36th Parliament, 2nd Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 88
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 2, 2000
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| Taxation
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| National Highway System
|
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Abortion Statistics
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
1010
| Bill C-23
|
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
| QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Motion
|
1015
1020
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1025
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1030
1035
| Amendment
|
1040
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1045
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
1050
1055
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1100
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1105
| Mr. Reed Elley |
1110
1115
1120
1125
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1130
1135
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1140
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1145
1150
| Mr. John O'Reilly |
1155
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1200
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1205
1210
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Mr. Greg Thompson |
1215
1220
| Mr. Nelson Riis |
1225
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
1230
1235
1240
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1245
1250
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1255
1300
1305
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1310
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
1315
1320
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1325
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
1330
1335
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1340
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1345
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| CANADIAN ETHNOCULTURAL COUNCIL
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| BOYD ANDERSON
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1400
| MIDDLE EAST
|
| Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
| NATIONAL CANADIAN LIBERATION MONUMENT
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| AL PURDY
|
| Mr. Rick Limoges |
1405
| MASCOUCHE
|
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY
|
| Mr. Irwin Cotler |
| NATIONAL CANADIAN LIBERATION MONUMENT
|
| Mr. Jim Hart |
| DANIEL PLOUFFE
|
| Mr. Denis Paradis |
| VIETNAM WAR
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1410
| INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
|
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
| CHILDREN
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
| ROSEMARY KATHLEEN HERRON
|
| Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
| I AM CANADIAN
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO THE MIDDLE EAST
|
| Mr. Yvon Charbonneau |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ACOA
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
1420
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. George S. Baker |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1425
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
| PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
1435
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| ORGANIZED CRIME
|
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. John Reynolds |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| CINAR
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Martin Cauchon |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1440
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Hon. Elinor Caplan |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| FINANCE
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| FOREIGN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1445
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
| Hon. Maria Minna |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1450
| JUSTICE
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| GUN CONTROL
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1455
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PATENTED MEDICINES
|
| Mr. John Solomon |
| Hon. John Manley |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| SPORTS
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1500
| EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
| Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
| Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1505
| SUPPLY
|
| Allotted Day—Genetically Modified Foods
|
| Motion
|
| Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1510
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1515
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1520
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1525
1530
1535
1540
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1545
| Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1550
1555
1600
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1605
1610
| Hon. Gilbert Normand |
1615
| Mr. Serge Cardin |
1620
1625
1630
| Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1635
| Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1640
1645
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1650
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1655
| Mr. David Price |
1700
1705
| Mr. Joe McGuire |
1710
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1715
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1720
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
|
| Bill C-223. Second reading
|
1800
(Division 1278)
| Motion agreed to
|
1805
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| Motion
|
1810
1815
1820
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1825
| Mr. Tom Wappel |
1830
1835
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1840
1845
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1850
1855
| Mr. John Maloney |
| Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1900
1905
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Gasoline Prices
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1910
| Foreign Affairs
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
1915
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| National Parks
|
| Mr. Dennis Gruending |
1920
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| Fisheries
|
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1925
| Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien |
| Human Resources Development
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
1930
| Ms. Bonnie Brown |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 88
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, May 2, 2000
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
TAXATION
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise pursuant to
Standing Order 36 to present a petition.
I have not counted them, but there must be tens of thousands of
signatures here of people who are very concerned about taxes.
They have just filed their tax returns and are very concerned
about the unfair nature of our tax system.
They are calling on the government to launch a complete overhaul
of our tax system based on the Carter commission of quite a few
years ago now. They are asking for a fair tax system.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, the second petition I want to present is
on another matter. There are fewer petitioners but still quite a
number from Kamloops.
They are calling on the federal government to launch a national
highway system, recognizing that national transportation
infrastructure leads to improved quality of life through greater
productivity, trade opportunities, job creation and tourism
opportunities.
ABORTION STATISTICS
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege to present to the
House a petition from 100 concerned citizens from my riding of
Cambridge.
They wish to draw to the attention of the House that the
collection of publications and abortion statistics are vital in
order to study various health implications associated with
abortion.
The petitioners pray and request that the Parliament of Canada
act immediately to request the provision of Canada's annual
abortion statistics.
1010
BILL C-23
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to
present a petition that is a little late. The petitioners pray
that parliament withdraw Bill C-23, affirm the opposite sex
definition of marriage in legislation and ensure that marriage is
recognized as a unique institution.
* * *
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 24 could be made an order for return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Question No. 24—Mr. Garry Breitkreuz:
Could the government
provide a list of the contracts and the value of each of these
contracts entered into between the Government of Canada and/or
its Agencies and KPMG Peat Marwick Thorne and its affiliates for
each of the years from 1992 to 1999?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ) moved:
That this House urge the government to demonstrate
openness with regard to genetically modified organisms, starting
by making it mandatory to label genetically modified foods or
foods containing genetically modified ingredients, in order to
enable Canadians to make informed choices about the foods they
eat.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is important to speak today on
the issue of genetically modified organisms.
Before I begin my speech, I would like to indicate that I will
be sharing my time with my colleague from Jonquière, and
throughout the day, all speakers from my party will be splitting
time with colleagues.
This is an important day for me because I am constantly
concerned about genetically modified organisms and felt it was
important for us all to have a day to reflect on GMOs in the
House.
Before proceeding, it would be wise to remind hon. members of
the definition of GMOs. Genetically modified organisms are
living organisms to which a gene that is foreign to them has
been added, one from their species or another species. This
gene confers upon them new properties they did not initially
possess.
Normally these properties serve to improve the role they play,
such as reducing the need for herbicides, insecticides, lowering
cholesterol content, or raising something else, but it is
important to realize that their properties are changed by the
addition of this new gene.
There is need for this matter to be examined more thoroughly.
The GMOs came on the scene rapidly. Five years ago there were
none on the market, while today they are found in a variety of
processed foods.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency acknowledges that about 70%
of the foods we eat at the present time contain traces, or far
greater amounts, of GMOs. They have become just part of our
landscape, part of the things we eat, but most of the time we
are not aware of their presence.
1015
In all these modified foods, there is never a label to help us
identify what we are eating. In North America there are all
sorts of information on the food we eat: cholesterol free,
contains cholesterol, sugar free, contains additives, and so on,
whereas with genetically modified food, no label is required.
Furthermore, while the government talks of transparency,
all this landed on our shelves unbeknownst to consumers, without
their being informed. I would say that it is only in the past
year that consumers have begun to take a serious interest in
this issue.
Public concern is justified because it is understandable to be
worried about something we are unfamiliar with.
There is also a lack of knowledge on the effects of GMOs. In
its speeches, the government is trying to be reassuring. It
tells us that there is no effect, no one has died yet. It tells us
not to worry. We should trust biotechnology.
I would like to, but people the world over are asking questions,
be it the members of the American Academy of Sciences, the 200
scientists with Health Canada or the entire European community.
They are saying “Careful, we should prove that there is no
effect on human health, the environment or agriculture before we
allow these products to circulate”.
Currently 42 have already been accepted in Canada. According to
the deputy minister, 500 are on a waiting list ready to be
accepted in Canada. This whole situation creates a reasonable
doubt about the government's approval and inspection process for
genetically modified organisms and about the middle and long
term effects of these products.
Today is kind of an anniversary for me. It has been one year
since I began fighting in the House and in committee to have a
debate on this issue. After being initially fruitless and
misunderstood, these representations are beginning to give
results. The support received from consumers and the public, that
is the people whom we represent, is a great source of motivation
for me. Now, this issue is being discussed more openly, and we
must continue to talk about it until we achieve a level of
transparency and until there is mandatory labelling for
transgenic foods.
There have been trends and movements about this issue. Nowadays,
if we do not directly support this technological advance, as it
is called, we are said to be emotional. That has been the case
from the outset. Now, we are labelled as people who do not
understand anything about the American new deal, about
globalization. We are told that we should be at the forefront
regarding this issue, that we should not ask questions relating
to ethics, health or regulations, but get on side.
In an article published in today's edition of Le Devoir, I read
the following:
Those who do not agree with that view feel crushed and
overwhelmed by the progress made and they simply do not know
what is at stake. Save for a few exceptions, those who are
opposed to GMOs are labelled activists and their legitimate
concern is perceived as “fear”.
If there is someone in this House who is not afraid, it is me.
However, when I think of my children and grandchildren, I would
never forgive myself if some day it was discovered that,
because of a lack of knowledge, a lack of experimentation—if we
have a scientific approach on one side, we must take the same
approach on the other side, if we are critics—we missed something
and created a monster instead of improving the plight of human
beings.
It is not a case of being emotional, of being afraid, or of not
understanding globalization. This is a very serious issue that
has not, and this is unfortunate, been taken seriously enough by
the scientific community and by parliamentarians in this House
so far.
1020
This is what I am trying to achieve—I asked myself who stood to
gain in the end. When one asks oneself this question, the
answer is obvious: multinationals first and foremost. There is
no doubt about it. I have nothing against multinationals making
money but I would also like to see consumers derive some
benefit. So far, unfortunately, there is no evidence that
consumers benefit in any way.
Because more care is now being taken in responding to criticism,
proponents are now talking about starvation in the world. So
far not even 1% of budgets has been devoted to research into
GMOs in order to improve the lot of the starving in the world.
Nothing has been done for developing countries. So much for
good intentions. Scientifically speaking, it is probably true,
but in real life so-called developing countries have not
benefited yet.
Is there any benefit to producers? This is an interesting
question and the answers are as diverse as the people providing
them. Studies have been done in the United States—in Iowa to be
more precise—and there is no useful indication of improvement for
producers because the results fluctuate with the particular
situation. So far I am not aware of any provincial
or federal government statistics that tell us exactly whether
productivity has increased, whether there has been a significant
decrease in herbicides and pesticides or whether microbial
activity in soils has been affected.
Plants grow in soils, a living substratum.
If this evidence is not available, I wonder who is benefiting.
I know right off who is being harmed, biological producers. I
would not want to see consumers, who are our fellow citizens,
and who are those most affected, harmed in the long run.
We have all day to debate the motion and I will be pleased to
answer members' questions.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Bloc Quebecois for bringing this
motion forward. It is an important motion that not only
parliament but all Canadians should address as we discuss this
issue.
There are loads of material on this issue. All we have to do is
look on the Internet to see there are all kinds of information.
Some of it is quite good and some of it we just do not know
about. It is good to have a debate to become more informed about
GMOs.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question about GMOs and
perhaps in her research she has found the answer. Could the hon.
member tell the House whether or not in her research she has
found any evidence of real harm to humans who have ingested foods
containing GMOs? Has the hon. member ever heard that eating a
GMO has been fatal to a human?
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, nowhere have I read of people
dying from eating GMOs. The issue is a bit different. I think
that while, in the short term, we have no problems, we may have
them over the long term. Allergies are a growing problem around
the world. Genetic recombination can create substances and
protein allergens.
1025
Even in the tests done by Health Canada, according to a study by
Ms. Clark, a researcher at Guelph University, no serious
confirmation study has been done on allergens, even on products
in Canada.
It is partly for this reason that we are warning that we should
not wait until we are sick or have an incident, we should try
to see and prove that nothing happens, that we are sure nothing
will happen, because we are dealing with consumers and with
human beings. So far, fortunately, there has been no major
incident that we are aware of.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am a
member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food as
is the member for Louis-Hébert. There was some discussion
earlier this year about the possibility of there being a joint
committee or subcommittee of health and agriculture to look at
the whole issue of genetically modified foods. I would be
interested in asking my learned colleague, and she is indeed very
learned on this topic, if she has been able to figure out why in
fact that subcommittee of health and agriculture has not come
together.
I recognize that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food is going to be looking at this later this month with a
series of meetings. What intrigues me is why the two committees
were not able to work out an arrangement.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, being in the opposition, I am,
like my colleague, unaware of certain secrets, which are almost
state secrets. I do not know why there were no sittings of the
health and agriculture committees.
I would like to think that it was because of our tenacity on the
agriculture committee, in insisting that we speak of the matter
there, that the question of GMOs is on the agenda of the
agriculture committee at least.
As for the rest, it remains a total mystery. Some mysteries I
cannot solve, even if my dear colleague says I have some
knowledge; I would say to him that it is just marginal, and in
this I have no inherent knowledge.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will make it very brief for my hon.
friend from Louis-Hébert.
In light of the importance of the debate today and the fact that
it is going to take place only during today's parliamentary
session and that will be it for the debate, would she and her
party be in favour of arranging a special debate on this issue to
enable all members of parliament who have a view or an interest
in this issue to participate? As she will be well aware, because
of the time constraints today, very few MPs will have a chance to
participate in this important debate. Would she support setting
up a special session so that all MPs could have a chance to
participate?
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, any time there is a proposal to
discuss GMOs, transparency about them, and their effects, I
believe my party and I will be in agreement with such a debate.
I must offer my colleague only partial reassurance. I have
another motion before the House on the same subject and the
first hour of debate on it will take place on Friday, with two
more hours to follow. This is very little for now, but I
believe we will be willing to discuss this in the House until
the end of the session.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
very important for me to rise today to speak to the motion by my
hon. colleague relating to genetically modified organisms. This
is a matter of great concern to me personally, as well as to a
large number of the constituents of Jonquière, whom I have the
honour to represent.
I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert,
and the Bloc Quebecois agriculture and agri-food critic, for
having proposed this motion, which is aimed at making it
mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods
containing genetically modified ingredients in order to enable
Canadians to make informed choices about the foods they eat.
1030
I also wish to congratulate her on her courage and
determination. She has kept the heat on this issue for a number
of weeks. She has met with hundreds of individuals and
organizations and has appeared in many forums to bring this
matter to our attention. I congratulate my colleague on her
persistence and success.
As members know, I am greatly interested in environmental issues
and this will be the thrust of most of my speech. Let us bear a
few facts in mind.
In 1994, negotiations for the adoption of an international
protocol on biosafety were launched.
Among other things, the purpose of this protocol was to regulate
the export and import of GMOs, and to protect the environment
from the dissemination of these new organisms.
At the first multilateral meeting on the Cartagena protocol in
February 1999, negotiations centred on the initial project, the
purpose of which was to establish a procedure for assessing the
risks of GMOs and rules for their labelling, and to make
companies responsible for the damage caused by their genetically
modified products.
Hundreds of countries believed in this vision. Unfortunately,
Canada joined forces with five other GMO-exporting countries,
including the United States, in opposing the signing of such a
protocol. At the time, the Canadian government felt that no
trade restrictions should be placed on GMOs.
European countries felt that caution should prevail on this
issue. In the absence of scientific certainty as to the
potential risks of GMOs, they felt that all necessary measures
should be taken in order to avoid the devastating effects of
these products on human health.
Once again, Canada turned a deaf ear to this example of
responsibly managing a product that could prove dangerous to
human health. The final round of negotiations for this
biosafety protocol, which I attended, took place in Montreal on
January 24 and 25, 2000 and led to numerous confrontations.
Canada and the five other countries concentrated on defending
their commercial interests and, once again, in the name of a
free market, opposed the adoption of international standards
that would limit genetically modified organisms.
Yet, these standards merely seek to put in place effective
mechanisms to ensure the protection of the public and of the
environment.
I cannot help but draw a parallel with the importation of
plutonium based MOX fuel. In December, Canada imported samples
of that product by air from the United States, even though such
a way of doing it is prohibited in the United States, because of
the very high risk to health. Now, Canada is about to do the
same thing again with samples from Russia.
As far as it is concerned, the risk no longer exists north of
the 49th parallel. The Liberal way of managing is unbelievably
irresponsible.
Canada is doing the same thing again by wilfully ignoring the
laws of a foreign country. A number of countries use a rational
approach regarding transgenic foods and Canada should take its
cues from them. Incidentally, the labelling of GMOs is now
mandatory in the countries that are members of the European
Union.
Here, the situation is different, since these foods are not
subjected to any scientific experiments other than those used
for other foods. What is truly worrisome is that, in order to
approve a transgenic product, the federal government relies on
studies made by companies and merely reviews them. It does not
conduct a systematic second assessment of all the plants and
foods that are to be put on the market. While approval of new
drugs may take years of in-depth studies, approval of transgenic
foods takes only a few weeks.
It is ridiculous for the federal government to be telling us
that there is no risk with GMOs, when the studies have just been
thrown together, and many are too superficial.
Of course, these preliminary studies must not lead to our
rejecting GMOs. Perhaps transgenic foods do indeed represent no
health risk but, as I have already said, given the lack of
scientific certainty because of the paucity of information and
scientific expertise on the scope of the potential harmful
effects of GMOs, we must err on the side of caution.
There is, moreover, another risk, a potentially serious risk to
the environment. This is the transmission of genes in nature,
what is termed gene flow.
1035
This is not merely a theoretical possibility, but indeed a
certainty that has been proven on a number of occasions. When a
plant has escaped into nature, it is extremely difficult to
recover it, and it can spread before we become aware of the
undesirable effects.
It is a matter of concern, therefore, to see companies doing
outdoor testing. This might have disastrous effects. Some of
the developing countries have raised this very important point.
As hon. members are aware, some of these countries are heavily
dependent on an economic development strategy that relies on
exports, particularly in the field of agriculture.
Genetically modified seeds could quite conceivably harm their
agriculture, with the change in genes, the transmission of the
resistance to herbicides of some GMOs in nature could give rise
to almost invincible weeds that could invade the genes and
replace the natural species, including the rare or more
vulnerable species. The development of this resistance could
lead to the use of herbicides even more poisonous to the
environment, benefiting the companies manufacturing these
products, which are often the companies that developed the GMOs
in the first place.
We become aware of the vicious circle we find ourselves in and
we know full well the disastrous effects of pesticides. At the
moment, the Standing Committee on the Environment is examining
the effect of these pesticides and will soon table a report on
their effects on human health. We will be forced to use them more
often and in greater quantity in order to eliminate invisible
weeds whose existence is directly dependant on GMOs.
Developing countries are very familiar with this problem and do
not want their fertile land to serve as a testing ground in order
to satisfy the scientific advances of more favoured nations such
as Canada and the United States. It may be that a handful of
companies will exercise unprecedented control over the world seed
and pesticide supply market with all that this entails for prices
and the safety of food supply and on farmers' lifestyle.
There is something called the terminator technology, which gives
rise to plants producing sterile seed.
Producers, especially those in developing countries, are
challenging this technology, which makes it impossible to sow
seed from the preceding crop. It is therefore not surprising that
some European producers are challenging this monopoly. For all
these reasons, it is important to take appropriate measures in
order to regulate the use of transgenic foods.
The Bloc Quebecois's motion is a step in the right direction
because, by supporting the international protocol on biosafety,
Canada could better protect the environment, particularly with
respect to the export and import of GMOs.
There is increasing pressure in Canada to follow the European
approach. The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, which
represents food wholesalers and a number of other retailers,
feels that there should be a Canadian labelling standard.
When it is known that 30% to 50% of Canadian canola plants are
GMOs—twice the number in 1997—consumers are entitled to wonder
about the potentially devastating effects of these products.
The government has a moral responsibility to ensure public
safety, whatever the cost. It is clear that the federal
government is completely ignoring this responsibility. On the
contrary, it is shutting its eyes and is in no hurry to provide
Canadians and Quebecers with protection against the potentially
harmful effects of GMOs.
The health of consumers and the environment must come first.
There is no question of sacrificing our health and standing by
while fertile land disappears. That is why, on behalf of the
inhabitants of the riding of Jonquière, I am asking all members
of parliament to support the motion introduced by the member for
Louis-Hébert.
I wish to make an amendment to my colleague's motion. I move:
That the motion be
amended by adding, in the French version, after the word
“denrées” the following: “alimentaires”.
1040
The Deputy Speaker: The amendment is in order. The debate is
now on the amendment.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to my colleague's remarks. There
has been a good deal of interest on this matter in Peterborough
riding, the matter of the terminator gene, for example. I have
received petitions about that technology and grave concern about
it. I think it is a concern we share.
I have also had concerns expressed about the approvals process,
how one approves foods of this type. In particular, I have had
petitions from farmers and others about choice, choice at the
level of seed, not just the matter of the terminator seed but
being able to have choice between seed which is genetically
modified and seed which is not, as well as choice at the food
level. By the way, in both those cases it would involve some
sort of labelling or designation of whether or not it has been
modified.
There is also a great interest in the international protocol
which the member mentioned. There is a good deal of pleasure in
the fact that the Royal Society has now set up a panel, which at
the behest of the federal government will study these matters.
My question for the member has to do with the nature of
labelling. Could she give us some advice on how she thinks the
labelling should proceed?
For example, should the labelling indicate where there has been
a significant change in the nutritional content of the food?
Would that be the sort of criterion? Would it be based on some
sort of impression of the extent of the genetic modification
involved? Would any sort of genetic modification be labelled or
would it not? Would all products produced using genetic
modification be labelled or only those resulting from recombinant
DNA technology, which is where there is substantial change in the
genetic makeup of the crop concerned?
These matters are very important. If there is to be labelling
it has to express something which is real in the crop concerned.
It has to articulate to the consumer, be it a farmer buying seed
or one of us buying food, some real indication of what the
genetic change involves. Does the member have any comments on
how she sees a labelling regime being developed and applied?
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his interesting question.
There are currently several committees reviewing this issue.
They are looking at voluntary labelling. Something good may come
out of their work, and the Bloc Quebecois is confident it will,
but we must respect the public's wishes. Labelling must be
mandatory.
1045
With mandatory labelling, consumers and farmers would be free to
choose whether or not to consume genetically modified foods. We
must respect the consumer's freedom of choice.
As the hon. member for Louis-Hébert pointed out, we do not want
to cause a panic. We want to respect the consumers' choice and
the farmers' choice.
Nowadays, people are informed. They are very concerned about
their health and the environment. The mandatory labelling of
genetically modified foods is part of the changes concerning
people's health and the environment.
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House
today to respond to the hon. member's motion concerning the
labelling of foods derived from biotechnology.
Canada has an enviable reputation around the world for the
safety of our food and the rigour of our food inspection system.
We have not had the same situations of food contamination and
poisoning that have occurred both in Europe and in other less
developed countries. Canadians rightly trust the regulatory
system, which has been vigilant in ensuring that our high
standards are maintained.
I would like to point out that the safety assessments of
conventional products and of products derived from biotechnology
are both subject to stringent health and safety requirements
under Canada's food safety system. Health Canada maintains
responsibility for establishing policy and standards related to
the safety of food sold in Canada. Health Canada sets the data
requirements for the safety assessments of all foods and
undertakes comprehensive pre-market reviews of new foods,
including those derived through biotechnology.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency carries out inspection and
enforcement activities related to food safety standards set by
Health Canada. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency also has the
responsibility for the environmental safety assessment of a
number of agricultural products derived through biotechnology,
including plants and animal feeds. In fact, every new food goes
through a rigorous and thorough review process before being
allowed on the market.
Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency require
that new foods go through both laboratory and field testing. They
must then be further tested in controlled, small scale field
tests to generate additional data for health and environmental
safety assessments.
In terms of labelling, Canadian federal legislation calls for
Health Canada to set the requirements for mandatory labelling.
Current labelling regulations in Canada require that all food
products, including those developed through biotechnology, be
labelled where a potential human health or safety issue has been
identified or foods have been changed in composition or
nutrition. Therefore, based on its safety evaluations of food,
Health Canada determines if and when labelling is required.
I would like to give an example. Any food product that has
undergone a compositional or nutritional change or that presents
a possible safety concern as identified by Health Canada, such as
the presence of an allergen like nuts, requires mandatory
labelling in Canada under the provisions of the Food and Drugs
Act.
The commitment of the Government of Canada is always to safety
first; safety for the protection of Canadians, safety for animals
and safety for our environment. In Canada we believe in
labelling that is credible, labelling that is meaningful and
labelling that is enforceable. Canadians expect that their
government will consult with them on how they want their foods to
be labelled and the government is doing just that. The
government is committed to exploring how labelling can best serve
the public.
As such, we are responding to the public's interest in this area.
We have announced and strongly encouraged the establishment of a
Canadian standard for the labelling of foods derived through
biotechnology.
1050
This standard is now being developed by the Canadian General
Standards Board under the sponsorship of the Canadian Council of
Grocery Distributors. The standards board is an accredited
standards development organization within Public Works and
Government Services Canada. Its expertise is recognized
throughout Canada and internationally.
A committee composed of representatives and individuals from a
broad range of Canadian interests has been established. Under
the chair of Dr. Lee Anne Murphy from the Consumers' Association
of Canada, the committee has already met for three intensive
working sessions since the inception of the committee in November
of last year.
The committee has established four working groups to look at
areas such as definitions, labels, claims in advertising, and
compliance measures. Representatives from consumer groups,
producers, distributors, health care professionals and
representatives from other levels of government, as well as from
the federal level, sit on the committee. These are regular
Canadians on this committee, Mr. Speaker, people like you and I
and members of the House.
This committee has already fed information back to other
Canadians on the progress it is making as it goes through its
deliberations through its website. A completed standard is
expected within the next six to twelve months.
