc's opposition to this is ill-founded.

[Committees of the House, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to study Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

[Petitions, March 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was unable to be here at the time you asked for reports from committee, so I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to go back to reports from committee. I have a report from the finance committee.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Medicine Hat.

It is great that in this 39th Parliament we have brought forward our third budget, led by a minister who is doing a great job in finance. It was a privilege for me to serve as the chair of the finance committee and deal very closely with the budget. The committee had an opportunity to impact the budget in a significant way. I would now like to discuss that.

I want to say how pleased I am to see so many of the opposition members who have indicated that they will support this budget. That shows the confidence that they have, not only in the minister but in our Prime Minister and this government.

I want to talk about the prebudget consultations which originated under Standing Order 83.1. This allows the finance committee to go across Canada to talk with ordinary Canadians and ask them for their input on what they see as proper things to put in a budget. We listened closely to over 400 different organizations and individuals. At least 200 organizations and individuals gave presentations directly to the committee as it travelled from coast to coast to coast and we listened to their concerns.

We were pressured this year because of the prorogation of the House and therefore we had to accelerate the timelines somewhat. The timetable was intense but we were able to hear the 200 witnesses. Some people have said that we simply went through the motions and that the finance minister was not listening. They know that recommendations were made but they wonder whether the finance minister heard them.

I would like the House to understand exactly what the minister did hear and what he recommended. The committee members were not always unanimous in our recommendations but we did try to lower the political temperature in the committee so that the committee could come forward with issues that were important to Canadians.

Of the 37 recommendations that the committee put forward to the House, we see 22 of them in the budget that were actually fulfilled. That is a very good count. It shows the importance that the minister places in the work that is being done at the committee stage on behalf of all Canadians.

I want to talk about some of the specific recommendations, such as the accelerated capital cost allowance for manufacturers, understanding the pressures they are under and the opportunity they now have to compete in our increasingly competitive global atmosphere. This is a recommendation that the committee unanimously recommended wholeheartedly and it is great to see it in the budget.

We heard a lot of talk about the millennium scholarship fund coming to an end and many people have asked the government what it would do with it. I have had students in my office telling me that they had some serious problems with the millennium scholarship fund because it was not actually delivering where it should.

The committee recommended that fund be changed and increased by $350 million, which is exactly what happened in the budget. The new program will increase the amount of money that 245,000 students will receive and that amount will escalate to $430 million by 2012.

The committee studied recommendations for seniors and their opportunities in this budget. Most people understand that some of our seniors are having a difficult time with inflation. We believe that seniors should have the opportunity to stay in their own homes. Seniors are asking what the government is doing to assist them.

Seniors from across Canada made presentations to the committee and said that they wanted to be able to participate in the workplace but that they did not want their GIS to be clawed back. They said that there should be no negative incentive. The budget addresses that issue by increasing the amount earned from $500 to $3,500 before there is any clawback in GIS.

Those are good news stories from the lower end, the beginning of the workplace, from students right to our seniors.

What is the government doing with the people in-between? The budget contains some significant things concerning our loan programs and giving our citizens the opportunity to look after themselves and save for future years.

I also want to impress upon this House how pleased I am with one of the committee's unanimous recommendations, which is on the road to excellence of the Canadian Olympic committee. We wanted to ensure that was in the budget so we, as Canadians, would have the opportunity to show ourselves as the best in the world. Our Olympics do a tremendous job for this country. The Olympic committee presented, very forcefully and very effectively at the committee, and hats off to it.

I want to quote what one past Olympian had to say about our budget. He said, “Our Canadian athletes are striving to be among the world's best, and these funds will definitely bolster their quest for excellence.

It is great to see that happening.

When we have heard so much about this budget being so partisan, so idealistic and so very right wing in its focus, it is amazing to hear the Premier of the Province of Manitoba, Mr. Gary Doer, a New Democrat, which I see as an extreme left position, saying how impressed he is. In fact, he said, “We're pleased that the capital depreciation for manufacturing equipment has been extended a year. That's an advantage that our manufacturers will have in the future”.

It is really good news when we see those kinds of things come forward.

When I go home to my riding and speak to individuals, one of the things they are most proud of in this budget, and which I am most proud of, is the tax-free savings account which gives a couple the opportunity to put up to $10,000 into a savings account that can grow tax free. Over a period of years, that will be significant.

I do not think many Canadians realize this but, according to the OECD countries, Canadians' household savings rate has dropped from 13% in 1992 to 2.5% just 15 years later, as of 2007 statistics. We have had a significant decrease in the amount of savings that each household has, which puts us in a position where, if there were a downturn in the economy, our ordinary citizens could potentially get themselves into some serious trouble. We are seeing enough trouble with our largest trading partner, the United States, and what is happening south of the border. This savings account will certainly give an opportunity for the people of Canada to do a much better job saving money.

I have many forestry and manufacturing communities in my riding. In fact, I do not think there is a community in my riding that is not impacted by the forest sector. Those communities are going through a terribly difficult time. It is sort of the perfect storm in forestry and manufacturing but it is great to see what we have done in this budget with regard to that. The perfect storm is the slow down in the demand for their products south of the border and also the rise of our Canadian dollar against the American dollar which puts them at a real disadvantage because it has moved so fast in such a short period of time.

We also know that the mountain pine beetle has a significant impact on the forest sector, particularly in my riding.

The perfect storm has come and it has rested on this industry. It is great to see that we put, in this budget and prior to this budget, $1 billion in a community trust fund to help those communities. The Alberta portion of that will be over $100 million in that trust. It is great to see not only that fund there to support the industry, but also the accelerated capital cost allowance.

[Committees of the House, February 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, related to Bill C-207, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for new graduates working in designated regions).