By initiating such an open and inclusive process to develop a
labelling standard, my hon. colleagues should be aware that
Canada is indeed a leader worldwide.
There is no other country in the world that is actively engaging
such a broad range of stakeholders on this issue. Other
countries have announced their intention to implement mandatory
labelling policies, but so far they have not been able to figure
out how to effectively do so.
Canada, on the other hand, is fully engaged and speedily
developing its own national standard in full consultation with
stakeholders, in a way which is open and transparent to all
Canadians.
I would also like to point out that the development of this
labelling standard is very similar in nature to that of the
national standard for organic agriculture. This organic standard
was ratified in April 1999 by the Standards Council of Canada and
outlines principles for organic agriculture which endorse sound
production and management practices to enhance the quality and
sustainability of the environment and ensure the ethical
treatment of livestock.
This project was managed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
and was funded largely through Industry Canada's standards
initiative program.
Another example of the government's leadership is evident in its
request to the Royal Society of Canada to appoint an independent
expert panel to examine future scientific developments in food
biotechnology. This forward thinking body will advise Health
Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment
Canada on the science capacity the federal government will need
to maintain the safety of new food products being developed
through biotechnology in the 21st century.
Too often we hear from the other side of the House that the
government acts unilaterally, that it imposes its view of what
should be done on Canadians without due consultation. The
government is adapting a balanced and consultative approach, not
only to the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology, but
also around a broader set of issues involving consumer choice.
That is why the federal government has created the Canadian
Biotechnology Advisory Committee as a key group which will help
raise the public's awareness of the regulatory process and
provide an ongoing forum for the Canadian public to voice views
and opinions.
The development of a comprehensive Canadian standard for the
labelling of foods derived from biotechnology allows consumers,
health care professionals, other levels of government,
processors, distributors and producers all to work together in
establishing a single national standard.
It will also ensure that the standard which is developed
provides for labels and messages which are understandable and not
misleading to Canadian consumers. Procedures and guidelines will
also be set up to verify the truthfulness of food labelling,
truthfulness in advertising and the truthfulness of claims.
1055
I believe the government is doing the right thing by taking this
approach. As consumers, Canadians have the right to clear,
concise and accurate information that allows them to make
informed choices about the foods they eat.
The government believes that it is important to respond to the
public's desire to understand biotechnology and the safety of its
products. The government has done a good job in developing
widely used materials, such as Canada's Food Guide and the recent
Food Safety and You brochure which was sent to every
Canadian household across the country. We remain committed to
addressing the concerns of Canadians and to developing means to
provide Canadians with the information they need.
While working quickly on a consensus approach to a national
labelling standard, the government is continuing to maintain the
stringent requirements of the food safety system in Canada.
Around the world Canada is regarded as a leader on this issue.
For example, we chair the prestigious Codex Alimentarius
committee on food labelling. Over 160 countries are on that
committee. We are also leading a subcommittee of Codex that has
worked over the past year to draft recommendations for the
labelling of foods derived from biotechnology.
Governments, consumers and industry are working together to
achieve the approach that is right for Canada and one that will
work for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first I
want to thank the minister of agriculture for taking part in this
debate. I am honored that he did so.
I listened carefully to his speech. It is true that we have an
enviable reputation regarding food safety. However, it is also
true that the principle of equivalence that we use to approve
foods is challenged by a number of scientists.
The minister mentioned another topic, which brings me to ask him
a question about the standards for organic or biological farming
that were approved in April 1999, barely a year ago. In the whole
issue of GMOs, I believe that organic farming is the most
threatened sector. We have a hard time, even this year, finding
products with less than 5% GMO content in transgenic seeds, while
the international standard for the sale of these products is 1%.
I would like to know if the minister of agriculture has a
particular concern for our organic farmers who, after nine years
of waiting, finally got specific standards for the sale of their
products.
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may want
to clarify this later, but I believe she referred to some
countries of the world, probably meaning those forming the
European Union, which have put in place regulations which suggest
that any food product that has over 1% of content which comes
from a crop that has been genetically modified should be labelled
as such.
I pointed out in my speech, and I have done so many times in
response to questions from this hon. member and others, that even
though these countries have done that, no one has yet found a
testing process that can assure it. That is the type of thing
that needs to be done.
The government is not opposed to labelling, but it has to be
credible, meaningful and enforceable. It is not enforceable. If
we are going to be fair to the consumer, all of those criteria
have to be met.
The hon. member referred to the difficulty in finding product,
and I am not sure what she meant. If she is talking about the
availability of seeds and plants to the individual producer, that
choice is there. They can make that choice. If they wish to
plant products that have been genetically modified for whatever
reason, then that opportunity is there for those producers.
They will have to make that decision. They are very capable of
making decisions on which ones to plant and which ones to grow,
and I am sure that they will do so.
1100
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I too thank the minister for being here this morning to
take part in this debate, and certainly the member of the Bloc
Quebecois for bringing forward this motion.
Genetically modified organisms and what effect they have on
people have been a topic of debate across the country and around
the world. We need to have more research and we need to know
more about what is going on.
There are many questions I want to pose to the minister this
morning about grain transportation, increased fuel costs and
increased input costs to farmers, but I will stick to the issue
at hand.
As the minister is aware, there have been suggestions that a
joint subcommittee of the agriculture committee and health
committee be struck to study this issue. If this does happen, I
would like him, as the agriculture minister for Canada, to assure
the agricultural community that it will be well represented as
the witnesses come forward to bring testimony to that
subcommittee.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, this is within the
jurisdiction of the House leaders. It is my understanding, and I
could stand corrected, that the issue of labelling will be before
the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
As the member mentioned, there was a desire to have a joint
committee but it is my understanding that in order to have a
joint committee there has to be full agreement of all parties in
the House.
I personally think that a better way to discuss this would have
been a joint committee of Health Canada, which sets the
regulations, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, which is
responsible to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food for
doing, enforcing and monitoring the labelling. However, it is my
understanding that the Bloc Quebecois would not agree to that and
therefore there will be one committee, the agriculture committee.
The discussion will be around the labelling of food. I do not
know whether it will get into a discussion of the role of the
Ministry of Health.
As far as safety to humans, the Ministry of Health reviews all
food products, including those which are the results of
biotechnology. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency reviews those
with respect to the safety of animals and to the safety of the
environment.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
brief question for the minister based on his remark that no other
country has developed effective mandatory labelling.
This morning some of us had the opportunity to hear the
secretary general of the OECD, a former cabinet minister in the
House, Donald Johnston, speak on this subject. He indicated to
those in attendance that on April 10 a mandatory labelling
process had come into effect in the European Union. He also
indicated that one is already in effect in Japan.
There seems to be a discrepancy from what I heard a couple of
hours ago and what the minister is saying now. I wonder if he
could clarify it from his viewpoint.
Hon. Lyle Vanclief: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my
comments, there may very well be other jurisdictions in the world
that have a system, but to date none of them have been able to
make it work. It is one thing to pass laws and to have
regulations, but we want to make sure that when we do it in
Canada it is one that is enforceable. When that is done in any
country of the world, the role of Codex Alimentarius is very
important because they set the international standards for the
labelling of foods.
Even in Canada, with all the incredible ability we have to
produce a diversity of different food products, we import nearly
one-third of our food. Food is moved from one part of the world
to the other. When any country determines that there must be a
mandatory something, and I am not saying it should not, as long
is it meets those other criteria, in this case the labelling with
regard to GMO or the labelling with regard to the level of
protein, fat or carbohydrates, there must be a world standard so
that if a product comes into a country, that country is assured
that the process in the country of origin is one that is
credible, meaningful and enforceable. If this is not done, then
it is very meaningless and could be misleading to the consumers.
That is the importance of the discussions around Codex
Alimentarius. Everybody must know that what is happening in
another country is meaningful to them and vice versa. Everybody
must know what is expected when they ship or sell a product into
another market and be able to demonstrate that there is testing,
et cetera, for that product.
1105
At the present time a number of questions need to be answered.
The challenge we all have is that if it cannot be tested then how
meaningful is it to consumers. If consumers see something, bring
it to the authorities, point out what it says on the packaging,
ask whether it is right or not and there is no ability to take
the product and say it is or no it is not right, then the
consumer is no better off. If it is not right, then the consumer
may be even more misled than before. We cannot and do not want
to go there.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am indeed pleased to participate in today's supply day
motion put forward by our Bloc colleagues, that the government be
called upon to make it mandatory to label all genetically
modified foods, including genetically modified ingredients in
foods so the population can make a clear choice as to what they
consume.
Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are one of the fastest
growing issues of concern for Canadians today. This is a truly
global issue. However, one of the difficulties vexing Canadians
on all sides of this debate is the ability to find bona fide
research that confirms or negates different parts of the
argument.
On one side of the debate are those who feel that any changes to
our food supply are automatically bad. Regardless of the quality
of science, good or bad, the result is bad. There are also those
who believe and are willing to accept what the scientists say
without questioning whether or not the scientific proof comes
from a company or someone who has a vested interest.
I believe that prior to any knee-jerk reactions calling for
labelling of any sort, we must define what a GMO actually is.
Although I am certainly not a scientist, I believe that an
appropriate working definition for a genetically modified
organism would be any plant or animal that has had genetic
information inserted into it from a different plant or animal.
One of the greatest difficulties in debating a subject such as
GMOs is the incredible rate of change that the scientific field
is undergoing. What was unknown yesterday is common knowledge
today and passé tomorrow.
The rate of change that we see in genetic engineering is
incredible and what we may consider as being unthinkable or
unattainable today is surely within the realm of the possible and
the reachable tomorrow.
Within this debate, we must also remember that the
cross-pollination of plants has led to new hybrids that have
assisted Canada a great deal. I am no expert but I do know that
new hybrids for wheat and other grains, as well as certain fruits
and vegetables, have been cross-pollinated specifically for our
northern climate and, consequentially, the shorter growing season
that we experience.
I am certain that my hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake, our
agricultural critic for the Canadian Alliance, would be able to
add greatly to this particular part of the debate.
The debate is not as simple as whether or not we want to label
genetically modified organisms. We must be sure of course of the
safety of the product before we even release it to the public. If
we accept that a product is safe and viable for the general
public, what is the best way to label the product? Should we
label those products that are modified or should we label the
ones that are free of modification?
1110
One major concern I have is that the debate on genetically
modified organisms is being largely led by rhetoric and sometimes
scare tactics without the reliance and proof of good, sound,
provable science.
When organizations or noted individuals speak out, of course
they gain immediate media attention, and certain portions of our
society will follow along with their recommendations regardless
of the validity and truth behind their statements. People will
follow along simply because a certain organization or individual,
an individual who they perhaps support, has made that statement.
When any notable person or group makes a statement, they need to
be able to stand by their comments, not in a micro-version of the
words used but from a macro standpoint. Any organization that
needlessly elicits concerns without proof is being negligent in
its duties not only to its membership but to the general public
at large.
We live in an information society and many people willingly
accept what information is displayed for them across the banner
headlines of their daily newspaper or what they happen to read on
Internet sites. Unfortunately many people also read these
headlines without taking the time to critically think about what
is being said or reading the full debate.
I believe that such is the case with some of the tactics used in
the debate on genetically modified organisms. We have all seen
the headlines calling for a complete banning of Frankenfoods. We
have all seen the news clips of anonymous people destroying
fields of wheat in Europe all because we have been told that it
is bad for us.
I do not really know if it is bad for us or not. I am not a
scientist. I am not a genetic engineer. What I hope I am is a
critical thinker. I do want to know, however, the full story on
genetically modified organisms. I think every member in the
House wants the same thing. Members should note that I said the
whole story not just a selected portion that fits the agenda of
any particular group.
I think we would all agree that our food supply is one of the
most critical things necessary to sustain life not only here but
around the globe. Whether we read today's newspaper or one from
five or ten years ago, we can read stories of crops or food
supplies devastated by drought or plague, early frost or lack of
nutrients. The fallout effect of these things have been
devastating. To see the pictures of starving children pulls on
my heartstrings, as I am sure it does on everyone else here.
Can genetically modified organisms solve those problems? I
frankly doubt it. Can they solve some of the problems? Possibly.
Are there risks involved? Most certainly. I believe the bigger
questions are: What are those risks, and, are they acceptable to
the public at large?
We all take risks every day. Most of us take a risk just
getting up in the morning. Stepping off the curb in front of
Centre Block carries the risk of a car or a bus running us over.
I think I can safely state that the risk of endangering our food
supply is something that all of us want to be very cautious
about. This brings us back to the question of the need for
scientific proof.
We are not unique in our debate on this issue. There are many
countries around the world that have entered into the current
debate. Many world governments have expressed concerns over
GMOs. However, we must note that many of these foods remain on
European store shelves around the world.
I am concerned that we have not fully researched the entire
issue of genetically modified organisms. As a father and
grandfather, I share the concerns over the testing, publicity and
safety of genetically engineered products. Canada currently has
42 genetically modified organisms approved for use in Canada.
However, the issue of labelling and perceived safety by consumers
certainly remains an outstanding issue and one that has to be
faced.
On February 23 of this year I introduced a private member's
bill, Bill C-434, an act to amend the Department of Health Act
(genetically modified food). Through this bill, I have requested
that the Standing Committee on Health review and recommend
legislation concerning the testing, approval and labelling of
genetically modified foods.
Specifically in that bill I have identified the need to conduct
research in order to, first, establish whether the consumption by
a human being or an animal of genetically modified foods
produces, in the short term or in the long term, dangerous or
harmful effects on their health.
1115
The second is to establish whether the cultivation of plants
from genetically modified seeds produces in the short term or in
the long term dangerous or harmful effects on the environment,
insects and other plants.
The third is to make regulations on the labelling of genetically
modified foods in order to allow consumers to easily identify
that characteristic of the food.
The remainder of my bill sets out steps to take for
implementation and examination of ethical problems which may go
against certain religious practices. It encourages a public
debate on the issue and is intended to set up information
programs for the general public to make people aware of the
effects of the consumption of genetically modified organisms,
including a full parliamentary review process.
Then we come to the rather delicate issue of labelling. If we
recognize that genetically modified organisms exist and therefore
will continue to exist in one form or another, and if we have a
general agreement that individuals want the ability to freely
choose what they feed their families, we need to be clear and
consistent with our labelling.
I note that one aspect missing from today's motion is the cost
factor in the whole equation of labelling. There is no doubt
that there would be a cost involved when additional labelling
comes about. The Manitoba Co-operator reported that the
largest portion of the increased costs would arise from the need
to segregate GMO crops and non-GMO crops all the way from the
field to the consumer's plate.
Although something like this is very attainable, what is the
full cost and who will bear it? We do not know that. Will the
producer bear the additional costs, considering that he is the
one who planted the seed? Will food processors bear the costs
since they are the ones who purchase the raw material and sell a
finished product? Or, should consumers bear the cost since they
are the end users? Certainly labelling has a cost involved and
today's motion does not particularly identify what that might be.
Down under in Australia and New Zealand a report by KPMG
estimated that the cost of mandatory labelling to the food
industry would be $3 billion in the first year and $1.5 billion
in each subsequent year. According to its study this amounts to
a 6% tax on all food products.
Also according to the study the true costs of labelling
compliance would include such things as verification of the
maintenance of an identification system for both GMO and non-GMO
food products. It would include checks and audits for each batch
of ingredients within a product. It would include testing and
record keeping for each batch. It would include analysis on
non-compliance and/or non-specified testing or audit results. It
would also include the investigation of non-compliance complaints
and subsequent prosecution records.
I have not asked my constituents but I am pretty certain that I
know the answer if I asked whether or not they would be willing
to add 6% to their food bill. A few would say that it would be
worth it. A few would not care. However I suspect that the vast
majority would be very concerned about adding 6% to their food
bill.
Recently a meeting took place in Montreal to debate and
determine a protocol regarding genetically modified organisms. I
believe it is important to note that the protocol fails to follow
the principles supported by the Canadian Alliance of using
scientific information to determine if an agricultural or food
biotechnology product meets Canadian health and safety
requirements.
I also note that, as for most treaties or protocols,
parliamentary approval is not required for Canada to ratify this
particular protocol. It will not come before parliament. We
will not have our say in it. That is fundamentally wrong in our
democratic system.
The signing of such agreements should not be left to bureaucrats
alone. Rather they should come before parliament for debate and
ratification. We are the lawmakers of the land. The courts are
not the lawmakers. The United Nations is not the lawmaker. We
are the lawmakers and we should be the ones to make the final
decision.
Where do we go from here? I believe it is safe to say that
there is a great deal of scientific research being done on
genetically modified organisms.
Is it all valid research? I do not know, but experts are
available that can assist members of parliament to better
understand the entire issue.
1120
We are sent here as members by our constituents to represent
their views, to determine the best policy route for our great
nation, and to ensure that all Canadians are well taken care of
no matter what the issue. It was with a great deal of enthusiasm
that I filed a motion with the Standing Committee on Health that
we study the health and safety of genetically modified organisms.
All members of the opposition on the health committee supported
the motion, but as usual the Minister of Health dictated through
the parliamentary secretary and the chair of committee what would
and would not be studied, so the health committee at this point
in time is not studying GMOs. Yet it seems to me that is exactly
where it should be studied, if we are concerned about the safety
of our food system, our food supply, and its effect upon the
health of Canadians.
To those on the committee this should not be a major surprise,
considering that the same committee has also refused to study the
larger issue of health care, the number one issue of concern for
Canadians today. It steadfastly refuses to study the number one
priority of Canadians.
Unfortunately the Liberals have no answers or solutions to the
enormous questions and problems concerning health care and GMOs.
Therefore there is a lack of desire to seek them out and to be
embarrassed by the public response to their non-compliance with
the demands of Canadians to study such vital concerns.
Unfortunately in the end result all Canadians continue to lose
under the Liberal government.
Is mandatory labelling the full and best answer? In order to
make clear personal choices some consumers wish to be assured
what foods do or do not include genetically modified organisms.
Clear and concise labelling is important to these consumers. The
Canadian Alliance would cite the volunteer labelling and industry
regulated process that organic farmers currently use.
In stark comparison to the motion put forward by the Bloc
Quebecois today, I would like to read a press release from SPEC,
the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation. It indicates:
Lower Lonsdale's trendy Artisan Bake Shoppe is the first retail
outlet to display the bright yellow and green sunflower symbol
indicating products that are free of genetically modified
organisms. SPEC president, David Cadman, and Artisan master
baker, Katarina Dittus, launched the new GMO-free label campaign
on Saturday, March 18, 2000. SPEC will be inviting restaurants,
grocery stores, specialty shops and other food outlets throughout
the lower mainland of British Columbia to commit to carrying only
GMO-free products.
I believe the lead taken by this north Vancouver bakery is
probably a far more appropriate route to follow than mandatory
labelling. It seems more akin to the process used by organic
farmers.
I agree consumers demand choice. I agree they need to have the
resources to enable them to make knowledgeable decisions. To not
allow consumers to have access to full and good science restricts
them from being able to make those complete and full decisions.
I am led to believe that mandatory labelling of all genetically
modified organisms leads to a food supply that is overregulated
by bureaucrats and subject to the whims of government. By
comparison, voluntary labelling for all products that are free of
genetically modified organisms encourages a food supply that is
self-regulated, market driven and supports the freedom of choice
of consumers.
I would also question the minister of agriculture and his
department and wonder aloud what the cost of sending out a food
safety booklet to every Canadian would be when the researchers
and the minister's blue ribbon panel have not completed their
work. How can the government waste money when the job at hand is
not yet completed? Has it learned nothing from the HRDC
boondoggle? Maybe not.
While I relish the opportunity to debate genetically modified
organisms today, I believe that the debate is perhaps not in the
proper space. As a House we need to have the experts come before
its members and discuss the entire issue and safety of GMOs. That
is properly done before the health and agriculture committees. I
call again for a joint committee between agriculture and health
to discuss this huge issue. We need to have that done. Although
we have asked for this opportunity, the government has so far
refused to research and publicly debate the issues at the
committees that should be studying them.
1125
I thank my hon. colleagues from the Bloc. As much as I agree
with the need to bring the particular motion to the House and to
have this kind of debate, I would say that we have to keep the
debate open in terms of labelling.
The Alliance does not have an issue with safety of these
organisms, but we do take issue with the mandatory labelling of
all GMO products. We should look at the other side of the coin,
the labelling of non-GMO products that could be driven by
consumer choice and not by the bureaucracy.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to the remarks of our colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan with great
interest. He addressed an aspect that had not yet been looked
at: the cost of mandatory labelling of transgenic foods.
If this is an aspect that is rarely addressed, it is because
there is so little information available. I listened to his
demonstration. If there is labelling, this will amount to a 6%
tax on all food products to cover the costs of monitoring, which
is moreover already being done by the agency, according to the
information we have currently available, because there are few
laboratories.
I would like to ask my colleague whether he has weighted the
cost factor against the potential loss of market, for instance in
Japan, the European community, Korea, and many other countries
requiring mandatory labelling. I think this would lead to a most
interesting cost reduction.
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague and her
party have put this matter before the House I know that it opens
up the whole debate. There is no question that we must have it
and we must ask ourselves important questions such the one she
has raised.
Personally I would not know the answer to the particular
question. There are many unanswered questions in this whole
area, but I think the issue of cost is one which was not raised
in her motion. I am perhaps the first person to raise the
particular point in the debate today.
It is not an issue that has had the full investigation it should
have. We can only go on what we have before us. There is the
example of the Australia-New Zealand experience where they are
suggesting that there would be an extra cost to the consumer for
the mandatory labelling of these products. We must look at it in
terms of what it would do to our markets overseas and weigh that
in the balance. We must look at all sides of the issue. The
verdict is still out and I am grateful we have the opportunity to
debate it in the House today.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate this morning. I will be
sharing my time with my colleague from Kamloops.
The motion before the House today deals with proof of
transparency in genetically modified foods and labelling to
permit the public a clear choice in this matter. I congratulate
the member for Louis-Hebert and her colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois for bringing this interesting debate to the House
today.
Some significant witnesses will appear before the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, beginning in a couple of
weeks, to look in depth at the issue of labelling.
Certainly we will be looking forward to that. I suppose today's
debate serves as a preamble to it.
1130
I listened with care to what the minister of agriculture said in
his remarks a few minutes ago. To paraphrase it I think he is
clearly saying, and we all agree, that the onus is not on the
Monsantos, Novardis and DuPonts of the world to prove the safety
of foods but it is government that must regulate those. He
believes and we all hope he is right when he says that we are
well served and that Canadians do have a very high standard and
can rest assured that the food they are ingesting is regulated
well in advance of its going to the public.
The issue seems in many ways to come down to one of the
environment. As has been noted several times already, there has
been lots of discussion on this topic.
We know for example of the battle between the giant Monsanto
versus a farmer in Saskatchewan, Mr. Schmeiser, about pollution
from a GM crop that went to Mr. Schmeiser's field. Today in the
Toronto Star Thomas Walkom has a column based on a report
out of the New Scientist about a farmer in Alberta who grew
three different fields of GM canola, one that was seed resistant
to Roundup, another from Cynamid and a third for Liberty. What
has happened over the last three years since he first planted
those crops is that he now has weeds that are resistant to all
three. He is looking at an extensive cocktail solution to try to
dispose of the supermutant weeds that have been created in the
wake of using these.
A lot of questions are being raised by Canadians. I think there
is a growing market concern as a result of that and perhaps even
a rebellion by some farmers to the giant chemical and
pharmaceutical companies that are busy promoting these products.
Consumer resistance has certainly come to Europe in the wake of
the mad cow disease, to the extent that the European Union is
prepared to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars a year for
importing North American beef into that continent. Because the
beef may well have been injected with hormones, they are not
going to allow it to come in and they are prepared to pay a
significant penalty under the WTO provisions in order to keep
that product off the European food shelves.
It is fair to say that consumer resistance is also spreading to
Canada and North America. We have seen a significant growth in
that in recent years. In recent months giant Canadian companies
such as McCain, McDonald's hamburgers and Frito-Lay have
indicated they want to ensure that their consumers are not
ingesting genetically modified products. Even a company like
Monsanto is obviously aware of the problems. It is hiving off its
agricultural division because of the spate of bad news and it is
changing its name. It is interesting that Novardis, one of the
leaders in GM food, now has a baby food is labelled as GM free.
Marketers and big business are doing what they always need to do
to ensure they have a strong market.
Ninety-five per cent of Canadians say that we should have the
right to purchase non-genetically modified food and a
corresponding high percentage say that there has to be labelling.
We know that in a few very well to do Canadian households there
is the opportunity to purchase non-GM foods, but without
labelling the vast majority of us would not necessarily know
where to go, although we did hear about the flour that a member
talked about previously.
What I am trying to say is that the precautionary principle
should still prevail in this area. Lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost
effective measures. That means it has to be science based and
not based on science fiction.
1135
At the New Democratic Party convention last year I was pleased
to take part in a resolution that dealt with this topic. The
points contained in that resolution which was passed
overwhelmingly at the convention were that there be a full scale
public discussion initiated on GMO foods; that the labelling
process to make consumers aware be mandatory; that there be
adequate protection for farmers; that liability for genetic
pollution shall rest with the huge companies, the Monsantos et
cetera; and that for food safety there must be the capacity to
evaluate GMO food and to ensure that this evaluation is
independent of the food producers and the food producing industry
and government food marketing.
Recently the government in its wisdom, or lack thereof,
dispensed a booklet that was referred to by the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, “Food Safety and You”. This has
generated a lot interest in my constituency. I had a recent
letter, an e-mail, from people who are very concerned and unhappy
that the government had put out this product. To quote in part
from a letter from the Hjertaas family:
As for “labelling,” it seems to me that Allergy Associations
have been fighting for years to get all ingredients labelled for
health reasons and I'm not sure we are there yet. For instance
the unlabelled practice of putting corn grits on the bottom of
bread has made my son sick more than once!
And why in the world would the Government of Canada use the
organic standards developed under the Canadian General Standards
Board as a model for the development of labelling for foods
derived from biotechnology? Biotechnology has no place in
organics as is well illustrated in the new U.S. organic
standards.
The writer concludes that the Government of Canada has
absolutely no business supporting the corporate agenda.
There was a very recent interesting article by Brian Flemming, a
Halifax writer and columnist, in the current issue of Policy
Options Politiques. He talked about the huge government
conflict of interest brewing in Ottawa where genetically modified
foods are beginning to trouble both bureaucrats and the Canadian
public. He indicated, as I have said, that a majority of
Canadians would be less likely to buy GM food if they knew it had
been modified. The same Canadians would no doubt also
overwhelmingly demand that the country's food regulator be just
that, a regulator, and not a promoter of GM foods like canola.
He said:
Ethically, the federal government has a duty not to extend its
regulatory reach any further into the GM food world without first
divesting itself of its current, conflicting roles, of promoter
of, or financier for, GM foods.
He ended by saying:
—the following “regulatory commandment” should be posted on
the walls of the offices of all ministers and deputy ministers:
Thou shalt not simultaneously regulate and promote, regulate and
finance, or regulate and insure any industry.
In closing, I think that would be a very good commandment for
the government to follow on this lively issue of genetically
modified foods.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened with a great deal of interest to what my colleague from
Palliser has had to say, and there are a lot of questions I could
ask, because he raised a number of different aspects, but I will
restrict myself to one on research.
1140
I would like to know whether he has asked himself questions
about the somewhat embarrassing, if not downright incestuous,
connections between major companies and those carrying out
research. It is true that the government has pulled out, which
has forced our researchers, our academics, to look for
partners—a term I feel has been worked to death.
Is it possible to maintain independent research, purely
scientific research relating to GMOs that responds to the
concerns of the consumer, not just those of big business?
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for Louis-Hébert for the question.
This is a developing area for all of us. What I was trying to
say in my remarks, and it is reflective of the question and what
is going on in the industry, is that the latent concern people
have had about this issue has become more significant in recent
months and the last few years. There is a recognition that we
need to have independent research and an arm's length or longer
arm's length relationship between the government and generally
speaking the transnationals that are engaged in or funding much
of the research in this area.
To that extent the government's announcement to fund more
science, scientists and chairs at universities will be helpful.
We have gone away from that in recent years in our obsession with
eliminating the deficit as quickly as possible and cutting back
in so many areas of the public sector. It is to our detriment
that we have done that. It seems that at least in some areas we
are now in a period of modest growth. This may very well be one
of them and that would be welcome news for all.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I too want to indicate our appreciation to
the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for bringing this issue before
the House today. It is possibly one of the most important topics
we will be discussing this year. If we think of the old adage
that we are what we eat, the question we are discussing today is
what on earth are we eating? We do not know what we are eating.
We do not know the impact of the foods we are eating.
Consider the number of people whom we all know who at this time
of the year spend a good deal of their waking hours scratching
their eyes and sneezing. There are allergies from coast to coast
to coast in increasing numbers. On any plane these days half of
the passengers are sneezing, wheezing and hacking. It looks like
they are all sad and crying. It is an increasing reality.
Then we hear of pesticides all over the world and people dying
of this and that. There are pesticides in the snow in the
Antarctic and Arctic, dying whales and so on. There are
increasing levels of cancer in our society. I suspect there is
not a single one of us in the House of Commons who does not have
a close associate, friend or family member who has contracted or
died from this horrible disease. It is everywhere.
What causes all of this? It is increasing. To say it has
nothing to do with what we are talking about today, I do not
think anybody would believe that.
This is a very important topic. I want to indicate my
appreciation to my colleague from Palliser for enabling me to say
a few words about it this morning. I look forward to listening
to the debate as it progresses.
A number of elements of the genetically modified food issue are
important. As my friend from Palliser indicated, one of them is
the issue of the environment. In his comments he referred to a
recent study in the prestigious New Scientist magazine.
Thanks to Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star it was brought
to more public attention than those who simply read the New
Scientist.
The article refers to an Albertan farmer who has recently made
history.
His genetically modified canola crop has created mutant weeds
which are now resistant to not one, not two, but three common
herbicides.
1145
Mr. Speaker, you have a quizzical look on your face. You
thought, like others, that the reason we used the products which
Monsanto has been promoting was to avoid spreading extra
pesticides on weeds. They were supposed to take care of all
this. Allow me to continue.
One of the main selling points which the New Scientist
points out regarding genetically altered crops is that they are
supposed to require fewer toxic herbicides. Genetically
engineered canola, for instance, includes an alien gene which
makes the crop resistant to specific, common, broad applications
of garden herbicides such as Monsanto's Roundup.
If the farmer sprays his crop with Roundup, the theory goes,
everything except the canola will be killed. Otherwise the
farmer would have to use a cocktail of more toxic, weed specific
herbicides, including the very potent 2,4-D.
This article refers to alien genes. I become a little concerned
when I think of alien genes coming into my system, alien genes
coming into my body because of what I am eating. The thought
that alien genes have invaded my body, and presumably everyone
else's, makes me nervous.
The backers of genetically modified food and genetically
modified crops say that this is a boon to the environment, that
it will save the environment and be useful for environmental
reasons. Surprise, surprise, the New Scientist is now
almost like a joke book, because it has said “Wake up and smell
the roses. This is not happening”.
For example, the New Scientist reports that an Alberta
farmer began growing genetically modified canola in 1997. He
planted one field with seed resistant Roundup from Monsanto,
another with Cynamid's Pursuit herbicide, and the third with
Liberty. We are all familiar with these from our own gardening.
The alien genes in this canola refused to stay still. They
migrated to the very weeds they were designed to control.
By 1998 the farmer found that he had weeds resistant to two of
the three garden variety herbicides he was using. By 1999 his
weeds were resistant to all three.
Now the poor farmer in Alberta has to use 2,4-D to control these
new superweeds, these supermutant weeds which his genetically
modified crops were supposed to have eliminated.
What is the point of this? This is where we get kind of
panicky, because the Ontario government has been flogging this
report which shows that insecticide use has dropped in Ontario
during the past 15 years. This was to imply that these new
Monsanto type of products were being effective.
We now find after more thorough research that this study about
the drop in herbicide use took place before the genetically
modified food issue came up.
What has happened since the genetically modified crops have been
introduced? Herbicides have increased by 50%. Not only are we
using these potentially monster type approaches, we are requiring
vastly more toxic chemicals to apply to crops as well.
As my friend from Palliser pointed out, Monsanto is a little red
faced today. It is saying “We are getting out of this business.
We are selling off our agricultural products and we are changing
our name as well”. If Monsanto is saying that it is clearing
out of this field, that is a pretty big name and we should be
paying attention.
Anyone who has looked at the biotech stocks in the last little
while has seen that they are on the way down because people are
concerned. They realize that maybe this has been kind of a snow
job which we have all been led to accept.
As my friend from Palliser pointed out, and I am really happy
that he did, all sorts of private sector companies are saying
“Listen, we are getting concerned about this from a profit point
of view”. Frito-Lay is saying “We are out of this genetically
modified food business”. McDonald's, which realizes the value
of popular viewpoints, is saying “We are getting out of this”.
McCain's is saying “We are out of this”.
All around the world people are saying “Wake up. What is going
on?”, except for one group of people, the folks sitting on the
other side of the House which form the government. They are
sending out little brochures to everyone saying “Relax.
Everything is okay. We have this under control”, when in fact
we have been hearing today that it is not under control.
1150
Is this an absolute Frankenstein system? We do not know the
answer to that. Many people say it is not. Some people ignore
David Suzuki, but a lot of people pay attention to him. He says
that we have to be very careful about this. The point is, we
really do not know.
The government has been handing out the document Food Safety
and You, telling Canadians “Don't panic. Don't worry, the
Government of Canada will take care of you”. That is probably
the first clue to panic. These are the same people who said
“Don't panic. Elect us and we will not sign the North America
Free Trade Agreement, and for sure we will get out of the GST
business”.
When government members say “Trust us, we are working on your
behalf”, we should be aware that these are the same people who
promote the WTO, support the IMF, the activities of the World
Bank and so on, unquestionably. We should be concerned. That is
why having this debate today is helpful. I want to thank my
friend and colleague from the Bloc for making this possible. As
she has indicated, we will have other opportunities to discuss
this subject.
My colleague from Palliser reminded the House, and I am pleased
that he did, that not long ago, being normally ahead of a lot of
the issues, the New Democratic Party saw this coming. We
realized we had to take this more seriously. We introduced a
motion at our last federal convention. I do not have enough time
to read the entire motion, which was overwhelmingly adopted, but
in brief it said “Let us look into this very carefully to ensure
that the farmers, the food producers of Canada, are protected and
that consumers are protected. Let us look into this issue of
labelling foods carefully”.
It seems a little odd to me that we would be reluctant to tell
people what is in a food product. Why would we not want to do
that? We do it for all sorts of other things. Why would we not
tell consumers that a certain food has been genetically modified?
What does the government do? I do not want to get into the
possibilities because I would be speculating and fearmongering.
The point is, we should let the consumer decide. For the
consumer to be able to decide they have to know which foods on
the food shelves are genetically modified or have come from
genetically modified crops.
I want to thank my colleague from Palliser for allowing me to
participate in today's debate and the hon. member for
Louis-Hébert for bringing this issue to the floor of the House of
Commons.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, actually, with respect to the name of my riding,
Victoria County has been eliminated under the new restructuring
and it is now called the City of the Kawartha Lakes.
I want to thank the member from Louis-Hébert for bringing
forward this issue and the questions brought forward by our
colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys.
My question to the member deals with the allergy season and the
medications people are required to take. I have allergies and I
use a spray every morning. I suffer from watery eyes and usually
by the end of the day I lose my voice. Allergies have many
different effects on people.
Something that has always concerned me is the labelling showing
the country of origin on products. A bottle of orange juice
claims to be 100% orange juice, but on further study the label
actually says “from concentrate”, which is really pulp. I
automatically think of Florida and California. After calling the
1-800 number for consumer information which is listed on some of
the products, the one thing I am not told is the country of
origin. A lot of the pulp for oranges comes from South America,
Malaysia, Singapore or Ceylon, places which use any kind of spray
whatsoever. A chemical analysis is almost required when we pick
up a bottle of orange juice to know where the pulp originated.
As we know, in business, whether it is making orange juice or
anything else, it is purchased where it is cheapest.
1155
I wonder if the member would comment on that and suggest how the
government could correct that particular problem, which fits into
genetically modified foods, which are also going to be very tough
to identify unless we have a chemical analysis.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can answer
my colleague's question in any great depth, but I thank him for
flagging another important issue that is related in some respects
to today's discussion. He is absolutely correct that if we are
going to know whether we are ingesting safe foodstuffs we need to
know their source, origin, what is being applied on those crops
and so on. I thank my friend for his interest in this topic and
for adding one more element to be addressed.
I will take the opportunity to read through a recent poll, which
indicated that 75% of Canadians are very concerned about the
safety of GM foods and 95% said that consumers should be able to
buy food that is not genetically modified. Another 95% felt that
genetically modified foods should be labelled and 56% said they
lacked confidence in the government's ability to protect the
health and safety of Canadians when it came to GM foods.
That goes back to a question that was raised earlier about
scientific research being done and the fact that we have seen
such significant cutbacks in federal sponsored research programs.
A lot of this now falls in the hands of the corporations involved
in the products or the research that they finance, which is
always somewhat suspect. This points out another issue that
today's debate has revealed, which indicates the value of it.
I close by suggesting that we urge the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-food and the Standing Committee on Health to
get together to evaluate the issues that are being put on the
floor of the House of Commons today. Also, as parliamentarians
we should give some thought to having a special debate on this
subject before the summer recess, because only a handful of
members will be able to participate today. That would give
everybody who wishes to participate the opportunity. Perhaps we
could have an eight hour debate around this issue to get all of
the items on the table.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the impression I got from the member for Kamloops, Thompson and
Highland Valleys was that he was speaking in opposition to GMOs,
genetically modified organisms, or foods in general. In fact,
the allergy reference obviously indicated that any GMO would
cause allergies.
As the hon. member is aware, we have a huge problem with
peanuts. There are a number of people in this society who are
allergic to peanuts. There is an opportunity, by genetically
modifying the peanut, to remove the allergens so that people will
not die.
Does the member say that this is an area that we should not be
researching, that it would not be a benefit to society, and that,
in general, we should not be going forward with GMOs?
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to
my friend's intervention. I think what we are all saying today
is that we are concerned about genetically modified foods. We
want more good scientific based evidence before we proceed with
the enthusiasm we are proceeding with today. We want to make
sure that the health of Canadians is not put at risk by ingesting
these kinds of foods or foods made from these products. That is
all we are saying.
I want to tell my friend what is always in the back of my mind
when we have these discussions. I remember the debate around
irradiated foods. I remember a group of scientists who came
before the committee on irradiated foods who said that we should
not be concerned because they had done a lot of study on rats and
not much happened to rats that ingest vast amounts of irradiated
food. They said that the only things that happened were that the
female rats often became barren and the male rats lost their
testicles. Other than that, nothing else happened. We thought
that losing testicles or becoming barren was something that we
should be a little concerned about. For a scientist, this was
not an issue of much concern.
1200
I was referring to the mindset of scientists, their terms of
reference and the points of view they bring to these discussions.
A bit of caution at this point is certainly warranted.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
that is certainly a great segue to move into my opportunity to
talk about genetically modified organisms. The previous speaker
has already taken fearmongering to a whole new level. Now we
will obviously lose our testicles if we eat genetically modified
foods. By the way, we have all eaten genetically modified foods
every day of our lives for the last number of decades. Members
of the House may have to go back and check to see whether or not
they have gone through the same process the hon. member just
suggested.
First, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from New
Brunswick Southwest who will be taking 10 minutes of the time I
have to speak. At this time I also thank the member for
Louis-Hébert, an excellent member on the agricultural standing
committee who speaks with eloquence and passion when dealing with
genetically modified foods. She does it not as a fearmongerer
but simply as an individual, a member of the House who wishes to
put on the floor of the House debate of a very important issue.
As the member previously suggested, each and every one of us
recognizes that food safety is the vital component of the debate
we are having today. There is absolutely no question about that.
Anything we deal with respecting genetically modified foods or
biotechnology must deal with the confidence of consumers in food
safety not only in Canada but internationally as well. Canada is
an exporter of a number of food products. We must have the
confidence of the world market in order for us to export those
foods. This means that we must have confidence in our food
safety.
The Progressive Conservative government in the 1980s identified
biotechnology as a key and strategic area of future economic
prosperity and promise for Canada. The opportunities with
biotechnology and genetically modified organisms are phenomenal.
Canada today is a leader in the research and development of
biotechnology in GMOs.
The challenge we now face in creating a solid and dynamic
biotechnology industry is twofold. First, we must create a
climate in which industry sectors can flourish both here and
internationally. Second, we must meet the public's concerns
about health, the environment and the safety of genetically
modified organisms.
Although much of the focus in the media has been on food
products derived from biotechnology, there are also
pharmaceutical, health and pest control products on the market.
With respect to food products, biotechnology has the potential
too. I would like everyone to pay very close attention because
we have an awful lot of benefits in Canada with respect to
biotechnology.
First and foremost, it increases the competitiveness of the
Canadian agri-food industry by increasing individual
competitiveness in exporting high value agri-food products. We
in Canada are an export nation. We must export the products we
grow in order to prosper as farmers and agri-food producers.
Biotechnology increases the yields needed to compensate for the
increase of world population. We will be seen as the bread
basket of the world. We will be providing food for the world in
the not too distant future.
Biotechnology will allow us to develop more sustainable
agricultural practices by reducing the need for chemical and pest
control. The hon. member spoke about how this was a fallacy and
that more pest control and chemicals were required. That is not
the case. It has been proven by science that with genetically
modified organisms we can control the use of our pest controls,
which is very important for us as consumers. I do not want to
have any more chemical and pest control products affecting my
food than is absolutely necessary.
Biotechnology enables the environmentally beneficial practice of
no till agriculture, which reduces carbon monoxide emissions, a
very important factor when dealing with the environment today.
We recognize that we have to remove and reduce our CO2 emissions.
One way of doing that is to allow us to develop the type of
agricultural production which will reduce it.
1205
Biotechnology will create new markets by introducing value added
products. Value passed on from producer to consumer can be and
is being done. It is possible to immunize the population by
placing medications in foods known as neutraceuticals or output
traits.
For example, it was reported recently that scientists in the
U.S. had created a strain of genetically altered rice to combat
vitamin A deficiency, the world's leading cause of blindness. I
ask the member from Kamloops if it makes sense to be able to use
the genetically modified and biotechnology science of today. We
would then be able to have a rice, which is consumed by the poor
populations of the world, that will reduce vitamin A deficiency.
This is a wonderful innovation from biotechnology. We should not
stop just because there are those among us who believe that we
should go back to the way it was in the 1920s and 1930s and not
allow us to develop our foodstuffs.
There are a number of concerns. I have done an 180° turn on the
issue. Initially I asked why we would want to have a mandatory
labelling policy. Why not? On the food shelves of our stores
right now 75% to 80% of products have in some way, shape or form
been modified. Whether it be potatoes, flour products or the
canola oil we sometimes use for cooking, whatever we pick up has
been modified. Why would we want to mandatorily label 95% of
products?
I have done a turnaround because I agree with the member who has
just spoken. Our consumers must have the opportunity and ability
to choose what it is they are consuming. We as a federal
government and as members of the House have put forward the
proper information and education. We must allow consumers to
make their choice based on proper science, education and
information.
Unfortunately another group of individuals has put quite a
substantial amount of misinformation out there which does not
allow the consumer to make an honest and rational decision. That
is what we have to do. That is where the federal government
comes into play.
My colleague from Louis-Hébert, a very honourable and effective
member on our committee, has put forward a motion which speaks to
mandatory labelling. Unfortunately I must tell my hon. colleague
that I cannot support her motion. I do however support the
principle that we must go forward and listen to the stakeholders
who will come to our committee in the near future to discuss
their positions with respect to genetically modified organisms
and biotechnology. I cannot support this mandatory labelling
motion without listening to the arguments that will be put before
the committee.
That is not to say that it may not be the only way to go. That
is not to say that the member for Louis-Hébert is not bang on.
We may well have to mandatorily label. I am perhaps leaning a
little more to that side than I was not that many months ago.
However I would like to listen to the stakeholders such as the
farmers who produce the food and are impacted substantially by
any changes we may make in the House regarding what they can and
cannot grow effectively or economically. Food processors will be
impacted. Some 95% of food products may have to be labelled if
there is mandatory labelling. What will that do? It seems to be
a waste of energy and time.
What happens with segregation of our food products? We do not
have the ability currently to segregate a canola seed that may be
genetically modified from one that may not be. How do we
segregate? There may be a cost that is substantially more than
what consumers are prepared to pay.
The hon. member from Kamloops made some very valid points.
Industry is probably its own worst enemy. It has a tendency not
to put forward solid, scientifically based information or to have
a terribly good reputation when it comes to educating the public.
Perhaps we have to move in that direction to make it more
achievable for consumers.
1210
We have to deal with a number of issues and we will deal with
them over the next number of months, but I say to the member for
Louis-Hébert that this issue has to be dealt with sooner rather
than later. The hon. member and I, as well as number of other
members on that committee, have been pushing for it for a long
time. The government seemed to be somewhat reluctant. It is
finally coming out of its shell and allowing it to happen at the
agriculture committee. We will finally be able to get to the
root of some of the major issues.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to the speech by my hon. colleague from Brandon—Souris. I know
he is wise, and, if he is better informed, he will perhaps change
his mind.
I do not think we can let consumers be treated as unwilling
guinea pigs and not know what is in their plate.
What interested me particularly in his speech were his remarks
on the biotechnologies, which we all support, if they mean better
things for humanity. He spoke of the bread basket of the world,
an appropriate expression for people from the west.
In this context, how can we export? We talk of the bread
baskets of the world, so we will have to export more than we do
now. The canola market is closed in Europe at the moment and
will be closed in Japan if we do not make labelling mandatory.
There is a world trade problem.
How, can the government want to become an ever expanding
exporter and fail to honour the requirements of the countries we
export to?
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Speaker, the member for
Louis-Hébert recognizes that Canada depends quite a substantial
amount on export markets, the globalization we have identified
over the last number of years through free trade.
Some of our trade partners have closed their markets with what I
consider to be non-tariff barriers, particularly with canola, and
that is the European Common Market. It is not so much the
genetically modified organisms in my opinion that have closed
that market with non-tariff barriers. We recognize that
commodity has actually grown in Europe. It is trying to stop us
from exporting or importing into its markets a better quality and
certainly a cheaper product than what it can produce.
We need a global understanding as to genetically modified
organisms. There has to be a global agreement. As a matter of
fact, in Montreal recently Canada agreed with other countries of
the world that we would have a labelling component to genetically
modified organisms. I am not opposed to that, as the member
knows.
I am simply saying that rather than identifying it as mandatory
in the motion let us listen to the stakeholders. Ultimately the
decision will be made and perhaps it will be made to the
satisfaction of the hon. member that it may well have to be a
mandatory labelling of genetically modified organisms.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, this is a truly interesting debate today. It reminds me
of the story of two economists locked in a room. After
discussions they came out with three different points of view
because one disagreed with himself at the end of the day. The
more we listen to this debate, the more confusing it gets in a
way. We all have our views on the issue which are all worthy of
note. Who is right and who is wrong is what we are attempting to
determine in terms of genetically altered and modified foods.
There are varying degrees of genetically modified foods. As the
member mentioned, there are very few of us who will go through a
day without having eaten some genetically modified foods.
1215
The race to achieve success within the agricultural community is
the one single thing that has driven this. At the end of the day
it means a profit for the corporations that get to the starting
gate the quickest. We have seen that in the U.S. and certainly
in Europe more than in Canada.
After the member from Kamloops spoke, he was questioned by my
colleague who used the story of the peanut. He wanted to know if
we could genetically modify a peanut to make it less dangerous or
not dangerous at all to those people who are allergic to the
peanut, which is probably the number one allergic reaction in
terms of a food commodity that can be deadly for many. The
member is absolutely correct in talking about what could happen
if we were able to achieve that by taking the enzyme, which
causes the allergic reaction, out of the peanut. That would be
an advancement.
I want to point out how complicated this can become and ask
where it actually ends. I will mention something that is
contrary to the situation that the member pointed out. In 1995 a
group of scientists from a company called Pioneer Hi-Bred
International Inc. placed genes from a Brazil nut into a soybean.
The Brazil nut is frequently seen at Christmastime and is really
hard to crack. The objective of placing genes from a Brazil nut
into a soybean was to help increase the levels of the amino acids
in the soybean which made the beans more nutritious for animal
feed. The plan worked but there was an unforeseen demonstration
of what can happen in the food chain when just a few molecules of
DNA are altered.
Many people are allergic to the Brazil nut. Anyone eating the
soybean product could die from an allergic reaction without
making the connection to the Brazil nut and this gene coming from
it. In other words, what might have worked for the peanut did
not work for the soybean situation. That just shows how terribly
complicated it can become.
In this case science won out because it actually was not taken
to market because of the unforeseen consequences of crossing a
soybean with a Brazil nut. It might help in the House if we were
to cross-pollinate some of the nuts in this place. The message
is clear that when we start tampering with science, where does it
end. What we are talking about today is what controls can we in
a common sense way place on that industry.
Most of what we are doing is for a good cause. We are
attempting to increase competitiveness, increase crops and reduce
the number of hungry people in the world. Those intentions are
all good. If we can develop a crop that is resistant to weeds
or cold, or extend the growing season later into the fall, that
is good, but there is also a downside. We have heard more than
one member today speak about the effects it had on the weed crop.
In other words, superweeds have developed in some fields around
the crops.
1220
We are now building a supercrop that, in turn, cross-pollinates
with weeds which develop into superweeds. We are then back to
square one in what we can use to kill the superweed. What happens
then? If it is a bug, we must come out with stronger pesticides
and herbicides to kill stronger weeds. It is a process that
never ends. That is why there has to be control over it and
common sense built into the equation before we simply run rampant
with these advancements not knowing fully what will be there for
us at the end of the day.
A poll was conducted to show what average Canadians were
thinking about in this area of genetically altered foods. The
Globe and Mail of January 15 reported on a survey of 500
people in Canada in late November and early December 1999. The
survey found that 67% said that they would be less likely to buy
foods they knew contained genetically modified products. A lot
of that was through fear-mongering because there has been a great
deal of that, as happens in any unknown science. Another 28%
said that it would make no difference. Only 4% said they would
be more likely to buy genetically altered products and 1% said
that they were unsure. The survey states that a sample of 500 is
accurate to 4.5 percentage points 19 times out of 20.
The same survey was taken in other countries of the world. For
example, 82% of the people surveyed in Germany said that they
would be less likely to buy food if it was genetically modified,
and so on.
The fear is out there. The agricultural community has to be
cognizant of that fear. There can be a downside to it. I am not
disagreeing with any of the members in the House on either side
of this issue. It is an important one and it is worthy of
debate.
We want safeguards built in that can work. I am not sure that
enforcement is the right way to go on this issue. Enforcement
would be almost impossible. What we want is some truth in
labelling and public education on behalf of the consumer so that
they are knowledgeable about what they are eating. At this
point, a ban would be very difficult. It would be very tough on
the agricultural community. I think a great deal of study has to
go into this topic. I am sure that as Canadians we will ensure
that happens.
At the end of the day I believe we will be more confused than we
were at the start of the day. We will agree on some things and
disagree on others but the topic is worthy of debate. We look
forward to this as it goes through the various stages in the
House.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys,
NDP): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's
normal, thoughtful intervention in this debate. I find that I
agree with much of what he said.
With his opening remarks about two economists having three
viewpoints by the end of the day, the member indicated the
complexity of this issue and the need for unbiased, objective
research. Does he share the concern that I have, with the
cutbacks in federal financial support for pure research, that we
have to rely more than ever on corporate sponsored research,
either directly or indirectly, and that this in itself will not
necessarily hasten the clarification that we and others so
desperately seek on this issue?.
I would appreciate his views on how he sees the research,
particularly the funding of research in this area, as having
somewhat of an impact on its validity.
1225
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, a point we have to stress
in the House, and where we are headed in the question and the
answer, is the power of some corporations to push their agenda.
At some point there has to be someone to call them into check and
to examine what they are doing.
Let us take a look at company called Monsanto. The resources,
the strength and the research capacity of that company are simply
unbelievable. It is a case of whether the tail is wagging the
dog when it comes to a company like Monsanto versus the
government and public awareness. There is a role and probably a
stronger role for the government to do the research that is
necessary for the safety of Canadians.
There is much to be considered in that regard. The federal
government has to use enough foresight so that we have some
confidence going into the future that these foods are safe and
that there will not be repercussions down the road for farmers
and consumers alike.
The hon. member for Quebec mentioned the impact some of these
genetically altered foods have had in the marketplace in terms of
our export capacity. It is something for which we have to be
careful. I would love to think that the government is wise
enough to put more resources into research and, at the end of the
day, make it safer for all consumers.
Mr. Nelson Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question
involves Monsanto. On a number of occasions the hon. member has
indicated the very strong positioning that Monsanto has taken in
this discussion and the development of these genetically modified
products and genetically modified crops. We recently learned
that Monsanto has decided, in its best corporate interest, to
sell off its agricultural sector and to change its name. Would
the member have some views on why it would have taken this
corporate course?
Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, part of it has to do with
share price. If I am not mistaken, the share price of Monsanto
in U.S. dollars was about $95 a share a year or so ago and it
dropped to around $30 in December. That was in large part simply
because of the reaction by the public to some of these so-called
Frankenfoods that people envisioned the company was working on.
It basically boils down to the company moving too quickly in the
marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, do you remember a company called Panasonic whose
slogan was “Slightly Ahead of our Time”? In politics we cannot
be too far ahead of our time. In business we cannot be too far
ahead or obviously too far back, but just slightly ahead of our
time.
Monsanto was leap years ahead and pushed too aggressively and
was forced to sell because of public backlash on some of the
advances it was making. If the member recalls, it was Monsanto
that came up with the so-called terminator seed, a seed we would
have to buy from Monsanto but a seed that could not reproduce.
Someone growing wheat, canola or whatever would be forced to buy
that seed from Monsanto year in and year out. The repercussions
in some Third World countries would be devastating. They would
be held captive by a huge corporate giant. I think public
reaction was one of the reasons it was forced to sell. I think
the public was right. They had to bring these people into check.
We hope governments will continue look out for the interests of
their citizens.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
extremely pleased to rise today in this debate I would describe
as one of the most important ones going on.
This issue has been amply studied. We are debating this very
important question today thanks to the work of my colleague from
Louis-Hébert and the members of my party, who worked extra hard
to enable us to have a real debate on this issue of the GMOs.
1230
First, I will touch upon two points which, I think, are of
interest for farmers. Since the riding of Lotbinière has one of
the highest concentrations of farming in Quebec, I want to talk
about the consequences of not labelling seeds and agricultural
exports in general. Second, I want to talk about organic farming,
which was adopted by many farmers in my riding who are very
concerned about the ever increasing presence of GMOs.
Let us begin with the international context. On April 12, 2000,
the European Union amended its regulations on genetically
modified organisms, which were adopted in 1982, to impose
mandatory labelling. Japan did the same thing and Korea is about
to do likewise. The countries of E.U., Japan and Korea are
countries to which Canada and Quebec export on a regular basis.
If those countries begin to wonder whether or not our
agricultural exports contain GMOs, our producers could lose
millions of dollars. This is why it is so important for Canada to
follow the example of these countries and impose mandatory
labelling.
There is a lot of talk about GMOs these days. There may be some
interesting things with regard to GMOs, but there is also the
whole issue of international marketing. Last October, I attended
a meeting, the last one before what can now be called the Seattle
fiasco, where GMOs were at the forefront of discussions among the
various countries present at that meeting, namely countries from
South, Central and North America.
It is imperative that the federal government act quickly in this
area to reassure farmers and also to show its biggest clients
that it is making every effort to see to it that agricultural
exports to those countries do not contain any GMOs. Those were my
comments regarding the economic side of the issue.
Now, let us look at the side of the issue that is of greater
interest to the riding of Lotbinière, namely the future of
organic farming. It is a known fact that transgenic seeds are
more expensive than traditional seeds. This means that farmers
must have an increased yield for that practice to be
cost-effective. It seems that the yield of GMOs varies greatly
depending on the area and the type of soil, and some studies
apparently show that the yield is often equal or even inferior to
that of traditional seeds. What is Canada doing to ensure that
serious studies on GMOs are done?
With all the cuts to research and development budgets, the only
studies that are now available to the Canadian government are
studies done by companies that produce GMOs. So how can the
government have a serious policy on the future of GMOs? Without
long term studies, what will we know about the effects of GMOs on
cultivated soils and on the environment around the farms?
The introduction and large scale production of GMOs is a real
threat to organic farming.
In the riding of Lotbinière, as well as in many others
agricultural ridings in Quebec, there are pioneers. People have
been fighting for 15 or 20 years. There are more and more who
are responding to a trend, to a demand by consumers for organic
farming. In this respect, I want to mention someone who is very
well known in my region, namely Gérard Dubois, of Plessisville.
As a member of the UPA, he introduced these notions of organic
farming.
1235
Presently, these people are concerned because we do not know how
a field containing transgenic seeds may be affected. What would
happen to another field farmed organically?
Genetically modified plants pollinate plants grown in
surrounding fields. This is called the gene flow, because genes
may be dispersed by wind, insects or animals over a distance of
up to 10 kilometres, according to certain evaluations. For
producers of organic plants and food products, this represents a
real threat of contamination to their fields by neighbouring
transgenic crops.
If we do not know that seeds contain GMOs, and a producer
happens to plant such seeds, one can imagine what the
consequences could be for an organic farmer established a
kilometre or two away if the transgenic seeds were to mix with
the organic ones.
Organic farmers have made enormous efforts. They have to abide
by very strict standards in order to obtain the certification of
their crops.
Once again, if we ever discovered that there was even the
slightest possibility of contamination by genetically modified
seeds or some of their by-products, those people would see all
their efforts of several years reduced to nothing. They could
lose their certification if their neighbours were producing
genetically modified plants close to their own fields.
This is a matter of common sense. How can we ask of organic
producers that they start a business, put in the efforts and
market organic products if the arrival of genetically modified
seeds and plants constitutes a permanent threat to organic
products? The federal government must act quickly.
At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the potential threats
to the agricultural industry and our exports to countries which
have already moved towards mandatory labelling.
In a riding such as mine, organic producers also feel threatened
by the presence of genetically modified foods.
I could keep talking for a long time on this issue because I am
vitally concerned with it. During the last two weeks of recess,
I had the opportunity to meet agricultural producers who told me
about their concerns.
I am very pleased to support the motion moved by the hon. member
for Louis-Hébert. It reads as follows:
That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with
regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making
mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods
containing genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable
Canadians to make informed choices about the foods they eat.
We intend to make another effort to inform the population of
Lotbinière and make it aware of the issue. On June 3, we will be
holding a symposium organized by the Centre agronomique de
Sainte-Croix, which is affiliated with Laval University. Experts
will be in attendance. Once again, we will bring ourselves to
date on this most important issue of GMOs.
1240
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on this very popular and trendy matter, and on
the motion by my colleague from Louis-Hébert.
My colleague has done a tremendous job on this issue of
genetically modified organisms. She is really qualified for this
type of work. As we all know, she was the first woman in Quebec
to graduate as a professional agrologist. She should be
congratulated for her efforts and for her pioneering work at the
beginning of her career.
She is very well informed on that subject. She has travelled all
over the province, consulting people in every region.
She held a town hall meeting in my beautiful riding of
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, which I attended. There were about 50
people in attendance. I would like to take this opportunity to
thank Mr. Daniel Goyer, from the UPA, and Mrs. Monique Paquette,
from the local agricultural training center. They both helped me
to prepare this consultation process.
Amongst the 50 participants, there were farmer-producers,
teachers, researchers, officials from the agricultural training
center, formerly known as the Agricultural College, and organic
farmers.
I have to admit that the discussion was slow to start, but we
soon found out that everybody was interested in the matter of
genetically modified organisms. All the participants showed
concern about that.
The major concerns were coming from the big producers in my
riding. They were wondering what would become of the land if
they used genetically modified foods or products. They asked if
they would be able to plant something other than wheat in two or
three years. There is definitely a fear of so-called terminators.
The big producers said they felt compelled by Monsanto and other
companies to use modified products, because if they did not,
their next-door neighbour or someone over in the next riding
would. Production costs vary greatly. With the terminators,
there is no more need for pesticides, there is almost no need
for spraying and one gets a yield.
Following that consultation and the story published in the local
papers, I received hundreds and hundreds of telephone calls at
my office.
As a matter, the local journalists had done a great job. I
tabled a petition in this regard in the House, signed by people
who supported the motion by my hon. colleague for Louis-Hébert.
The petitioners asked that people at least be in a position to
know what they were eating, to know at least whether the
products they use contain GMOs.
1245
The main concerns of the people who attended the meeting held in
my riding, as my colleague for Louis-Hébert could confirm, could
be summed up with these questions. Why are we genetically
modifying plants, foods, organisms? Who benefits from that
modification, the companies, the producers or the consumers?
What are the benefits and the disadvantages for the producers?
What impact do GMOs have on public health and on my own health?
What are the issues revolving around this new type of farming
and traditional farming?
Speaking of traditional farming, I want to digress to ask a
question.
Since the government over there is supposedly going to invest so
much into research on genetically modified foods, is there still
going to be money left for research on traditional farming?
That is a question I have.
What are the effects of GMOs on the environment? What are the
social consequences of the introduction of GMOs?
The 50 people that got together that evening had so many
concerns that our meeting at a sugar shack, which should have
lasted about two hours, from 7.30 to 9.30 p.m., as my colleague
will recall, was still going on at 10.30 p.m. The discussion
ran until 1.30 a.m., and the people of the community, farmers
and the people involved in agricultural training, voiced all
manner of concerns.
These were not ordinary people.
They were people involved hands-on every day, the farmers of my
riding, the berry producers, the field crop producers, the
cattle farmers. I must also thank the presidents of most of the
unions affiliated with the UPA in my region, who were also
present and voiced many concerns.
As I was saying, this meeting raised a lot of questions in my
mind. I am not necessarily against genetically modified foods.
I am not opposed to the project. Before it is introduced widely
into the market, however, the research would have to be more
focussed and more detailed. I as a citizen would need to have a
least some small idea of what the impact on my health might be.
I think that my colleague's motion calls for the minimum as far
as the GMO issue is concerned, which is the labelling of the
products on our grocery store shelves according to whether or
not they contain genetically modified organisms.
I call upon all my colleagues, regardless of party affiliation,
to support the motion by my colleague from Louis-Hébert, because
this is, in my opinion, an issue with very considerable
repercussions.
1250
Right now, the Europeans are calling for the contents of
products to be identified on the labels. Will Quebec and
Canadian producers not end up having their products boycotted in
five, ten or fifteen years, as was the case with asbestos? We
could not sell our products in Europe or even in the U.S. If I
am not mistaken, I think that the Americans are in the process
of seeing to the identification of genetically modified
products.
This is a worrisome question. We politicians, we MPs, will have
to consider it and try to be as reasonable as possible. The
first step is labelling foods we find everyday on the store
shelves.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this
very important issue. I represent a farming riding, at least in
part, a significant part I might add. The issue with respect to
genetically modified foods is a very important debate that is now
taking place across Canada, and certainly in my riding. As a
former farmer I have a very keen interest in the particular
issue.
At the outset I want to say that Health Canada has a very strong
responsibility to Canadians to ensure that all foods are safe. We
know that and quite frankly take it for granted. We need to know
that food and the food supply, even though it is foods derived
from biotechnology, are safe and nutritious for all Canadians.
I want to take this opportunity to remind not only the members
of the House but Canadians wherever they live in our great
country that Canada in my view, and it is shared by many people,
has the best food safety systems in the world. We need to
remember that and ensure that we keep it in perspective.
For example, when manufacturers of novel foods are required to
notify Health Canada before the sale of their products, this in
effect means that Health Canada ensures that a team of Health
Canada people reviews and scrutinizes those foods. They include
people like toxicologists, molecular biologists, nutritional
scientists and chemists to discuss, to look at and to conduct a
thorough review as it relates to safety for Canadians.
To this end I remind the House that Health Canada has
established under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations a new
division that defines the concept of novel food and requires
notification prior to the sale or advertising for sale of such
products in Canada. This permits Health Canada to conduct a
thorough safety assessment for each product. That is important.
Canadians need to know that and take comfort in that fact.
Novel foods include but are not limited to food products derived
from genetically modified organisms. These kinds of regulations
as they relate to those foods were published as part II of The
Canada Gazette on October 27, 1999.
In order to assist developers in collecting the information
required to demonstrate the safety of their product, Health
Canada has issued the publication entitled “Guidelines for the
Safety Assessment of Novel Foods”. Health Canada's safety
assessment approach for biotechnological derived foods reflect
scientific principles developed through international expert
consultations carried out by the World Health Organization and
the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, as
well as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development.
This is important because it underscores the commitment of the
Government of Canada to work with global partners in ensuring
that we have the kind of food and food safety that Canadians take
for granted.
This approach mirrors that of the regulatory agencies of
Australia, New Zealand, United States, Japan and other countries,
especially those in the European Union.
1255
The approach used to assess the safety of biotechnological
derived foods was first described in an OECD publication,
“Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology:
Concepts and Principles (1993)”. This publication was the
report of a group of about 60 experts from 19 OECD member
countries who spent more than two years discussing the challenge
of how to assess the safety of novel foods including
biotechnological derived foods.
The majority of the experts were all nominated by governments.
They were regulatory scientists from government agencies and
ministries in member countries who have the onerous
responsibility of ensuring consumer safety. These people were
well versed in the kind of issues at hand and the kind of
requirements that needed to be put in place.
I should also remind the House that in 1996 after three years of
experience in the safety assessment of various biotechnological
derived foods participants at an expert WHO-FAO consultation
again supported the approach used to assess the safety of
biotechnological derived foods that was first described by the
OECD.
As in the case for approval of most products by regulatory
agencies around the world, companies or proponents of
biotechnological derived foods are required to submit a set of
data which must be of sufficient high calibre and meet the
criteria specified in the guidelines. This information is
reviewed by a team of scientific evaluators representing
expertise in molecular biology, toxicology, chemistry,
nutritional services and microbiology.
The scientific validity of study protocols used and the raw data
submitted are critically analyzed as indeed they should be in a
scientific review. If any part of the information provided is
insufficient further studies will be provided by the company.
The safety assessment of technologically derived foods including
consideration of the long term effects of such foods in the diet
involves, first, how the food crop was developed, including the
molecular biological data which characterize the genetic stage
and change; second, the composition of the novel food compared to
non-modified counterpart foods; third, nutritional information
for the novel food prepared and compared to non-modified
counterparts; fourth, the potential for new toxins; and, fifth,
potential for causing allergic reaction.
One of the tools used in the safety assessment approach for
biotechnological derived foods is based on comparing the
biotechnological derived food with a conventional non-modified
food with a long history of safe use. This is good science and
it is appropriate that we in Canada would use it.
This tool is known as substantial equivalence. This does not
mean that we approve biotechnological derived foods if they are
substantially equivalent to their traditional counterparts. What
this approach means is that scientists assess biotechnological
derived foods against their traditional counterparts which have
long been safely consumed in the human diet.
The comparative approach permits linking the composition of new
foods to existing products with a history of safe use to permit
predictions on the impacts of new foods in the diet. Differences
identified in the comparisons are the focus for further intense
scrutiny which will involve traditional, nutritional,
toxicological, immunological testing or long term studies as
appropriate.
One of the important benefits of applying the concept of
substantial equivalence is that it provides flexibility, which is
a very useful tool in food safety assessment.
The application of the concept allows us to consider that
everything that is the same between the biotechnology derived
food and conventional food to be safe and to identify any
differences intended or unintended which would be the target of
the safety evaluation. Again this is important. It underscores
the commitment of the government in terms of good science to
ensure food safety not only in our system but for others to
emulate around the world.
1300
Scientists further focus on the novel trait or component
introduced to foods using genetic modification. These novel
traits or components are then assessed using the full range of
methods which consider the impact of the new trait or component
in a modified organism, characteristics related to the new trait
or component in the final food, nutritional quality, the
potential that the new component may be a toxicant or reduce the
nutritional integrity of the food product, and its potential
allergenicity as well.
Additional research or testing is often required if scientists
are not satisfied. That is important to note because it
underscores the commitment of the government to ensure that
safety is the absolute key in this process. If there is not
satisfaction at any stage in the safety assessment process,
further measures are taken. Only if all of Health Canada's
stringent criteria are met is a novel food allowed access to the
Canadian market.
Concerns have been expressed by some advocacy groups that the
foods and ingredients derived from biotechnology have not been
adequately evaluated in terms of their potential long term impact
on health, especially on human health. Health Canada's
regulatory system already provides for the requirement of long
term studies when they are necessary. It is important to note
that Health Canada is taking a very keen lead role in this area
knowing that Canadians wherever they live require it, demand it
and insist on it, and rightfully so because of the importance of
this issue. Health Canada is taking the lead required in this all
important area. I will give an example.
If the application of biotechnology to a food resulted in
significantly different nutrient combinations or other novel food
characteristics not previously encountered in the food supply,
long term studies would be required to further demonstrate the
safety of the food. If longer term studies are required, the
food will not be approved and the company or proponent will be
obligated to carry out those studies and report as necessary the
findings and results before any further consideration of its
submission. Again this underlines the very stringent criteria
Health Canada has in place in this very important area.
As the science of biotechnology continues to evolve on a rapid
basis, the Government of Canada keeps pace by using the best
technology available at the moment and continually reviews the
effectiveness of its approach in all these matters. It plays an
active role in the international arena, for example at the WHO,
FAO, OECD and other places. It shares expertise in developing
assessment strategies ensuring that Canada's strategies are as
effective as those in other countries. We share our knowledge
with others and they share with us to ensure we have the best
science, the best data and the best expertise to ensure safety in
the food supply for Canadians.
The federal government recognizes it must ensure that it will
have the necessary scientific and regulatory capacity in order to
adequately regulate the products of biotechnology as a science as
it continues to advance and new products are proposed for
commercialization. We see that in a non-ending pace. Everywhere
we look new technologies are coming forward. We on this side of
the House and Health Canada have to ensure that these kinds of
protocols are in place to ensure that we have the best and safest
food supply.
1305
To this end, I remind all members of the House that an
independent scientific expert panel on the future of food and
biotechnology has been established to examine future scientific
developments in food biotechnology. This independent expert
panel will also advise Health Canada, the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency and Environment Canada on the science capacity
the federal government will require to continue to ensure the
safety of new food products being developed through biotechnology
in the 21st century. What an important expert panel that is in
order to enable the government to ensure all Canadians that the
kind of food safety system we have is the best in the world. It
reflects the concerns of Canadians to ensure we have the
processes in place to do precisely that.
The Government of Canada is absolutely committed to the ongoing
process of ensuring that its regulations on genetically modified
foods are appropriate for the state of science that exists
presently as well as into the future and the types of food and
plant products that are being developed through research. As a
part of this commitment Health Canada has been engaged in formal
consultations since 1993 regarding the assessment and approval of
genetically modified foods to strengthen the protection of health
and safety for Canadian consumers.
As I said at the outset, I come from a riding that is heavily
farmed and which includes a great deal of agriculture and
agri-food business. It is important that we look at food safety.
Canadians are very interested in this matter. I am interested in
it and I know my constituents are. It underscores the fact that
Canadians want the best when it comes to food and food safety.
That is a rightful thing to ask and it is rightful to ask the
government to ensure the safety of the food ingested by us and
our families.
I am pleased to report to the House and Canadians in general
that Canada has the best food safety system in the world. In
co-operation with other member countries around the globe, we
work to continually ensure that through partnership and the kinds
of efforts made through a number of organizations, bilateral
agreements and arrangements, we are able to share expertise,
skill, knowledge and science and make sure that we do the right
thing when it comes to food safety. Why do we do that? Quite
frankly we do it because it is in the interests of all of us as
individuals and for Canada as a whole.
I am pleased the government has moved in this area in a manner
that is consistent with the values that Canadians hold. I am
pleased that Health Canada and other branches of the government
are working diligently in a manner consistent with what Canadians
want, desire and need in this all important area.
I was pleased to speak to this motion and indicate what we on
the government side are doing to ensure that we continue to
maintain good food safety for all Canadians wherever they live in
this great country.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the speech by my colleague from Waterloo—Wellington, and in
some respects, I still have concerns on the work of the
government.
First off, I have the impression that the government created a
lot of committees and panels last year, to some extent in order
to gain a little time and to some extent to move forward so that
at a given point it will be impossible to stop or go back. Some
things are being questioned, and the government is not admitting
that. I think, for example, of the principle of equivalence
disputed by a number of scientists. I am not a leading
scientist, but I look at what is going on and it concerns me.
I wrote to the Canadian food inspection agency a year ago now,
asking a simple question about how they approved genetically
modified food. I have three boxes of documents. They are
petitions I have been sent, it is crazy.
I look at how they approved “New Leaf Y” and “New Leaf Plus”
potatoes. In the past two weeks, the push was on to approve
these potatoes, because people were asking for them and Monsanto
works with the government and was working in this case with
potato producers. In my opinion, there is a lack of
impartiality.
1310
My question is as follows: given all of this, how can the member
for Waterloo—Wellington say we are really safe and are doing
the right thing?
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, the reason I can say it is
because it is true. The reason it is true is because the
Government of Canada has long since gone on record and in fact in
deed and in word has ensured that the food safety system is in
place in a manner consistent with what Canadians expect, what
they need and what they desire.
I want to point out for the hon. member that the government
works diligently in this very important area not only with what
she mentioned in reference to my speech about equivalents and
other scientific ways of measuring safety and ensuring that it is
in place consistent with good science, not emotionalism but
rather good science, truth and consistency. I am pleased to be
part of a government that is able to do that, has done so and
will continue to do it. Canadians expect that of their
government, they want it and they think that it is important.
I want to go on record to mention what I think is an important
point that the people of Canada should know and I challenge the
members opposite, especially the Bloc members to ensure that they
mention it at every opportunity. The federal government
encouraged the development of standards for the voluntary
labelling of new foods. This project was launched by the
Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian General
Standards Board with the goal of developing consistent codes of
practice for labelling to keep Canadians better informed in this
all important area. The Bloc members should mention that when
they talk about food safety. They should give credit where
credit is due and I am sure they will.
I conclude in answer to the hon. member's question by saying
once again that we have the best food safety system in the world.
The reason we have it is because Canadians want it, Canadians
need it and Canadians deserve it. We as a government will
continue to provide it.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to address this issue, even though I did not really have
time to prepare, because I was supposed to speak later. Still, I
am pleased to speak from the heart about an issue which, I
think, concerns all of us to a high degree.
I dedicate this speech to my brother's daughter, who should be
born today, if she is not already born at this moment. I
dedicate my speech to her, because today's debate concerns food
safety, something she will have to live with, as will all of us.
I am also pleased, as the first critic on globalization in the
House, to address a topic that leads us directly to the ethical
issues to which globalization can give rise.
We are going through a number of revolutions and the case of
genetically modified organisms is a telling one. Globalization
brings about all sorts of things, and we have had, among other
issues, to deal with food safety. We can now say that the Earth
can adequately feed nine billion people. Our planet can feed
nine billion human beings. Since there are only six to seven
billion of us, there is an incredible abundance of food. But the
problem, and I think everyone here will agree, is in how that
food is distributed.
But even though this is a very interesting and relevant issue,
it is not today's topic. Today's topic is not about who will
eat, but about what we will eat. An increasing number—and this
is a global issue—of people all over the world are concerned
about what they are eating.
In 50 or 100 years, people might look back at the history of
genetically modified organisms and talk about how the
international community was concerned, and about GMOs scaring
people. That may be true. Genetically modified organisms may be
a step in the right direction for mankind and they may be
something extremely positive. But, then again, they might not.
1315
There are perhaps long term consequences for the environment,
food safety and human beings. We cannot take chances when these
are at stake. The fact of the matter is that, right now, we do
not know, and that is what worries me. I am worried less by the
positions being taken on both sides of the House than by the
lack of knowledge about the long-term consequences of genetically
modified organisms.
What I find more interesting—and this will be the thrust of my
speech—is that this is a problem like many others, but one that
has something in common with other problems we are experiencing
right now which are caused by globalization, i.e. it is a
globalized issue. I am going to use this expression because,
when one talks about globalization, one can talk about the
globalization of certain things, good or bad; but when I talk
about a globalized problem, I mean that it concerns the whole
world to the same extent ultimately. Everyone has the right to
know what he is eating.
I am going to look at another aspect that concerns me and I will
perhaps digress a bit from the issue of GMOs and take a look at
globalized issues. I find it a bit—I will not say strange—but
perhaps worrisome that we are still debating these issues
nationally.
We are facing a world problem that is being debated nationally
and I am sure that a number of parliaments in the world right
now are raising all these questions—perhaps not today, but they
have already addressed them or are in the process of doing so—are
engaging in this kind of debate, particularly in Europe, where
the issue is very advanced. There have been international
meetings where there was discussion about genetically modified
organisms.
My question, and I put it to members of the House, is this:
What is the role of parliamentarians with respect to issues that
are now globalized? When I refer to globalized issues, I also
refer to the problems now caused by financial markets, by
ecological disasters, by environmental issues, by epidemics, by
genetic codes of ethics and all the resulting scientific
advances.
Who oversees these issues? Should there not be an international
authority? Several authorities may already be examining those
issues. Who will be responsible for legislating? Who will have to
establish an code of ethics on the use of science on humans?
People have been eating genetically modified foods for several
years already without even knowing it, and I am sure that many
members did not know it either. We have been eating those foods
for several years now. Have we been used as guinea pigs? Are my
fellow citizens and myself being used as guinea pigs? I am
concerned. I believe that the research being done in this area is
being conducted by multinationals, large companies which have
huge financial resources and the means to call upon the brightest
minds and the best researchers to work for these same companies
producing genetically modified foods.
I am concerned about this extraordinary combination of science
and financial interests of large companies, because we cannot
deny that the first goal of those companies is to make profit and
become more efficient for their shareholders. I have no problem
with that. I am concerned however about who will establish the
rules regarding the use of scientific progress because this has
an impact on everyone.
When I listen to proponents of genetically modified organisms, I
say “Yes, you may be right”, and when I listen to those who
express some concern, I tell them “Yes, perhaps”. The problem
is that I would like to be able to do like those multinational
companies that call upon the best researchers and the brightest
minds in the world to achieve technological breakthroughs.
From a political and democratic point of view, it is not time
that we, as parliamentarians, be able to ask the best researchers
in the world how GMOs could be used not to increase profits, but
in regard to the safety of those organisms for human beings who
eat them? I think this is a fundamental issue.
1320
I find this topic of interest because all my reflection focusing
on the urgency of discussing certain world issues more thoroughly
relates to globalization. I have often said I have nothing
against globalization, far from it. I am in favour of
globalization if there are rules of ethics for the good of the
people. That is what we need at this time.
Does this mean that the direction politics and democracy must
take is to make use of parliamentary forums and tools, to make
use of debates, in order to find a unanimous response to
questions as crucial to food as those relating to GMOs? I
believe that this entire issue must lead us to reflect on a new
outlook, with an awareness of our limitations as members of
national parliaments with regard to setting frameworks and
drafting regulations that relate to problems that have now become
global in scope.
Of course this can be discussed in the House. Canada can adopt a
position and then defend it in the international forum. However,
I think that the time has come to work in a different way, to
work all together, saying “We have a common problem here, which
is genetically modified organisms”. The problem is that we do
not know what the long term effects of GMOs will be. The
reflection will have to be focused on this with a view to a
common solution, one which will some day bring all partners on
line, I trust.
Today there has been considerable progress in this area, and
everyone knows about GMOs. The process is moving along, more or
less, but some work has been slow. Who is responsible? We have
a pretty good idea. There is matter for concern, however.
I can see that the future will bring more and more problems and
issues with it. It is our duty as parliamentarians to reflect on
this. We must quickly start thinking of mechanisms that would
better equip us to respond properly to problems such as the one
we face at the present time, so that the public will no longer be
used as guinea pigs.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the speech of my young colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. I know he is
greatly interested in globalization.
I also know that groups of opponents regularly stage big
demonstrations, in Seattle or Vancouver, or in Montreal, as we
saw recently. Their point, and I believe it is not well
understood, is they do not want to be regulated by
multinationals but they want citizens to be able to express
themselves. They talk about health, the environment and
biodiversity.
I would like my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean to tell us if he
shares these concerns or if he is aware of this phenomenon. How
could we stop it, or support it, if need be?
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I find this a very relevant
question, as it deals with the civil society. It is thanks to
the civil society that we are talking about these issues today.
It is the civil society that appealed to us, and when I say us,
I mean politicians. The hon. member will remember that Biotech
Action Montréal appealed to us on these issues. It is the civil
society that sounded the alarm by submitting petitions and by
suggesting the introduction of bills.
In short, young activists wanted to stir things up on these
issues, because they were concerned. The same happened with the
multilateral investment agreement where, for the first time, we
saw a activist movement globalize through the Internet, which
led to these issues being raised. We saw this also in Seattle.
In conclusion, I think that, in a democracy, people need to be
vigilant.
In this case, it is the people who alerted parliamentarians to
these issues. So I applaud all the activists and all the people
who are interested in these collective issues that are of
crucial importance for the future.
1325
All my colleagues in the House certainly agree that we are
confronted with so many increasingly complex issues that the
civil society should act as a watchdog and alert parliamentarians
to these issues before.
It is simply impossible for any member of Parliament to keep
track of all problems. If the public is vigilant, issues end up
in the political arena. An example of this is Biotech Action
Montréal, which took an interest in food security, helped with
research, raised concerns, underlined the long term impact of
genetically modified foods, and informed the public.
That is exactly what should be done. It is wonderful. In this
instance, the voice democracy was heard. I hope there will be
more cases like this one. I encourage all citizens to be more
vigilant. These issues are fascinating and very interesting, but,
most of all, they are crucial for mankind.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this opposition
motion of the Bloc Quebecois on the labelling of genetically
modified foods, which reads:
That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with
regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making it
mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods containing
genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable Canadians to
make informed choices about the foods they eat.
This debate deals essentially with the rights of citizens to get
correct information so that they can make an informed choice.
This motion is of great importance considering the impact of all
the new biotechnologies and the intensity of the debate
surrounding the issue of genetically modified foods. Since the
famous Aldous Huxley novel A Brave New World was published, the
reality of new technologies has gone way beyond fiction.
One of the first stars of these new technologies was named
Dolly. It was the first cloned animal. Something that used to be
found only in science fiction novels became reality and it
rekindled the debate on the relationship between ethics and
science.
The same goes for foods containing genetically modified
organisms.
There is nothing wrong with the idea of modifying organisms such
as plants to give them characteristics that they would not
naturally have, to make them more resistant to diseases, for
example, or more resistant to harsher climates—we know the
climate in Quebec and Canada is often difficult for plants.
Doing so to increase the productivity of certain varieties can
also be considered progress. After all, we must feed the planet,
which is faced with such problems as desertification and the
decreased productivity of certain soils.
It could also be very beneficial to consumers like you and me.
But it still raises several issues. For example, at this time,
no one can predict accurately the long term effects of these
modifications on the genetic heritage of our planet. Some people
do not hesitate to call genetically modified foods frankenfoods.
This is not very reassuring.
To illustrate this, I would like to mention a case that drew the
attention of a lot of people recently. A Newfoundland researcher
succeeded in modifying the growth process of a type of salmon, a
species we know is on the verge of extinction. He managed to do
that through genetic manipulation.
1330
As seen on TV, the result was striking, the modified salmon was
two or three times larger than a natural salmon of the same age.
Of course, fishermen might be interested in catching such an
extraordinary specimen, but what about when the salmon ends up on
one's plate?
It is not inappropriate to call for a public debate, a broad
discussion, since genetically modified foods, salmon being only
one of them, end up daily on our plates without our really
knowing it.
According to existing data, 50% to 60% of the food for sale in
Canada or Quebec's food markets, food that we eat contentedly
three times a day, sometimes even four, contain genetically
modified organisms.
There are beautiful, unblemished tomatoes, perfectly symmetrical
potatoes, corn, canola and soybean. This is definitely not a
rhetorical debate, but one that concerns all Canadians, because
it involves our food supply, our health and the health of our
environment.
For that reason, the government must make it mandatory to label
GMOs. The right to information exists; Canadians have the right
to make choices, informed choices, about the foods they eat.
Mandatory labelling does not mean a ban on these products. The
object is to let the consumers know what is in the products they
are buying.
Current regulations already require that labels on food products
list all the ingredients. Have you ever looked at these labels,
Mr. Speaker? Of course not, but I am sure you eat nothing but
butter. I would suggest though that you take a minute to look at
the long list of ingredients in ordinary margarine.
It would be most advisable to clearly identify GMOs, as we
already identify other ingredients. Moreover, the fact that the
GMO labelling is not mandatory will only make a good number of
people suspicious, that is those who are aware of the potential
risks this technology poses.
Mandatory labelling is not only for the benefit of consumers,
but also for the benefit of producers. It could help to maintain
the level of food and agricultural exports from Quebec and
Canada. Many countries have already adopted measures to make
labelling mandatory.
On April 12, the European Parliament amended its 1992
regulations, making GMO labelling mandatory. The products that
contain more than 1% of GMOs will now have to be labelled in
order to be offered throughout the European Union territory. We
are talking about millions of people.
We can ask ourselves if the products made in Quebec and in
Canada will still be allowed onto the European market. Could it
be that by refusing to make the labelling mandatory, we could be
putting our food and agriculture industry at risk?
Amongst the countries who have already adopted these kinds of
measure are Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. These
countries are all in the Far East.
At the beginning of my speech, I talked about the ethical aspect
of the issue we are debating today. Scientific research has to
be governed by an code of ethics to guarantee that these studies
are carried out in the best interests of the population and not
in the sole and sacrosanct interests of the biotechnological
companies.
1335
First of all, there is the whole issue of intellectual property
as it relates to living organisms. When a company succeeds,
after much research and millions of dollars of investment, in
isolating a given gene, at the present time it can then patent
that gene. We must ask ourselves whether it is desirable for
the genetic heritage of a planet to be privatized, in a way,
solely and uniquely to benefit the biggest and most successful
of businesses because they have more money to invest.
As well, if these few companies control a sizeable proportion of
genetic engineering, one may well wonder also whether other
researchers will be able to continue to move ahead in the same
field.
Only a few companies control the world market in seeds,
insecticides, herbicides and pesticides. I do not need to name
names. Everyone knows who they are. This has significant
consequences on supply prices and security, and on farmers'
lifestyles.
As an illustration of this, there are two types of seed that
have been modified to be herbicide resistant, both made by the
same company. Farmers are therefore in a way slaves to a
certain company. This does not strike us as being in the
interests of the general public.
Another example is the so-called terminator technology, which
produces plants whose seeds are sterile. This is getting pretty
close to Aldous Huxley.
Farmers, particularly those in the developing countries, are
opposed to this technology, which prevents them from producing
seed to sow for their next crop, thus creating dependency on the
seed companies, which is both increasing and unavoidable.
Strong objections have kept this technology from being put into
application.
It is vital, therefore, for the government to act as a prudent
administrator by making it mandatory to label genetically
modified foods and by establishing measures for detailed testing
in order to assess the long term impact of GMOs on human health
and on the environment, as well as passing, after consultation,
legislation on the safe and ethically responsible use of
genetically modified organisms and on the creation of a
structure for informing and educating the public.
[English]
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member opposite. I
can tell the House that I was born, raised and still live on the
family farm. For me and indeed for all Canadians it is very
important that we have very stringent criteria when it comes to
food safety.
Why do I say that? The answer is clear: Canadians deserve and
expect a food safety system that is in place and they expect
their government to ensure it is in place in a manner consistent
with what Canadians not only need, but require for themselves and
their children.
I can tell the House that Canada has the best food safety system
in the world. We have gone to great lengths through the years to
ensure that we have a system in place that underscores the
commitment of the government and our people to get the right
quality of food, nutritious food and good high calibre food in
keeping with the Canadian way. I think it is important that we
emphasize that and that we understand that.
I also want to point out that Canada chairs the Codex
Alimentarius committee on food labelling, which is an
international body. It underscores the fact that Canada is part
and parcel of partnerships throughout the globe when it comes to
this all important area. I think Canadians, wherever they live
in this great country of ours, need to know the high calibre and
the high regard in which Canada is noted.
I also want to point out that our Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food on September 17, 1999 announced the voluntary labelling
of foods derived from biotechnology.
That was in partnership with the Canadian Council of Grocery
Distributors as well as the Canadian General Standards Board.
That too underscores the commitment of our government.
1340
I have a question for the hon. member. I want to know if the
sovereignists can tell us where the $37 million in federal money
went which was allocated to farm insurance stabilization in
Quebec. Why did the Quebec government not include it in its
budget for the year 1998-99, as reported by the auditor general
of Quebec on March 28? I want to know from the hon. member where
the money went that was allocated for farm insurance
stabilization. Where is the $37 million hiding? Where did it
go? Why was it not spent in the appropriate place? Why was it
not spent? Let us hear the sovereignists answer that.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, after having praised
the quality of Canadian food products, which nobody denies, I am
pleased to tell my hon. colleague, in response to his brilliant
speech, that the money he mentions was handed over to the
farmers.
I do not see how making labeling mandatory—because the issue,
here, is voluntary labeling, and everybody knows what happens
with voluntary measures—would undermine the quality and the
reputation of food products coming from Canada.
One must have a very narrow vision to think that our reputation
would be tarnished if we adapted to a new reality. My hon.
colleague should be proud that there are in this parliament
sovereignist members who want to have a debate on something that
is fundamental for everybody, whether one is a sovereignist or a
federalist. I would not want my hon. colleague, who is so
brilliant, to lose some of his smarts after eating too much
genetically modified food.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was interested in the motion put forward by our colleagues in
the Bloc. On the surface, when we first read it, it seemed to
have merit. Why would we object to labelling on these foods so
that the Canadian people can be sure that what they are getting
when they go to the grocery store is safe and has passed all the
appropriate tests? Who would object to that? It is an
interesting concept.
When we look at what has happened in the area of GMOs,
genetically modified foods, on the surface for the Canadian
public it is a little frightening. We hear of huge cucumbers.
They tried growing them in Newfoundland. Actually, they were
sprung cucumbers. They sprung a leak and never got off the
ground. They tried doing it many years ago. This is not new.
This is rather old stuff. It did not work. The market was not
there. People looked at these things and said “My God, what are
they?” They did not feel comfortable with them. Even though
genetically they had been altered, they were safe and there was
no question of consumption or safety issues involved. However,
it did not fly in the marketplace.
What is the issue around modifying food genetically and why
would we be concerned about telling people on a label exactly
what it is they are getting?
Unlike my colleague, I was not born on a farm, have not lived on
a farm and do not live on a farm at the moment, but, as you can
tell, Mr. Speaker, I enjoy food, as we all do.
1345
On a serious note, if they are improving the crop, if they are
improving the yield, if they are improving the quality of the
product, is this not something that we should perhaps investigate
to determine whether or not it is safe? I think we should.
Through motions like the one before us today and debates by some
members in this place we create a sense of fear that we should
not eat something because it will ruin our liver or whatever. In
any event, we understand that it is creating an atmosphere of
fear. The purpose of the motion is not to say that genetically
modified foods are safe. It is to somehow try to paint the
government into a position of being embarrassed because it does
not want to share the information with people. That is not true.
That is one of the fundamental flaws of a motion like this one.
Members opposite know that Canada leads the world in food
safety. People come from all over the world to visit Health
Canada and our other regulatory bodies so they can see what
procedures we have in place to determine whether or not food is
safe.
On one hand I say to Bloc members that I would like to think the
intent of what they want to do is good. We want ensure the food
that goes on our tables for our children is safe every day. On
the other hand, I wonder if there is not a hidden agenda,
particularly when funds, such as the $37 million my hon.
colleague mentioned, are transferred to the provincial government
only to disappear somehow magically.
They may show up as Premier Bouchard, the new reborn Mike Harris
of the province of Quebec, finds a way to suddenly become a
revolutionary and bring forth budgetary cuts and tax cuts. Maybe
the money that was given to Quebec for the specific purpose of
dealing with food safety will show up in some mysterious way in a
tax cut. It would not surprise me. We have seen it before.
We have seen what Mr. Harris has done in that regard by simply
borrowing money, increasing the total debt of the province of
Ontario by $21 billion while somehow trumpeting the fact that he
is giving a tax break. We all know that he is giving a tax break
to his rich friends and not helping the people who need help. I
digress somewhat from the issue but it will probably occur from
time to time.
I have not had the opportunity in this place of listening to the
position of the Canadian Alliance Party. It occurred to me that
this would be a perfect motion for that party to debate because
what we are seeing is a genetically modified political party. It
is trying to turn itself inside out.
We all know that when we genetically modify a lemon we get a
lemon. It might be bigger. It might be more yellow. It might
be sweeter, but we still get a lemon. When a political party
like the Reform Party is genetically modified we get a lemon
again. I do not think there is any question about it. I have
not heard its position. A little bird told me that it will
support the government on this issue. Every time that happens I
say to myself that maybe we are wrong, maybe we should revisit
it. I heard someone else say that it would not support the
government on this issue. Frankly that party has been all over
the map.
I want to share a couple of quotes. I took a look at the new
book of the genetically modified political party and I tried to
see if there were any differences. It is pretty much the same
old gang that cannot shoot straight. I do not know why this
gentleman constantly gets quoted, but the member for
Yorkton—Melville said in a local paper about his party that the
principles and policies of Reform are in there.
1350
My dear friend, the member for Wild Rose, said in a newspaper in
his riding that he would always be a Reformer. He had his hat
and boots on. He said that he would always be a Reformer and
that this new party was based on Reform Party principles and
platforms.
Where will that party go with genetically modified food? Will
it change its position? We have seen more flip-flops on this
issue, but it is still sticking by the old principles, and I know
it is an oxymoron, of the former Reform Party.
The member for Lakeland said that they would stand for the same
things that they were elected on. Will that be the case for
GMOs? Will that mean they will line up and vote with the Bloc on
this issue? Will they line up and vote here? It is truly a
mystery. We can watch the process unfold. We can watch the fact
that many members are busy working on various campaigns and
trying to bring in members of the Conservative Party of Ontario
that do not want to come. It is an absolutely amazing sight.
An hon. member: It is a mess.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: It is a mess in a political process.
An hon. member: The member is getting worried.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I am not worried. What I am really
curious about is what this group will do in relation to the
particular motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
have been listening for some time now to what the hon. member has
to say. I am usually very tolerant. On a matter of such
importance, in a very serious debate on genetically modified
organisms, how can we, in this House, let the hon. member go off
topic and get into purely partisan issues?
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to call the hon. member to order.
The Deputy Speaker: I listened carefully to the comments made
by the hon. member for Mississauga West. I heard him say the
words genetically modified in his speech. That is why I did not
interrupt him. While he is talking about a genetically modified
political party, he is not too far off topic and, hopefully, he
will soon get back to the motion before the House.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I think the member should
show a little patience because the point of what I am attempting
to put across is simply that there are five parties in this
place. Actually we are not sure how many parties there are any
more. We know the position of the Bloc. I am trying to
determine what will be the position of the official opposition or
in fact whomever it is.
If the member wants me to be a little more serious about the
issue, as he said, why would the Bloc put forth a motion to force
mandatory regulation, to force the machinery of government into
an industry that already has the safest testing methods in the
world? I made that point earlier and I was being quite serious
about it.
Is the Bloc doing this because it is concerned about the safety
and quality of food or because it is one of those bugbears? This
is one of those issues with which we can whip people into a
frenzy: that if it is genetically modified it will cause an
illness, will cause cancer, will lead to blindness or will do who
knows what. We can fearmonger with any issue we want.
The member knows that the government led the way. We have been
working with consumer groups. We have been working with
agricultural groups. Health Canada continues to monitor the
safety of food. If there were any doubt in that regard, perhaps
the suggestion would make some sense.
We also chair an international body that develops food safety
standards called the Codex Alimentarius Committee on Food
Labelling. We are doing work in this area. If the member wants
to say that somehow we should eliminate this science, I would
question that.
1355
We are looking at the fact that in 2000 and the years to come
there will be ways of increasing the productivity of agricultural
food producers in this country and around the world. Lord knows,
we have a serious problem in many parts of the world where this
would be a major asset, perhaps allowing Canada to extend more of
the already very generous foreign help that we offer throughout
the world. In areas where there is famine and terrible
tragedies, why should we not look at this? Instead of focusing
on what may be politically exciting, why not focus on how we can
improve science in this area?
I give the example of health products. We all know that there
was quite a controversy. I recall going with the Minister of
Health into an area of downtown Toronto where health products
were being sold, all these different products that are for sale
in drug stores now. Many of us take them on a regular basis in
the belief that they are doing something for our systems. They
are not based on prescription drugs but rather on natural
products coming from the earth.
I believe they have an impact. I have no scientific proof of
that. I am not a scientist or a doctor. I am not trained
medically to make that decision, but I believe that they improve
diet and health. Hopefully they will keep people out of hospital
and out of the medical system.
The big fear about them and the reason there was a big question
about whether or not they should be required to be regulated and
licensed in the same way, prescribed by a doctor, kept behind the
counter and away from the public, was some imaginary safety
problem. The research was done by Health Canada. Our Minister
of Health went out to that community and determined that they
were safe products.
We have to ensure that the Canadian public has the confidence
that the investigatory and regulatory bodies of this government
and provincial governments where appropriate have done their
homework. Because of that we have to know the various positions
of those who would purport or wish to govern in any particular
legislature or parliament. That is why I raise the issue of the
flip-flops and concerns about the Canadian Alliance.
The Speaker: The hon. member has five minutes remaining
and I am sure he will fill them well.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
CANADIAN ETHNOCULTURAL COUNCIL
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Ethnocultural Council represents a cross-section of the
country and unites people under a common set of values and
objectives to eliminate racism, to enhance Canada's cultural
heritage and to remove barriers that prevent full and equal
participation in society.
I therefore welcome the federal government's recent announcement
supporting a multicultural information network. The project will
improve communication between Canada's diverse ethnocultural
communities and provide information on a variety of services,
including specialized health care providers, religious
organizations, ethnic media and publishers.
I am confident this project will go a long way toward enhancing
multiculturalism in Canada and creating a better life for all.
* * *
BOYD ANDERSON
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to introduce
to the House a great Canadian. In 1911 Boyd Anderson's parents
moved to a vast, open range land near what is now Fir Mountain,
Saskatchewan. There was no school, no town and no railway.
Boyd grew up to become a true professional cowboy and rancher.
In his youth, Boyd and his brothers eked out a living during the
depression by moving from ranch to ranch breaking broncos for
riding. Boyd enlisted in World War II with the Canadian
paratroopers. He was wounded in France and taken prisoner by the
German army.
1400
Boyd is known today as a rancher, a writer and a local
government councillor. He was president of the Saskatchewan
Association of Rural Municipalities. He served with the
Saskatchewan Stock Growers and the Canadian Cattlemen's
Association.
On February 9 Boyd Anderson was installed as a member of the
Order of Canada. Canada's highest honour goes to this fine
gentleman who has made a great difference to his community, to
his province and to this country. He is a true Canadian who I am
proud to call my friend.
* * *
MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have recently returned from visiting the Middle East
in the company of the Prime Minister and fellow members of
parliament with ties to the region.
I was outraged with the unduly negative coverage of the trip by
some members of the Canadian media, a viewpoint, by the way,
which was not shared by the media in the Middle East.
In Syria for example, reporters had suggested we would be left
waiting in an anteroom. The reality was that our delegation was
greeted at the airport by no less than eight ministers as well as
the prime minister of Syria.
Our groundbreaking trip included visits to the
Israel-Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and
Saudi Arabia. The visit was organized by the Canadian government
to continue to expand relations with the Middle East and to
increase opportunities for international trade. By all measures
it was a resounding success.
* * *
NATIONAL CANADIAN LIBERATION MONUMENT
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 55
years ago Canadian soldiers were instrumental in the liberation
of Holland.
This week Canadian veterans will revisit their old battlegrounds
and pay homage to comrades in arms who lie in Commonwealth war
cemeteries.
Today there is a very special ceremony to bear witness to the
lasting friendship between the Dutch people and Canada. The
people of Apeldoorn in the Netherlands are unveiling a National
Canadian Liberation Monument in testimony to the sacrifices made
by their liberators. The ceremony will be presided over by
Princess Margriet who was born in Ottawa while the royal family
lived here.
We thank the people of the Netherlands for this wonderful
gesture of remembrance. It honours the sacrifice of those who
served in Europe and reminds us of their gift of freedom which we
have enjoyed these many years.
On a more personal note, I am pleased that the OPP Bear Hug
band, with young Canadians, is assisting with the ceremonies in
Europe this year. I wish them and all our veterans well.
* * *
[Translation]
VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with great
pride and great sorrow I rise today in this House to recall the
day set aside annually to remember the six million people who
were victims of the Holocaust in the second world war.
This day keeps alive the memory of these millions of people who
died and whose descendants live here in Canada and throughout
the world. This day of Yom Hashoah will commemorate forever the
tragic events surrounding their disappearance.
Our thoughts and our prayers blend with those of the many
families and friends of the victims. Canadians join with me in
the hope that this day of remembrance will remind all people of
the events of the past and serve as a warning for those who
today continue to commit genocide.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
you do not hear it often but I am going to tell you something
that the government is really good at. With the annual tax filing
deadline yesterday, Canadian taxpayers were reminded of how
efficient the government is in separating them from their money.
We keep hearing the words tax reduction from the Liberal
government, but the reality is there is no increase in take home
pay. The finance minister is great at giving projections which
sound good, but he is very slow in delivering real tax relief
that Canadians can see.
Every taxpayer in the country is wondering, “Why should I send
so much of my hard earned income to Ottawa when it wastes it so
blatantly? Why should I fund a fountain in Shawinigan or dead
rabbit art?”
Never in the history of Canada have so many given so much to so
few to get so little. Yes, Canadian taxpayers are tired of being
fleeced by the government. Only the Canadian Alliance with the
17% solution will give them true hope.
* * *
AL PURDY
Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
one of Canada's most famous poets, Al Purdy of Ameliasburgh,
Ontario, died on April 21, 2000 at the age of 81.
I rise today on behalf of the Government of Canada to recognize
the contributions of this poet and to honour his legacy.
1405
Mr. Purdy's works captured the energy and emotions of Canadians
in their daily lives and the landscapes that shape our identity.
He published 33 books of poetry, including the The Caribou
Horses and Collected Poems 1956-86. Mr. Purdy was twice
the recipient of the Governor General's Literary Award and was
appointed to the Order of Canada in 1983. This year the League
of Canadian Poets presented Al Purdy with a special award
declaring him the voice of the land.
Mr. Purdy will be missed and sincere condolences go out to Mr.
Purdy's surviving family.
* * *
[Translation]
MASCOUCHE
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the parish
of Saint-Henri de Mascouche was born in 1750. At that point, its
population was 542. This year, the municipality with a
population of over 29,000 celebrates its 250th anniversary.
The committee organizing the celebrations, chaired by Pierre
Raymond, has prepared a highly varied program of activities that
will enable everyone to find an opportunity at least once during
the year to celebrate Mascouche of yesterday, today and
tomorrow.
I would like to pay tribute to the superb job done by the
members of the 250th album committee. They are: Thérèse
Patenaude, Huguette Lévesque-Lamoureux, France Tremblay, Diane
Beaudet, Chantal Filion and Bernard Patenaude, past committee
chair and mayor, Gilles Forest, former mayor, Laurent Crépeau,
Donald Mailly, René Archer, Louis Duval, Julien Mckay and
historian Denis Gravel, the source of the historical side of the
album.
Well done and thanks from the people.
* * *
[English]
HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
is Holocaust Remembrance Day. Jews all over the world in concert
with their fellow citizens commemorate crimes against humanity
that are too terrible to be believed but not too terrible to have
happened; a genocidal racism in which as Nobel laureate Elie
Wiesel put it, “Not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were
victims”; where biology was inescapably destiny. Today we
remember that the Holocaust is not an abstraction in which six
million Jews and 11 million non-Jews were murdered, but where
onto each person murdered there is a name, an identity.
I would like to commend l'Assemblée nationale du Québec for
unanimously enacting legislation proclaiming today, May 2
officially as Holocaust Remembrance Day in Quebec. I trust that
the lesson of Holocaust Remembrance Day, “Never Again” and
“human rights for all”, will be the universal testament and
legacy for all peoples everywhere.
* * *
NATIONAL CANADIAN LIBERATION MONUMENT
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of
Okanagan—Coquihalla to commemorate the 55th anniversary of the
liberation of the Netherlands by Canadian troops.
To mark the 55th anniversary of the liberation and to serve as a
lasting reminder of the role of Canadians in securing their
freedom, a national monument to the Canadian liberators will be
unveiled today by Her Royal Highness Princess Margriet in
Apeldoorn.
In May 1995 I attended the Canada remembrance ceremonies in the
Netherlands and will never forget the genuine expression of
gratitude the people of Holland displayed for the Canadian
liberators of their country. The burgemeester of Arnhem told me
that in relation to their actions Canadian veterans were far too
modest.
The people of the Netherlands will never forget the 7,600
Canadians who gave their lives to liberate their country.
Canadians too should be proud of the sacrifices of our veterans
and those heroes, the young men who did not return to Canada.
Because of this the Canadian flag will always fly prominently in
Holland.
* * *
[Translation]
DANIEL PLOUFFE
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
March 4, Daniel Plouffe of Brome—Missisquoi was honoured by the
U.S. Trotting Association after being named Owner of the Year in
the United States by this prestigious association.
Over the past year, Daniel Plouffe has been racking up honours.
His horse, Blissfull Hall, won the triple crown for pacers, a
very important award in the horse racing world. Moreover, his
horse was named Horse of the Year in Canada. The incredible wins
of his horse were reported all over America. Daniel Plouffe has
made headlines in the newspapers and horse racing magazines all
over North America.
He will represent Canada in July, at the World Tournament for
Amateur Drivers, which will take place in Italy.
It is always a great pleasure to celebrate success. All the
residents of Brome—Missisquoi join me in doing so. This is not
just success at the provincial or national level, but success at
the international level.
Congratulations to Daniel Plouffe for an extraordinary year in
1999.
* * *
[English]
VIETNAM WAR
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam war should be
cause for reflection in many quarters. The Vietnam war was a war
that is widely regarded as foreign policy mistake on the part of
the U.S.
Even former cold war warriors like Robert McNamara have said so.
It was a tragedy that marked a generation by showing us that our
allies are not always right and that all conflicts should be
approached with a self-critical consciousness.
1410
In such a spirit we remember politicians like former NDP leader
Tommy Douglas who opposed the war when it was not yet popular to
do so. We celebrate the openness of our country Canada to young
Americans who refused to participate.
We also remind the current Vietnamese government that it
repudiates and abuses the values and goodwill of those who
opposed the war when it acts as it did last week by executing
Nguyen Thi Hiep, a Canadian citizen who should have been given
the benefit of the doubt. She certainly should not have been the
victim of capital punishment, a form of punishment that leaves no
room for reconsideration, further evidence or mercy.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the area
of international co-operation, the last budget was a big
disappointment, in spite of the expectations that had been
generated.
After talking about a significant increase in the budgets for
international assistance in the last throne speech, after
boasting about Canada's reputation in the area of international
co-operation, after announcing the debt reduction program for the
poorest countries, the government has precious little to show
for.
It refuses to explain how it intends to achieve the target of
0.7% of the GDP in development assistance, set by the UN.
The increase barely maintains Canada's current level of
assistance at 0.27% of the GDP. The ratio was 0.42% when the
Liberals took office in 1993-94.
The budget does not specify how the government will follow up on
its commitment to eliminate the debt of the poorest countries in
the world.
The last budget does nothing to restore Canada's reputation in
the area of official development assistance.
Like many things here in this parliament, this is disappointing.
* * *
[English]
CHILDREN
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have received letters from 200 members of the Ontario English
Catholic Teachers Association in support of the national
children's agenda. The teachers are endorsing the
recommendations outlined by the Canadian Teachers' Federation.
Their proposal calls for an additional allocation of 1% of GDP by
the year 2005 phased in over the next five years at a rate of two
billion new dollars each year.
The teachers recommend that the funds be allocated to seven
priority areas, including a comprehensive early childhood
development system, an affordable housing program for low income
Canadians, and a national child care strategy. Teachers are well
positioned to assess the needs of children and recommend programs
and services to ensure the development of their full potential.
The government has made significant progress in supporting the
income of families. Now we need to concentrate on supporting
early childhood development services.
* * *
ROSEMARY KATHLEEN HERRON
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
happy to announce to the House that the PC Party has grown once
again with the birth of a tiny Tory on April 19. My hon.
colleague from Fundy—Royal and his wonderful wife Beth welcomed
spring with the birth of their first child, Rosemary Kathleen
Herron. The family is of course overjoyed to have received so
many gifts and best wishes from all the parties in the Commons. I
would like to inform the House that despite this fact, this is
one tiny Tory who is going to stay put.
On behalf of all the members of the PC Party, I would like to
convey our heartfelt wishes of happiness and health for the
Herron family in the years to come.
* * *
I AM CANADIAN
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I do not spend
millions to run for office or hire American consultants or go
negative. I do not know Stockwell or Tom or Joe but I am sure
they are very nice. I have a health card, not an insurance card.
I listen to Cross Country Checkup, not Howard Stern or Rush
Limbaugh. I speak for people, not multinational corporations. I
believe in inexpensive generic drugs, environmental protection
and fair trade deals. I believe that Canada can have an
independent foreign policy. Canadian taxpayers are citizens too
who value our social programs. And it is pronounced medicare,
not Bill 11, okay? Canada is the home of public health care,
curling, Codco and the NDP.
My name is John and I am Canadian.
* * *
[Translation]
PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO THE MIDDLE EAST
Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister's visit to the Middle East is a
major Canadian investment in peace and co-operation in this
region of the world.
Having had the privilege of accompanying the Prime Minister, I
urge members and all interested observers to rise above the
impression left by the local media coverage and focus on the
real meaning of this mission.
1415
Never before had a Canadian Prime Minister found the time or
been bold enough to visit this area of the world, although it
has played a major role in the genesis of our civilization and
has seen more than its share of wars and problems of all sorts.
On behalf of the Canadian people, our Prime Minister wished to
convey a message of compassion and encouragement, of friendship
and co-operation with these peoples, who have for too long been
plunged in insecurity.
Relying on UN resolutions, the Prime Minister had but one
concern: to express the support of Canada for a global, lasting
and real solution negotiated by the parties.
We must be glad that this mission, which was much appreciated by
our hosts, was successful in establishing solid lines of
co-operation and friendship between Canada and these Middle
Eastern nations.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ACOA
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it is hard to imagine a government that could be more
devoted to using taxpayer dollars for its own partisan purposes.
Just look at the Prime Minister's riding. Look at the
boondoggles from the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Look at the hon. member for Ahuntsic.
Today let us look at the spending patterns at the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency. The Liberals spent an extra $100
million through that agency in the lead up to the last federal
election. Apparently the Liberals were desperately trying to
hang on to Atlantic seats for fear their defeated cabinet
ministers might join the Canadian Alliance.
How does the Prime Minister justify using public money for
partisan gain?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is a byelection in St. John's West
and what we are seeing today is politicking. It was the great
Lennox Lewis who coined the word “politricks”.
I mention Lennox Lewis because he started his boxing career in
Atlantic Canada and he clobbers his opposition. That is exactly
what we are going to do to the hon. member's party.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I think he has been kissing the blarney stone too much.
We obtained a list of all ACOA grants, contributions and loans
from 1996 to 1999. There was a dramatic increase before and
during the 1997 election writ period. Average monthly spending
jumped from $30 million to $54 million just before the election
and to a high of $71 million by the end of the campaign. It is
plain and simple. It is just like the transitional jobs fund.
The Liberals spent the bank in the lead up to the last federal
election.
Why did the government find so many ways to spend so much money
in the lead up to the last federal election?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the recent reports of the auditor general
and the public accounts both show one thing, that is, there was a
period of time when ACOA did spend a lot of money and it was not
exactly on good investments. What was that period, as defined by
the auditor general and the public accounts? The years 1991 and
1992 when the political party was in that the hon. member wishes
to unite with.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, this was not just some kind of coincidence. ACOA
spending jumped by a total of $100 million during the 1997
campaign. That is $100 million that could have gone to tax
relief. It could have gone to hospital beds. It could have gone
to education. It could have gone to something useful. Instead,
the Liberals spent it on ACOA.
Why did the long-suffering taxpayers have to spend their tax
dollars in a vain attempt to elect Liberals in the last federal
election?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, both the auditor general and the public
accounts clearly show that the system in effect prior to the
Liberals coming to power in 1993 was not acceptable. That is why
we spent a lot of time, practically a year, to completely revise
the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
If I get another question in a minute, I will outline exactly
what those changes were.
1420
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will do whatever
it takes to support his Liberal colleagues, especially when the
taxpayers are paying for that support.
It cost the taxpayers an extra $100 million. He lost over half
of his Atlantic caucus and has driven one of his former cabinet
ministers to the Alliance.
Why did the Prime Minister waste so much taxpayers' dollars in
his failed attempt to influence Atlantic Canadian voters?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad to answer the question. Yes, we have used the
government's economic policies to reduce unemployment. When we
started in this government we had 11.5% unemployment. Now we are
down to 6.8%. Yes, we have programs to help people have the
dignity of work. We are very proud of that, and two million more
Canadians work today because they have a good federal government
which cares about their future.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, this is not about continuing
an ongoing program; this is about putting an extra $100 million
of taxpayer money into ACOA before and during the 1997 election
in an attempt to protect the jobs of Liberal members of
parliament; not average Canadian jobs, but MP jobs.
Why did Canadian taxpayers fund the Liberal campaign in Atlantic
Canada?
Hon. George S. Baker (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition, who of
course want to do away with ACOA, who want to do away with all of
the regional programs, who want to cut $3 billion from the
benefits of our senior citizens, should examine the question they
are asking today.
Prior to the last federal election—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. George S. Baker: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am asking
the official opposition to examine the facts is because for years
there have been no grants, as the hon. member calls them,
available under ACOA.
When the Liberals took over the first thing we did was to cancel
all of the grants and bring in a system of loans for business.
If the hon. member would ask me a supplementary question, I would
continue to explain the changes we made.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, faced
with the mess at HRDC, the minister sang the praises of her six
point plan.
But a report published by Deloitte & Touche on
February 2 points out major shortcomings in that plan.
How can the minister claim to reassure the public with her
famous plan, when independent analysts say that it misses the
mark entirely?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong. Let us recall
what the auditor general said about the action plan. He said
that the action plan prepared by the department represented an
exceptional response. What is good for the auditor general is
good for me.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
auditor general was referring to immediate needs.
But the six point plan was severely criticized by Deloitte &
Touche, experts to whom she turned, and she published a new
plan, which is supposedly the same as the draft, the same day as
the study. She ignored the experts' advice.
In the situation in which she now finds herself, lurching from
one gaffe to another, how can the minister ignore the advice of
experts she herself has hired?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Again, Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc is wrong.
He should take time to do some research.
Deloitte & Touche was asked to look at our plan. They made
recommendations and we implemented them.
1425
They said that we needed greater cohesiveness to orchestrate the
various actions in an integrated fashion. What did we do? We
established a grants and contributions team to ensure that we
meet their recommendations.
They said that we needed assurance that funds had been
transferred according to program requirements. What did we do?
We put in place a departmental directive on the issuance of
payments, which requires sign-off by senior executives to ensure
that the payments are made appropriately.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us get serious. Deloitte &
Touche considered that the plan does not get to the root of the
problem and saw its recommendations shelved.
What does the minister, who has hidden behind this plan for the
past six months, have to say now that we know her plan does not
get to the bottom of things? Is she refusing to act on the
recommendations of these chartered accountants?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member was.
I thought he was at committee today where the representative of
Deloitte & Touche said “Yes, indeed, the department came to us and
paid us to look at the recommended plan. We gave them advice and
the department implemented our recommendations”. What could be
better?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was on the committee, and at no
point did the firm representative say that his recommendations
had been followed. He did not know.
The minister is obviously overwhelmed by the crisis at the Human
Resources Development Canada.
Mr. Prime Minister, I appeal to you—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Remarks and questions must always be addressed to
the Chair.
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Prime Minister to
see whether the only way to regain control is not to implement
the plan of the Bloc, a very simple two point plan: the
resignation of the minister and the launching of a public and
independent inquiry.
[English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all the members on this side of the House and I have
great confidence in the abilities and the hard work of the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, last
evening I stood with Friends of Medicare on the steps of the
Alberta legislature. I stood together with people who believe
that Canadians should receive health care when they need it,
regardless of their financial circumstances or where they happen
to live.
Sadly, the Prime Minister was not there, the Minister of Health
was not there and the Minister of Justice was not there. No
representative of the government was there.
There is no disgrace in standing together with Friends of
Medicare. Why was the health minister not there?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the position of the NDP on health is always the same. First,
they believe that the status quo is sufficient; second, they seem
to believe that simply adding more money is enough. That is not
right.
Everybody else in this country, the government and even the
Canadian Alliance, has put ideas on the table to change health
care because we believe that is the way to improve it. Why has
the NDP not come forward with a single new idea to reform and
improve health care in this country? Why will NDP members not
join with us in making an effort to improve medicare?
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in case
the health minister has not noticed, Premier Klein has now laid
out the final form of the health privatization bill for
Albertans. He has now invoked closure.
The faint hope of Canadians that Alberta's premier would
actually listen to Albertans and kill the bill is now fast
fading.
I ask the Prime Minister, besides watching from the sidelines
while health care goes two tier, what plans does the federal
government have to take action and stand for medicare?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have said hundreds of times in the House of Commons
that every piece of legislation passed by any government has to
meet the five conditions of the national health care act of
Canada.
If they do not, we will just do what we have done before. We
were the first government ever to cut funds to a province that
did not follow the rules that were established by this
parliament.
* * *
1430
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the auditor general reported in November that 90% of untendered
government contracts should have been put up for bids. I checked
and found that 3,186 contracts awarded by public works went to
companies that donated to Liberal Party candidates in the 1997
election and 54% of these were untendered.
Can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services explain
why his department is giving so many untendered contracts to
Liberal Party supporters?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most of the
contracts go to public tender. Some contracts depend on the
amount, on the circumstance and whether they are sole source, but
it is a very minimal amount. More than two-thirds of all the
contracts of not only my department but all Government of Canada
departments are through public tender.
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the auditor general said that 90% of untendered
contracts would not pass public scrutiny. Public works has put
three-quarters of a billion dollars into the pockets of companies
that donated to Liberal candidates, most of them untendered.
Will the minister invite the auditor general to review in detail
all the untendered contracts awarded by public works and report
back to the House here in parliament?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general
always reviews what we do in government. We do not have to
invite him, he is already there. When the auditor general makes
his report, parliament takes account of what he reports.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, operation sidewinder was a joint RCMP-CSIS task
force that laid out in great detail how Asian crime gangs and
Chinese spy agencies were infiltrating Canada.
Yesterday the parliamentary secretary claimed that operation
sidewinder had not been shut down. In fact it was shut down in
1997.
Why is there so little concern about national security on that
side of the House that the parliamentary secretary would not even
be briefed with information about operation sidewinder?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is incorrect. It was
not shut down at all. It was a study and it was completed. In
fact, when a study is complete, that is the end of the study.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance):
That is a very interesting, Mr. Speaker, because in a letter from
SIRC it says “The committee's review will examine project
sidewinder, including its termination and whether CSIS has
acted—”. SIRC is looking into the termination.
How can the minister stand in the House and say that it is not
terminated when the security intelligence review committee is
looking into its termination?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is no doubt well aware
that both the RCMP and CSIS have indicated that it was an
excellent report. SIRC is reviewing this report as it has the
authority to review any report.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following a
request submitted to the Department of Human Resources
Development to obtain the invoices justifying the grants to
Placeteco, we were told that we had to go the access to
information route. We did that and there are no invoices on file.
The minister justified these grants by referring to the
existence of invoices. Why is she hiding these invoices?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has made an access
request, the information will be made available.
This question gives me a chance to update the House on the
number of access to information requests that the department has
received. We are now up to 1,000.
We have a lot of work to do to provide the information that
different groups want and we will do that to the best of our
ability.
1435
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to make sure
the minister understands clearly, I repeat that we submitted our
request under the Access to Information Act. We contacted her
department. We used every possible avenue. We did not see
anything that looked remotely like an invoice.
My question to the minister is: Are these not public documents,
documents on which she relies to approve grants, and do we not
have the right to see these invoices? We want to see them.
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the access to
information program is managed by the department under the
auspices of the information commissioner. If the hon. member
made the request, he will receive the documentation, as is
appropriate.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, Robert Fahlman, a former RCMP
criminal intelligence officer, said “The Mounties were
disappointed with CSIS stopping sidewinder”. Robert Proulx,
director of RCMP criminal intelligence, wrote the director
general of CSIS arguing that the original sidewinder report was
altered, sometimes incorrectly, and, in some cases, some
information had been completely removed. He said “I want those
sections to remain because they are integral to the integrity of
the report”.
The minister knows the law with regard to altering and
destroying documents. Why was the law broken if not to cover up?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is aware that SIRC is
evaluating these allegations and will review the report. When it
does, it will report to me.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, since 1993 the Liberal government has
gone out of its way to court trade and business opportunities
with China. In fact, the Prime Minister is planning to lead
another trade mission to China later this year.
Is the real reason the government and the Prime Minister are
turning a blind eye to the threat of Asian gangs and Chinese spy
agencies setting up shop in Canada because they do not want to
interfere?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is well aware that we
have an excellent security intelligence agency and an excellent
police force.
My hon. colleague is also well aware that the government
recognizes the need and has indicated clearly many times that we
will give the police and the security intelligence agency the
tools and the funding to do the job. The government has given
$810 million of new money to my department to make sure that
these agencies are able to fulfil their tasks.
* * *
[Translation]
CINAR
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in response to a question we asked him yesterday, the
Minister of National Revenue said that, for there to be voluntary
disclosure, and I quote “The government or any other entity must
not have already taken measures to recover funds belonging to the
state”.
Are we to understand from this response from the Minister of
National Revenue that CINAR would still qualify for the voluntary
disclosure program, despite the fact that the RCMP itself admits
that the case apparently involves fraud?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and Secretary
of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions
of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, with respect to the
corporation referred to, the rules of confidentiality obviously
prevent me from commenting.
Second, concerning the fairness initiative, which includes a
voluntary disclosure measure, the meaning of voluntary disclosure
is obviously clear from the expression itself: the case must not
have been brought to the attention of the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency if one is to benefit from this aspect of the
fairness initiative.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I again quote the response given by the minister
yesterday. For a corporation to be eligible for the voluntary
disclosure program “the government or any other entity must not
have already taken measures to recover funds belonging to the
state”.
Will the minister tell us whether or not he has taken action to
recover the amounts CINAR is alleged to have fraudulently
obtained?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of National Revenue and
Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the
Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the question
has to do with a specific corporation and, under the rule of
confidentiality, I am obviously unable to comment.
I will not comment because all Canadians understand the rule of
confidentiality, support it and certainly understand its
importance. The government will ensure that this rule is
respected.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, last summer 600 illegal migrants arrived on Canada's
shores. The immigration minister assured Canadians that those
people would be processed quickly and dealt with appropriately.
It is now 10 months later and they are either still detained or
have disappeared. We have now been told to expect more than
twice as many this summer.
How will the minister handle this year's influx of illegal
migrants when she still has not dealt with those of last year?
1440
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the member that there
have been no indications of any boats on their way to Canada.
However, if there are, we are now prepared to handle the
situation because as of what happened last year. That is simply
good management. We intend to intercept the boats. We will
detain them and we will have a speedy determination.
As the member knows, I recently went to China to discuss
expediting removals with the Chinese government so that we can
return those Chinese nationals who are ready to go home to China.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the problem is not with another government, the problem
is with this government.
Five hundred of the 600 illegal migrants who came last summer
have still not been processed by this government. When this
government mismanages billions of taxpayers' dollars it affects
people's standard of living, but when this government mismanages
security, justice or immigration it affects people's lives.
How can the minister be so callous and mismanage her department
in a way that affects so many people's lives?
Hon. Elinor Caplan (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I disagree with just about everything the
member opposite has said.
We intercepted those boats last summer and detained the
individuals. They have had due process and 100 are removal ready
at this time. We are seeking travel documents. There are an
additional 350 who are deciding now whether they want to drag out
this process through the courts and make further appeals. That
is their right because we believe in due process.
I want the member opposite to know that we are anticipating
every eventuality and we are prepared. That is good management.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the case
of the Placeteco invoices, either the Minister of Human Resources
Development did not understand or she did not want to understand.
The opposition has used every means at its disposal, including
access to information: no invoice was to be found in the general
file of Placeteco.
Since she is basing her defence on these documents in the
Placeteco matter, will the minister agree here in this House to
make these invoices available? They are public documents, and we
want to see them. Will she agree to this?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when we talk
about papers from an individual business there are privacy
concerns. I would encourage the hon. member to use the access to
information process so that the appropriate information can be
made available. That is what the process is there to do and I
would encourage him to use it.
* * *
FINANCE
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
At the recent International Monetary Fund and World Bank
meetings, which were held in Washington, protesters decried the
exclusion of civil society.
Could the minister tell the House what the government is doing
to encourage the participation of civil society in these talks
and also in discussions at that level?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member's question is very pertinent because it
reflects on the legitimate concerns that many NGOs have about the
process of globalization.
The response is really twofold, one at the national level. Over
the course of the last four years I have, on a regular basis, met
with the pertinent NGOs. In fact, just before we went to the
meeting in Washington, the Minister for International Cooperation
and myself met with them again.
At the national level, the president of the World Bank has told
me that in the course of the last couple of months he has met
with over 60 NGOs. The World Bank has in fact gone on line in
order to conduct a dialogue with these NGOs. The question in
fact is very pertinent.
* * *
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, in one year alone Canada poured $60 million of CIDA
aid into Vietnam for so-called justice reform and good
governance. Last week's execution of a Canadian shows that this
investment in the Communist justice system is an abysmal failure.
Why does this government not stop investing in a Vietnam system
that abuses human rights?
1445
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that our bilateral
program is $16 million. As a result of the horrendous behaviour
of the Vietnamese government, I have postponed indefinitely all
consultations on future programming in Vietnam.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, we all regret that the minister has failed in her
management.
CIDA invested $59.17 million to reform the Vietnamese justice
system. Nguyen Thi Hiep was brutally executed by a firing squad,
by the very system which Canadian taxpayers were made to invest
in. Where is justice reform in that system?
Hon. Maria Minna (Minister for International Cooperation,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is evident that not only Canada but
the World Bank and many other organizations were working with
Vietnam to assist it to become a modern, democratic, moral
society.
Obviously what has happened in the last number of days has been
absolutely unacceptable. It is why, as I already said to the
hon. member, I have stopped all consultations on future
programming for Vietnam at this point.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
we know the Minister of Health is feeling kind of touchy and
defensive when he starts to attack us for not having any
suggestions. We have done nothing else but make suggestions for
years. Perhaps I will ask a question of the Minister for
International Trade because we have not been able to get an
answer from the Minister of Health.
What is the Minister for International Trade's position with
respect to the relationship between chapter 11 of NAFTA and what
is going on in Alberta with respect to bill 11? Canadians and
Albertans have a right to know before the bill is passed what the
government regards as the NAFTA implications.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear that it is Canada's
right to regulate and protect fundamental Canadian values within
the health care sector, as well as in education.
As I have said time and again, those Canadian values as defined
by the Canada Health Act are fully protected under NAFTA. The
issue here is the Canadian health system which the government is
committed to preserving fully for all Canadians.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure whether that was much of an improvement
and whether or not I should go back to the Minister of Health.
The fact of the matter is that we do not have an opinion from
the government as to the NAFTA implications of Bill 11. Canadians
need to know that and the Canadian government needs to have an
opinion on that before that bill passes. Closure has now been
invoked.
The Minister of Health said he was seeking opinions on this
matter. What has he found out? What is the position of the
government? What is it going to do about it if it is found that
it does have NAFTA implications?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the question does not get any better as the hon. member raises
his voice. The answer is quite obvious. I have expressed the
concern of the Government of Canada to the Government of Alberta
about NAFTA.
The matter is being debated in the Alberta legislature. There
are amendments before that body and we will determine the result
when the vote is taken.
My point is that the NDP comes to this discussion with no fresh
ideas about how to improve medicare. It is the same old status
quo from the same old NDP. It is not good enough for this
government and it is not good enough for Canadians.
* * *
PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, in 1997 in Ontario, Public Works and Government
Services Canada gave 1,845 contracts worth $361 million to
companies that donated to the province's 103 federal Liberal
candidates. Some 64% of the contracts were untendered. If one
did not give money to the governing party, chances are one did
not get the contract. The auditor general has condemned this
practice.
Will the minister call in the auditor general again to
investigate why the minister's department is handing out so many
untendered contracts that disproportionately reward government
supporters?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where
the hon. member got those figures. It was just yesterday that I
looked at the figures and in my department 66% of the contracts
went to public tender. Only 6% were sole sourced and the balance
were under the program where, as we advised before, we give a
contract if there is no other possibility. The hon. member has
all the figures wrong.
The auditor general is there on a daily basis and he audits all
the programs that we have. I do not have to invite him. He is
already there.
1450
Mr. Peter MacKay: Once again he has contradicted the
auditor general. We will see tomorrow who is right.
* * *
JUSTICE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the government's very liberal approach to crime has
provided $450,000 in a grant to the Elizabeth Fry Society so that
it could fully support and wish every success to Karla Homolka's
bid for early release into a halfway house. Within the year the
same society will provide favourable representations to the
parole board for early release.
Rehabilitation support for prisoners is important, but where is
the balance in our justice system which forces taxpayers to fund
the early release of convicted sex killers while the rights of
the French and Mahaffy families are ignored?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Elizabeth Fry Society speaks on
behalf of offenders, women offenders in particular. It is an
independent, non-profit organization which speaks on behalf of
women offenders. It does not decide who is paroled. That is
done by Correctional Service Canada or the National Parole Board.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this afternoon in the city of Toronto representatives of the
provincial weapons enforcement unit of Ontario, the Toronto
police area firearms office, and the United States Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms announced the uncovering of a major
international firearms smuggling operation.
Could the Minister of Justice inform the House of what her
department's role was and, most important, the role of the
Canadian firearms registration system in this operation?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do want to confirm that
Canadian and U.S. authorities have uncovered what is believed to
be the largest international firearms smuggling ring in North
America.
Over 22,000 firearms and components were seized. To quote the
Toronto police service which was involved in this seizure, “the
investigation commenced as a result of the new Firearms Act that
included the creation of the Canadian firearms registration
system”.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the grain transportation system,
dominated by the Canadian Wheat Board, has just dished out $44
million for rate increases to Canadian farmers.
Grain farmers and Canada's grain companies have joined with the
government's own experts in calling for the removal of the
Canadian Wheat Board's iron fisted domination, yet the Liberals
refuse to act. This inaction has led to rate increases instead
of reductions.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is preserving the
control of the Canadian Wheat Board more important to the
government than lower rates for farmers?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I answered yesterday to a question from the NDP,
the Canadian Transportation Agency was fully within its statutory
authority when it issued the authority for the increase last
week.
I know this has caused some concern with producers, in
particular on the prairies, but shortly I will be coming before
the House with a package of reforms which will be fair and
equitable. The bottom line is that those reforms will benefit
western farmers. I hope the Reform or Alliance Party will be
there to support the bill when it comes in.
* * *
[Translation]
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in the matter of the Placeteco invoices, the minister has told us
three times today to use access to information.
I repeat, for the third time, that we have done so. Not only
have we done so, but we received the file yesterday, May 1, a big
file without a single invoice in it. To the claim that it is
confidential, I reply that in a number of other instances we have
received invoices and pay slips. There was no invoice in the
Placeteco file.
I ask the minister why the invoices are not in the file. Were
there any in the first place?
1455
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions,
we have reviewed this file. Indeed the moneys that were
presented to Placeteco were fully identified in the context of
appropriate terms and conditions of the agreement.
Again, access to information is a process whereby information is
reviewed and is protected according to privacy decisions. I do
not make those decisions. They are made in the context of the
act of this House.
* * *
PATENTED MEDICINES
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Recent WTO
rulings on patented drugs will again increase drug costs for
Canadians.
The Liberals broke their 1993 promise to protect generic drugs,
so brand name drug prices have soared adding billions to our
health costs. More health dollars are now spent on drugs than on
doctors' fees and too many people have to choose between filling
their prescriptions or buying food.
Will the Liberal government at least draw a line in the sand and
appeal the WTO ruling on drug patents or, better still, will the
Prime Minister finally stand up for Canadians and kill Bill C-91,
like he promised seven years ago?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member may have been watching the news lately to
hear about how citizens of the United States are crossing our
borders because our drug prices are significantly lower than they
are in the United States.
He may think that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board in
fact should have credit for the fact that Canadian patented
medicine prices are lower than in the United States and should be
applauding the government for that.
As to the appeal, we will take the case under consideration and
we will determine at the appropriate time what remedies we should
seek.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister was in
Newfoundland a few days ago. He publicly stated that he was
willing to consider providing a 10 year holiday on the
equalization clawback for have not provinces.
That caused quite a stir in Newfoundland because this is a
battle that the premier, the opposition, and the people of the
province have been waging for quite some time. Is the minister
serious about a new equalization arrangement for Newfoundland and
the have not provinces?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I said in Newfoundland is something that I have
said on many occasions. In terms of Newfoundland and in terms of
Atlantic Canada it is very clear that the development of a modern
economy requires a leg up.
The government is prepared to stand behind Atlantic Canada
because we recognize that the depth of entrepreneurship, the
educational institutions and the basic research that is there all
can combine to give Atlantic Canada a very strong economy, and we
will make sure that it happens.
* * *
SPORTS
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
month ago the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport announced some
additional funding for Canadian athletes. Could the secretary of
state update us on what he is doing to help national coaches in
our sports federations?
[Translation]
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last Friday our government showed once again that amateur
sport is a priority for us.
We have invested an additional $5.2 million to help our olympic
and paralympic athletes prepare in addition to those who often
make a difference and are too often forgotten: our trainers.
Funding has now increased from $8 million to $11 million.
[English]
Since the last budget our government invested $13 million more,
and it is only the beginning. Once again we walk the talk.
* * *
GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the
transport minister that the highly regulated statutory freight
rate system that is currently in place is exactly what is wrong
with grain transportation. That is why there is a 4.5% increase
in rates.
The savings from grain transportation reform would give farmers
an average of $15,000 per year if it were deregulated. Why again
is this minister and the Prime Minister willing to continue with
the regulated freight system that is driving our farmers into
bankruptcy? Let us see an end to it. Will you end it with your
new legislation?
The Speaker: Please address questions through the Chair.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, when we bring in the bill which
hopefully will take effect for the beginning of the grain season
in August we will see a change in the regime that has penalized
producers, has penalized railways and has penalized grain
companies.
It has penalized everybody in the system for the last 60, 70, 80,
100 years.
1500
This government has taken its responsibilities. We have
commissioned two prominent Canadians, Justice Estey and Mr.
Arthur Kroeger. We have the benefit of their advice and will be
moving on a package of reforms. Given the hon. member's
enthusiasm, I know that we can count on his support.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a press
conference yesterday, the Mouvement autonome et solidaire des
sans-emploi voiced its support of the Bloc Quebecois by calling
for the Minister of Human Resources Development to proceed as
promptly as possible with an in-depth reform of the employment
insurance program.
When will the minister respond to this heart-felt cry from the
jobless, and when will she finally decide to act?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if we want to look at what has been
happening for the unemployed, we can look at the fact that two
million Canadians who were not working in 1993 are working today.
We can look at the fact that we have the lowest rate of
unemployment in Canada in decades.
We can look at the investments that this government has been
making in areas that have not had the opportunity to benefit from
the surge in the economic growth in Canada. Those are the kinds
of investments that we feel are important. Those are our
responses to the unemployed.
* * *
PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Last year we saw the minister surrender to the U.S. on
magazines, but to her credit it was at least after a fight.
Yesterday she indicated that she is willing to give up our
newspapers without even fighting.
It is demeaning that our culture minister goes to Boston to show
Americans a beer ad so they will “understand us better”. If she
thinks that Americans do not understand us, why would she allow
Americans to control Canadian newsrooms? Why is she ignoring 30
years of studies which are firm in opposing foreign control of
newspapers?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would never allow foreign control of newspapers.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Of the first nations bands fishing in Atlantic Canada, how many
and which ones are fishing under band conservation regulations
instead of Department of Fisheries and Oceans conservation
regulations?
The Speaker: Order, please. That question is very
specific. If the hon. minister wants to answer, I will permit
him to do so.
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
conservation is a priority for anyone who is fishing under
conservation rules to make sure that we have a sustainable
fishery for the future.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I was earlier pointing out some interesting anomalies in the
political structure and relating them to this issue. I do not
want to go back there because I think I made the point that we
have a genetically modified political party in our midst. I will
let people think about that.
The point I want to stress is why an opposition party would feel
the need to put forward a motion that would require tremendous
regulatory efforts by the government to mandate labels on
products that are clearly tested and go through a very stringent
safety program. Perhaps we could deal with the facts instead of
the fearmongering that we see around this issue.
I am sure it is confusing, if not boring to most Canadians when
they hear the issues around modifying food genetically. I am
sure it is extremely important, however, to the agriculture
producers, to the industry, and to all of the different
associations and groups that work in the industry. That is why
this government has attempted to work with all of those groups to
ensure there is a process in place which will provide the safety
mechanisms and checks for food that will be sold to the consumer.
Some comments were made that perhaps the government was not
taking this motion seriously enough. There may be a reason for
that suggestion or that feeling. The reason is that it smells a
little more like pure politics rather than dealing with the
facts. I want to take a moment, if I may, to share some of the
facts, the background and the research that we have done on this
issue.
The government is looking for a solution to the problem which
will provide a level of confidence to the Canadian consumer while
at the same time allowing producers to access the new science and
technology that is available. In virtually every walk of life
science and technology grows in leaps and bounds. There are
tremendous advances, virtually on a daily basis. We have to make
sure that we stay abreast of all of them and not simply scare
people into thinking there are problems.
1510
In that regard we invested $90 million in the last budget, not
only to ensure that we stay on top and on the cutting edge of
this biotechnology, but also to ensure that our food inspection
and regulatory system remains first class.
In that area I want to say once again that Canada has a
reputation for having the finest safety system for food
inspection in the world. It is not just standing and beating our
chests or doing a beer commercial and saying “I am Canadian”,
it is a fact.
Health Canada works very closely with all different agencies to
ensure that the Canadian people can trust the products that go on
the shelves of their grocery stores. It works very diligently
with the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that there is safety
in the drugs that are produced. It works very closely the
companies which produce health products to ensure that what is
being put on the shelves is safe.
I talked about many of those different products that have burst
on to the scene in recent years, which hopefully will help to
prevent illness and make Canadians more healthy, with the idea
that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Health Canada is very diligent about ensuring that all of the
products which are available to the consumer are safe. I would
suggest that is true in the case of GMOs just as much as it is in
health products and drugs.
It is extremely important that we realize what we as
parliamentarians, as a government and indeed as members of the
opposition should be saying to the Canadian people. We should be
saying that we are prepared to ensure that the new sciences, the
new biotechnological efforts that are being put into modifying
food for the purpose of increasing production and making more
food available to Canadians, will ensure that the food is
nutritious and will fit into the Canadian diet without causing
any form of illness. We should stop the fearmongering that this
motion is attempting to bring about.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have listened to what my colleague from Mississauga
West has had to say before and after Oral Questions. I note that
he has become more serious.
Before Oral Question Period, he sort of went off topic. He
referred to the former Reform Party members, now members of the
Canadian Alliance. This was a kind of departure from the debate
on GMOs.
Now that he has got back to being serious, I would like to ask
him some serious questions. He seems not to be in favour of
labelling GMOs. This does not mean banning them or preventing
studies or experiments. There is simply a need to respect the
public's right to know what it is eating.
When he refers to the numerous consequences of labelling, I
would like to hear some figures from him. How much will this
cost? Has he evaluated this or examined the studies? Even if he
managed to come up with figures, we must ask ourselves: If people
want to know what they are eating, is this not a right that must
be respected?
Why is Canada one of the countries most vehemently opposed to
such labelling? The European countries have adopted it, as have
Japan and South Korea. These are civilized nations. Why would
what is good for Europe be bad for us and for our producers?
There seems to be a world trend toward being more and more in
favour of labelling.
I would like to hear his explanation of this. It seems more as
if he were inviting us not to support a policy of transparency.
It is as if he had something to hide. I trust that is not what
he wants people to think, that Canadian farmers have something to
hide.
1515
As regards the voluntary code of ethics, voluntary regulation or
voluntary labelling, the member for Rosemont recently introduced
a bill asking broadcasters to apply the code of ethics they
introduced in the early 1990s. We know what voluntary codes
mean. They are almost never applied.
I would like the member to clarify his position, to give us the
technical and financial data that would justify his position.
Otherwise, we do not understand his opposition to the public's
right to receive information on something vital, something that
affects their health.
[English]
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am curious about the
question. By the way, I could not resist poking a bit of fun at
the genetically modified political party. There is nothing wrong
with having a bit of that mixed in with what I perceive to be a
very serious topic, but let me answer the gentleman.
No, I have not done an analysis of the cost. This is where I
have some concern. The question was about why we are not in
favour of voluntary labelling. Those were the member's words
through the translator, and I am assuming they were translated
correctly. We are. We already have voluntary labelling. We
have encouraged the development of standards for the voluntary
labelling of new foods including what might be called designer
foods. This project was launched by the Canadian Council of
Grocery Distributors and the Canadian General Standards Board.
Let me just add, in answer to the hon. member, that the
government has asked the Canadian General Standards Board to
develop a Canadian standard for voluntary labelling in
consultation with consumer groups, producer groups, interest
groups and other governments. If the member is saying we should
have voluntary labelling, I think Bloc members should stand to
clarify their position.
To make labelling mandatory when we already have an extremely
successful inspection system in place to ensure both quality and
safety in terms of the products that hit the kitchen table is
nothing more than asking to extend the long arm of government and
bureaucracy. Although I have not done the cost analysis, I
assume it would cost a tremendous amount of money to the industry
and would be a price that need not be paid.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: Sit down, sit down.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: I do not need to sit down because you
do not happen to agree. Voluntary labelling is a totally
different issue. It is like Bloc members to sit there and say
“sit down” when they do not like the message, when they do not
like the truth that comes from this side of the House.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague who
uses great eloquence in the House. With grace, wit and humour he
is always on his mark in terms of how he delivers his speeches.
He knows exactly the kinds of issues that affect Canadians, and
on this there was no exception.
I was interested in the Bloc member's question. Some $37
million went missing in terms of federal money that went to
Quebec. Even the auditor general of Quebec is quoted in Le
Devoir as wondering where that money was. They can caterwaul
all they want over there. They can natter away, but the reality
is that there are $37 million of federal money for which they
cannot account.
I have a question for the hon. member for Mississauga West. He
represents a great part of Ontario. I listened with interest to
how he noted that the Reform-CCRAP alliance has been genetically
modified. The only comment I would add is that in light of the
genetically modified Reform-CCRAP alliance perhaps we should have
an amendment today that requires the Canada Elections Act to be
amended so that there is a warning label on the ballot to
indicate that those people opposite are nothing more than the
reformed, warmed over people they were before.
Never mind that. Does the hon. member agree that Canada, under
the leadership of the Prime Minister and the minister of
agriculture, has the best food safety system in the world? Does
he agree that as a result of what we have been doing we have
nutritious quality food?
1520
Does he agree that instead of taking cheap political partisan
shots all members opposite should be standing and congratulating
the government, the minister of agriculture and the Prime
Minister for doing a fabulous job to protect food and food safety
in our great country?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I think we should stand
to congratulate the member for Waterloo—Wellington for those
wonderful words.
On a serious note, though, I want to share with the House what
actually takes place. It is important that Canadians understand
that the motion was drafted with some political intent. All GMO
foods must be submitted to Health Canada for a strict safety
evaluation by an expert team of toxicologists, biologists,
environmental scientists, chemists and nutritionists to determine
if the food is as safe and nutritious as food already in the
Canadian marketplace. I do not know if I want to eat it after
they have all had a hand in it.
The team considers how the crop was developed, including the
molecular biological data which characterize the genetic change,
the composition of the food compared to its traditional
counterpart food, the nutritional information compared to
non-modified counterparts, and the potential for introducing new
allergens and toxins.
We are on this file as a government. We are doing the job. To
the question asked by the hon. member on whether Canadians can
feel safe with the quality of food I say absolutely, with the
systems we have in place.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to
speak to the Bloc motion concerning mandatory labelling of foods
produced from genetically modified plants and seeds.
From what I have heard from the Bloc Quebecois speakers today,
they seem to place a high emphasis on the organic farm industry.
That is what they seem to be trying to represent with the motion
today. At the end of the debate we will see that a broader
perspective should be taken and the whole of agriculture,
including a lot of social aspects of the issue, has to be
examined.
The biotech industry is important to Canada and is growing. It
must be debated within reason and not have restrictions placed on
it that would unduly hamper, for no good scientific reason, the
advancements that will make our lives and the lives of our
grandchildren better in the years to come.
There are 282 biotechnology companies in Canada. There are
10,000 employees in the industry, 1,900 in agriculture and food
processing and 6,700 in the health care sector. Employment
forecasts are that it will increase by 10% over the next year.
Biotechnology company sales are in the neighbourhood of $450
million in seed, feed, foods and other products. The last
statistic that I will give is that 46% of Canadian biotechnology
companies operate in health care and 29% in agriculture. The
issue is much bigger than just food supply.
A few years ago most people would not have heard of
biotechnology or knew what it meant. Scientific breakthroughs
such as Dolly the cloned sheep have vaulted the word into
headlines around the country. However, most of us still have the
uncomfortable feeling that we really do not know what
biotechnology means. That is where the government of the day
needs to come in with excellent information programs for the
general public so that public fears will be allayed and people
who are fearmongering, like some of the special interest groups
are doing, will not hold sway with their arguments.
The government must address the concerns of Canadians who chose
not to eat food containing GMOs, as well as Canadians who want to
chose the increased variety at lower produce costs. We see that
this can be accomplished through voluntary labelling in the
marketplace, including food companies, grocery stores and fast
food outlets quickly going to a voluntary system in order to
continue making sales.
1525
I have heard a few red herrings being thrown out, particularly
by our NDP friends, with regard to Europe not accepting beef that
had received growth hormones at some point while it was being
fattened for slaughter. That one case is the best example that
science should rule the trade world. Europe has been found at
fault in that issue and has no scientific reason to restrict
imports. As a result it is paying penalties for that.
I will not go into the rest of the NDP logic with regard to
supporting mandatory labelling, but it is a poorly thought out
position for a party to take.
Mandatory labelling of all genetically modified organisms would
place a significant financial burden on Canadian farmers, food
manufacturers and consumers. Increased costs of product
segregation beginning at the farm gate would dramatically
increase the costs of storing, transporting and processing
Canadian grain. It is not impossible to do this, but if it were a
mandatory requirement by government regulation the question of
who would pay the costs would have to be decided. All
technological requirements of segregation would be very complex
and would increase the cost of our food.
The Bloc is calling for this in spite of the fact that there is
no scientific evidence of any kind that food produced from
genetically modified seeds is any different from food produced
from seeds that have not been genetically modified. We are
talking about the same food with no detectable change to it.
Because of the increased costs, the product price for consumers
would rise and the net commodity price for farmers would fall.
Farmers have traditionally never been able to pass along the
costs. I do not see how this would be any different if mandatory
labelling were required.
Farmer choice would also fall. Because of increased costs
farmers would have fewer commodity varieties to choose from. In
modern farming practices it is important to have access to GMO
crops due to disease that is better controlled through genetic
manipulation of the plant characteristics. Consumer choice both
in terms of price and variety would also be lessened by mandatory
labelling. Without having genetically modified crops available,
all these options would be taken away and we would all be poorer
for it.
Consumer demand has created a market for products voluntarily
labelled free of genetically modified organisms. No one has any
problem with that. If the farmer is fully compensated for his
production he will produce what the consumer is willing to buy.
Federal regulators recognized this demand far too late and have
failed to develop guidelines for voluntary labelling. I know
that is currently being done, but it should have been done when
GMOs were being researched back in the early nineties and science
was advancing to the point where we knew they would be available.
Under a voluntary labelling system GMO-free foods would be
marketed similarly to organic foods. Voluntary labelling would
address the calls for consumer choice. Ultimately that is
exactly where it has to be. I will point out later in my speech
some of the problems that consumers face if food prices become
very high. Consumers would shift to various types of foods to
find a source of protein.
Voluntary labelling would address the needs of producers, giving
producers who want to grow GMO-free crops the ability to develop
niche markets. There is nothing the matter with that.
1530
Voluntary labelling would also correctly dilute the costs
associated with segregation. Here again it would be farmers, the
grain handling industry, the grain companies, the railways and
the truckers all responding to a legitimate market signal
indicating that there was a demand for segregation and the
foodstuff that is either GMO or non-GMO.
I hear a lot of negativity that it is people who do not want the
GMOs but as we see, developments are coming along so that people
will demand the GMO product and GMO food. One indicator for the
poor countries of the third world in particular is that rice is
to be modified. It will give them a vitamin source which they do
not currently have which will prevent blindness which is endemic
in some parts of the world due to diet. Voluntary labelling
would correctly distribute the costs associated with segregation.
I have spoken about the size of the industry in Canada and that
it is growing. I should point out at this time that other
countries are booming along with their research and development.
In particular the third world countries realize it is the only
way they will be able to feed their ever increasing populations.
It is only the super rich countries that have the luxury of saying
“Maybe we should label this, maybe we should scare everybody off
and we will not have to worry about feeding our population
because we can afford to do it”. An awful lot of poor people
around the world cannot afford that luxury. In fact there are a
lot of poor people in Canada who cannot afford it either.
Biotechnology offers significant benefits. One benefit is drugs
to treat cancers, AIDS and diabetes. We also see increased and
more effective vaccines, antibiotics, insulin and hormone
replacement. We see new high nutrition foods, new production
methods and varieties that will allow farmers to better manage
weeds and insects while reducing the use of chemical pesticides.
We will also see opportunities for better management of municipal
waste and toxic spills.
The biotech industry has indicated that its research will have
great benefits for the future. Examples are new vaccines for
common diseases such as malaria and cholera. Those diseases kill
millions of people each year, not in Canada but in third world
countries which have those problems. There is gene therapy for
hereditary disorders. It is also possible to remove allergens
from food crops. There is the improvement to the nutrition or
shelf life of fruits, vegetables and grains. I mentioned rice
with enhanced vitamin A and iron to reduce child blindness.
Vaccines are built into crops, fruits and vegetables. We have
increased productivity from the world's farmers. This is
necessary to meet the nutrition needs of the world's growing
population.
We also are looking for rapid reforestation of areas that have
either been logged or destroyed through natural means. We need
to restore those forests. There is conversion of organic wastes
into biofuels. There is also better, more efficient use of the
world's scarce arable land.
These tremendous advancements that are available and the
potential benefits to mankind will not come about if we scare the
consumer from consuming the very products both on the health care
side and the food side to the point where the research companies
will no longer invest in research. I take the stand quite
clearly that if the product, the vaccine, the treatment for AIDS
or cancer or the food that we consume has been checked out by the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency and it has been scientifically
proven to be safe within acceptable risk limits, then we should
purchase those products as a society and use them.
That gives the companies the incentive to continue their
research. If we do not do that they will pull back their horns
and we will not have these great advancements.
1535
I am told it takes at least seven years of testing before new
plant varieties are given a Canadian licence. When I hear groups
like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace or the Council of Canadians
pooh-poohing and going against the idea that GMO foods can be
good, I question their motives and where they are coming from
when they make statements which are not based on scientific
evidence.
The other day I met with two young women from the Sierra Club
who were very nice and pleasant. As our debate and discussion
went on in my office, I asked them who was going to pay for the
segregation and the added costs of mandatory labelling. They were
quite serious and were not being flippant but their answer was
that the big company Monsanto would pay. I said that in the real
world that was not the way it worked. The farmer, the lowest
level, will pay. He cannot dictate his costs to anybody else. He
has to stay in business. He cannot start and stop a farm easily.
The reasoning by some of the objectors to genetically modified
foods does not stand up to common sense.
I also wonder about fellows like David Suzuki who is really a
media personality although it says on his resume that he has a
bit of a background in genetics. When he makes his arguments how
many times does he actually come up with scientific evidence and
research or points out that it is accepted by the scientific
community? It is more a case of generalizations and assumptions
which are not backed up by scientific fact whatsoever. Being
media personalities, I know these fellows and women are paid big
salaries, in the millions of dollars, including endorsements and
that. In Mr. Suzuki's case, I wonder if he has some investments
in the non-GMO companies and he thinks it would help them along
if we could kill off the GMO industry. We have to look at the
background on this.
Some people have called for absolute scientific guarantees that
GMOs will not have any negative long term impact. In any
endeavour this is an impossible measure to meet. Had this
standard been in place, we never would have had the light bulb.
We would have avoided the industrial revolution and we would
still likely be debating the benefits and perils of fire.
If governments listened to these radical lobby groups, they
could significantly slow or even stop essential research. It is
not their direct influence that counts; it is their scare and
fearmongering toward individual consumers and users of these
products that hurts research and development.
In 1969 the House of Commons, except for the Reform Party and
the Canadian Alliance Party which were not here, said that it was
going to eliminate or drastically reduce child poverty. Child
poverty has actually increased. What would the low income
earners and children who are considered to be in poverty say if
the government and parliament required mandatory labelling? It
would drive up the price of food and they would have to pay for
that at the grocery store.
We have to make things better for people and for children who
live in poverty. One way is to continue to provide them with
cheap, reliable and safe food. The basic necessity for food has
to be the primary consideration for all the population as opposed
to some idea that mandatory labelling would be nice to have and
would help some industry group which is lobbying for it.
1540
Any decisions must be based on sound science and not on
political interference. All new food products must be tested by
Health Canada scientists to determine if the new food is safe for
Canadian consumers. We have heard about allergenic
considerations. It is my understanding that we test for
allergenic properties in food and if they are present, the food
is labelled. That is another red herring which has been brought
up by other parties.
Any food that has a demonstrated health risk cannot be released
into the Canadian market. It has been that way for years. Any
food that could generate an allergic reaction must be labelled.
All regulatory decisions must be based upon clear independent
scientific information and not just public opinion.
Canadian consumers have lost confidence in the scientific
testing process overseen by Health Canada in some instances. The
BST issue with the dairy cattle was one example. As a result we
have seen political interference and loss of confidence in that
issue. It is the federal government that has really contributed
to that. I blame the Liberal government we have had since 1993
for not being ahead on this issue and making sure that consumers
were informed and ready for the future, for the changes that were
coming that are for the benefit of all of us.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with great interest to the speech by my colleague and I am a bit
disappointed by his position. He is well aware of the issue,
since we talked about it several times at the Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
When he talks about fearmongering groups, I can tell him that it
is also a frightening idea to let the farmers alone bear the
burden of all that will happen.
How can the companies wash their hands of all this? How can the
government leave all the responsibility for this to the farmers?
This is not how I see events unfolding.
It is embarrassing to hear the member talk about the poor
children, when groups of Canadian bishops, of American bishops
and ecumenical groups are studying the question and are asking
for mandatory labelling both in Canada and the United States. If
ever there were people concerned about poor children, they are
surely the ones.
However, I want to get back to the producers. I have heard it
said that farmers producing non genetically modified foods will
simply have to find their own market. Because my colleague comes
from western Canada, I must say that in Saskatchewan, Mr. Hyden,
an organic farmer, is losing customers because his neighbours are
growing genetically modified foods. The seeds are blown into his
fields or carried there by the birds and the bees, and when he
applies for approval of his products, he gets a poor rating at
the international level.
What can the member propose as a solution to those organic
farmers who want to stay with traditional farming but are
surrounded by genetically modified crops and lose their own
market because of that? Last fall, in spite of all the problems
they had in western Canada, organic farmers kept their market and
fared better than the others.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, certainly I support the
Bloc member for Louis-Hébert in her motion which we adopted at
the agriculture committee to look into all of the aspects of
genetically modified organisms as it pertained to the agriculture
industry.
I think the answer to some of the questions that are being posed
in the House today will be answered by the experts. I would hope
Mr. Hayden will be one of the presenters who will give us the
scientific evidence he has that the products that he is producing
were contaminated by GMOs, to whom he was trying to sell them and
how they determined there was GMO content in the food that he was
selling. I think we will have very good hearings on the GMO
issue.
The question of food costs to not only low income people but to
all Canadians is one of great importance. I also welcome any
studies done by ecumenical church groups on this issue and invite
their input when we hold our hearings.
1545
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very
happy to enter into the debate on genetically modified organisms.
As I walked into the Commons today, somebody offered flowers
signifying cancer research. I would note that cancer research is
another area where we actually use genetically modified organisms
to solve some of the real problems of our health care system.
I do not think there are too many people here today who would
argue against finding a cure for cancer. Similarly, I do not
believe there are too many people here who would argue against
finding better ways to produce agricultural substances and doing
that in a healthful way.
The reality is that the debate is somewhat skewed. The fact
that people do not like genetically modified organisms is not so
much that GMOs exist but rather the process undertaken to create
GMOs. This to me is essentially what is wrong with this debate.
Our primary concern and the primary concern of Health Canada is
that the food we consume is safe, not the process that was
undertaken to create it. It is analogous to the production of
steel. If manufacturers were to buy steel for their automobile
production facilities, their concern would be whether the steel
was suitable for producing an automobile, not about the actual
process that created the steel. This is part of the labelling
process.
It seems to me that what people want to say—
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The debate is important and I would like the members to speak to
the motion. The hon. member is going on about steel, cancer and
all kinds of things. These too are very legitimate concerns, but
as the motion is rather precise and we are short of time, I would
like us to stick to the subject.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will pay much
closer attention.
Mr. Alex Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member cannot
understand the importance of the differences in processes,
genetically modified organisms being a process similar to a
steel-like process, I am sorry but I cannot help her with that.
As I was saying, we live in very exciting times. I farmed for
about eight years in another part of my life, which I enjoyed
very much. I was very aware of the concerns of not only
consumers but producers and people who worked in the agricultural
sector about the use of pesticides, herbicides and so forth in
farming.
For our farm communities, genetic modification is not new. I
can recall someone coming into my office one day and presenting
me with a cob of corn that was only five inches long. That was
the average length cob of corn that existed approximately 30
years ago. We are consuming genetically modified foods every
day.
1550
In the riding I represent, we have built a huge industry in the
breeding of Holstein cattle. We have used artificial
insemination. We have used the superflushing of cows for embryo
transplants. This has been very successful for the last 20 or 30
years. The basic cow in our area is the Holstein-Friesian.
Durham has been so successful in producing purebred
Holstein-Friesian animals that we now actually ship them back to
Holstein and Friesland where they are used in genetic stock.
I come to this debate with some interest in the whole area of
genetic modification. As I mentioned, farmers have been using
this for some time. Just look at the great benefits that exist
in genetic modification. As hon. members know, Canada is a
threatened country when is comes to its climate. The growing
season is very short, but with the use of genetic modification we
have been able to shorten the growing time for many crops. That
has not affected the quality of the end product. It has
increased the ability of some Saskatchewan and prairie farmers to
effectively compete on the world market. That has done nothing
but good and we will continue to do that.
In my area, for instance, people are using genetic modification
in apples to thwart blight. In other words, we can actually get
the product off the trees and into the supermarkets faster,
better and more efficiently and it is a healthier food.
The great assumption is that genetic manipulation is somehow
bad. The fact is that we have been able to reduce disease and
pestilence in our food supplies to the betterment of the
consumer. The consumer is far better off with these genetic
changes.
Needless to say, we cannot have a situation where that kind of
experimentation gets out of hand. We cannot have a situation
where the mutant organisms are allowed to cross-pollinate and
possibly cause dangerous mutations. There is a great deal of
work that goes on, not only in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
but also in Health Canada, to ensure that sort of
cross-pollination does not occur.
I had the benefit of being in British Columbia where we were
experimenting with that sort of genetic manipulation. What we
are attempting to do in Canada is to reduce the infestation of
our softwood lumber in British Columbia to improve forestry
stocks. This is another way of genetically using the science
available to us to have better products.
When I talked to the science community, I asked them what was up
in the real world of science and forestry. They talked about
some of the research going on in Weyerhaeuser in the United
States which is using genetics to build a faster growing tree
with fewer branches and therefore more efficient when harvested.
It causes less pressure on existing forestry and our conservation
program is protected because of the abundant source of softwood
lumber being grown commercially. These are all positive ways in
which the economy can co-exist with the concerns of
environmentalists, which is what I fancy myself to be.
There are of course limitations to genetic manipulation. Most
of us have read recently about the cloning of cows and sheep.
There is certainly a moral argument that goes along with this
whole file. I will not get into that issue today because I know
the Bloc member wants to talk about relevance and genetic
modification. However, there is no question that most members of
the public today are concerned about cloning and some of the
moral issues that revolve around that. That is not a part of my
speech today but I am sure there are limitations to the amount of
genetic manipulation that we should engage in.
I know our government has a concern about regenerative technology
and has studied it to the point of possibly passing legislation
on the use of that kind of technology.
1555
The Department of Health, under the food and drug
administration, requires any food process that has been altered
or has changed its nutritional value to be labelled. We have a
labelling system already in Canada. The Bloc members would like
us to think that we have a laissez-faire attitude toward
labelling, but that is not the case.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is another agency that has
as its primary purpose to ensure that the food we eat is safe and
consumable. The government supports the efforts of the Canadian
Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian General
Standards Board, which are entering into the process of people
coming forward and voluntarily labelling their products.
A lot of the concern about genetic manipulation seems to be
generating, to some extent, out of Europe. The European Union,
which I had the advantage of being in about two weeks ago, in
using its precautionary principle in trade, is using a lot of
these areas, not for the protection of their own populations but
rather to embargo Canadian imports. It is embargoing Canadian
beef into the European Union. It is embargoing wine into the
European Union. It is embargoing many of our agricultural
products. I really question whether the European Union is a free
trade area or an anti-free trade area because it does not want to
trade with anyone other than the people who live within the
European Union.
It is important that we not let that kind of fear take over our
communities. One of the other speakers mentioned the increase in
populations around the world. This is a great opportunity for
Canadian agriculture. There is no question that southeast Asia
and China will unlikely be able to continue feeding their
populations.
We have not only an opportunity but an obligation to meet the
challenges in the world definition of countries being able to
feed themselves. We have an obligation to continue with a
science-based approach to agriculture to ensure that our food
products are the best in the world and that we can increase the
amount of production.
Canadian farmers have led that challenge. Canadian farmers have
been at the forefront. We now ship close to over $2 billion
worth of agricultural products around the world. We have been
successful in those things because we have been willing to
embrace, accept and use change and new processes to make our
products safe for Canadians and everyone in the world.
I do not have to tell members that the need for protein by
different countries is increasing at an alarming rate. There is
no question that these countries will be depending more and more
on Canadian production.
I once had the advantage of visiting Taiwan. I was impressed. I
had just arrived at the Taipei airport when someone asked me how
the biological industry was doing in Saskatoon. I must admit
that at that time I was not fully up to speed about the
tremendous experimentation and results of our own scientists in
Canada who have made such a huge contribution to biotechnology.
A simple thing, like the ability of plants to absorb nutrients,
such as phosphates and nitrogen, from the soil is done
imperfectly. There are now ways to inoculate seed so that the
seed actually assists the plant. The plant will absorb more
phosphates and more nitrogen than it did previously.
Why is this important? It is important because farmers will now
need less fertilizer to grow their crops. It will create less
degradation of their environment because they can grow crops more
efficiently.
1600
Some of the things the Bloc members are talking about, some of
what they believe the organic farm is doing, biological
technology is allowing other farmers to also do that. This is a
tremendous accomplishment for Canadians. Being the size of
country that we are, we have become world leaders in the whole
area of biotechnology.
It is time not only for politicians but for the science
community itself to get out there and tell their message. A lot
of people in this country, in the European Union and others are
saying no, it is a terrible thing and that people are going to be
born with three legs and four eyes because this stuff has been
genetically altered.
I was in England not long ago and talking to the science and
technology committee. They have had lots of problems with this
issue politically. People are concerned about genetically
altered food. They did a study on the media and what the
responsibility is of the media in their country to inform people
about the basic importance of the foods they eat. They
discovered in the articles and the newspapers where people are
talking about this issue that less than 15% of the writers in any
of the newspapers had any background in science. In other words,
the people who are spreading the stories about biotechnology are
not scientists. They are people who are using most of their
information as innuendo and things that are totally
unsubstantiated by the science community.
The bottom line is we have to provide more responsible debate on
the whole issue. There has been too much emotion and not enough
science. There has been too much concern that somehow someone is
manipulating our food supply and not enough thought process about
the potential benefits not only for Canadians but for our ability
as a country to feed the world.
I would like to end on that note. I probably have not used up
all my time but that is not necessary. All I can say is I
certainly defend the importance of using genetic manipulation but
within the obvious context to ensure that our food is safe. I
believe that is happening. We can do more. We are going to do
more. People are demanding that we do more. Clearly our health
department and our department of agriculture are very focused on
the area to ensure that Canadians are consuming safe food but at
the same time to unleash our ability to do even better in the
future.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am going to
share my time with the hon. member for Sherbrooke.
I am very happy to speak to the motion from my colleague from
Louis-Hébert which says:
That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with
regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making it
mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods containing
genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable Canadians to
make informed choices about the foods they eat.
The debate on genetic engineering has been going on for some
years, mainly because the development of cloning techniques was
widely reported in the media. In recent months, the public
learned that genetic engineering has been extended to the food
industry and that, for some years now, much of the food that
ends up on our table is genetically modified, this without the
public having been informed or consulted.
This raises several questions: Why are plants and foods
genetically modified? Who is benefiting from that? What are the
benefits to consumers? What are the effects of GMOs on health
and the environment?
What are the challenges for agriculture and the environment?
What are the economic and trade issues? What are the social
repercussions of the GMOs? What are the regulations on GMOs? And
what is the position of the federal government on GMOs?
1605
There are many questions, and I think it is only natural to ask
ourselves such questions, because right now we do not know what
we are eating.
Thanks to the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, we have the
opportunity today to discuss those issues and to offer answers
to the legitimate questions of the public.
I hope to have time to provide a chronology of the speeches made
by my Bloc Quebecois colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert,
on the GMO issue. It took her one year of hard work to finally
get the chairman of the agriculture committee to agree to
undertake a study on the labelling of GMOs. I congratulate my
colleague on this.
What are the effects of GMOs on health? According to Health
Canada, transgenic foods are not dangerous in the short term.
However, there is no study on their long term effects on human
health. In order to approve a transgenic product, the federal
government relies on studies conducted by the companies, which
it merely reviews. While the approval of new drugs may take
years of in-depth study and testing, that of transgenic foods
takes just a few weeks.
The federal deputy minister of health himself, speaking before a
Senate committee in the spring of 1999, recognized that, at the
time, the government did not have any expertise whatsoever in
genetics. As he put it, “its labs are not really up to it”. How
can the government guarantee the safety of these foods without
adequate expertise and independent scientific studies? How can
the government say that transgenic foods are not dangerous in
the short term? There is currently no analysis being done.
It is also said that, because of a shortage of personnel at the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency, there are major shortcomings,
particularly in the area of research on transgenic foods.
On September 30, 1999, 200 federal experts on food quality and
safety wrote to the Minister of Health. Their letter underscored
the fact that the Agency is in a conflict of interest position
as it must, on the one hand, ensure that foods are harmless,
while on the other hand encourage food production and export.
GMO lobbyists are very powerful. They often win over our
ministers and this government because they are using GMOs for
partisan purposes.
Allow me to say, because people must know, that these lobbyists
often interfere, but not always to promote the health of the
public. They often do for partisan purposes. Considering their
contributions to election campaigns, the government prefers to
ignore some situations, particularly in research on transgenic
foods. Let us not delude ourselves. There is big money in GMOs.
We all know what money can do.
But it is often to the detriment of the public.
These federal experts wrote to the Minister of Health that they
were in a conflict of interest situation. It was not an easy
decision for these 200 federal government scientists to abandon
their usual reserve and sign their names to such a letter, thus
endangering their jobs. They were so concerned that they felt
they had to speak out. These are career scientists; they know
what they are talking about.
1610
Here is what they say: “We are not testing these products
ourselves. Not a single researcher in Health Canada has been
assigned to genetically modified foods, because we do not have
the financial resources for that kind of work, a scientist
said”. Yet, these products end up on our tables. No study has
been done to date, yet Health Canada states that there is no
danger.
There are also concerns about food allergies. Why is it that
more and more people, and especially children, have food
allergies? Could it be because of the nature of what we eat? For
the time being, we cannot answer this question, because there
have been no studies. But there are food allergy problems.
There are also concerns about resistance to the antibiotics
present in certain GMOs, because GMOs are spread in the natural
environment. The EU scientific steering committee has recommended
that antibiotic genes in genetically modified plants be removed
because of the dangers of antimicrobial resistance for health.
Proponents of GMOs are not short of arguments. Let me go through
a few and comment on them. They say that GMOs will make it
possible to feed an increasing world population, in particular in
developing countries. There is no shortage of food around the
world; in fact, there is an overproduction.
There is, however, a problem of distribution, among other things,
because developing countries do not have the means to buy food
produced in developed countries.
Developing countries use vast agricultural lands for primary
crops, like coffee, cocoa, cotton and flax, which they sell to
industrialized countries instead of using them to feed their own
populations. So, these lands offer an opportunity. It is still
possible to increase the yields in these countries through
traditional techniques and financial support. It is worth
mentioning that this government has reduced its international
assistance budget.
Proponents of GMOs contend that there is no proof that those
organisms represent a health risk. They may be right, but the
absence of studies on the long term impact of GMOs on human and
animal health as well as on plant and animal life does not prove
that they are not dangerous. Yet, food containing GMOs have been
sold for the last five years and the production of 42 genetically
modified plants is authorised in Canada.
David Suzuki, a renowned broadcaster with a background in
genetics, once said that politicians who say that GMOs are not
dangerous are either liars or idiots. Countries in the European
Union advocate the precautionary principle according to which, in
the absence of scientific evidence, caution must be exercised to
prevent potential damages from GMOs to the health and the
environment.
Proponents contend that all genetically modified foods are
tested in Canada. Actually, GMOs are not systematically tested.
The government relies on companies who produce GMOs and simply
reads their studies without any further assessment. It should be
noted that new drugs are approved after long studies conducted
over several years, sometimes up to ten years. This reduces risks
while not eliminating them completely. GMOs used for agriculture
and food production are approved very quickly, within 60 to 90
days, without any in-depth study or second assessment.
We are being told by some people that we are currently eating
food containing GMOs and that there is no cause for concern. No
study has been done. This is the reason why we call at least for
the mandatory labelling of GMOs, so that people can choose what
they want to eat.
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to qualify what
the hon. member just said on the government's position on GMOs.
1615
My colleagues from agriculture and health never said that GMOs
were totally without danger. The role of the government is to
protect Canadian citizens. Our protection agencies do the best
they can based on the knowledge currently available.
We also know that some countries which adopted regulations on
voluntary or mandatory labelling some months ago are now forced
to back down because they do not have the technical and
scientific means nor the necessary financial resources to
implement these regulations.
I think that the whole GMO issue is being overdramatized. I do
not want to stand up for GMOs as such. It is biotechnology. The
role of the government is to control risks associated with GMOs
as with, for example, drugs or public transportation, like
planes. When the government issues a licence authorizing a plane
to fly, it is clear that it cannot guarantee that that plane
will never crash, but at least the risks are weighed. It is the
same thing with drugs.
As for GMOs, the government is doing a great job of protecting
the public. We have set up a committee of experts who will make
recommendations on labelling to the government. We are also
looking at what is being done in other countries.
I personally met with officials from other countries such as
Australia and New Zealand, where labelling is currently
impossible for scientific and financial reasons.
I ask my colleagues not to be alarmists. Yes, there may be
risks, but the government is there to control them.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: First, Mr. Speaker, I would like the
hon. member to name the countries that backed down, because it
is the first thing I hear about this.
Secondly, I do not think that the Bloc Quebecois is fear
mongering. We just want the people to know what they are eating.
I think it is a very basic proposal to ask that Canadians and
Quebecers be told that the food on their plates contains
GMOs.
In addition, scientists at Health Canada denounced a number of
things. A research scientist with the department told us that
no research was being conducted at Health Canada and no
researcher had been assigned to transgenic foods, because there
is no money for that kind of research. This is not the Bloc
Quebecois that is saying this, but a research scientist with
Health Canada.
I am concerned and the people I represent are concerned as
well.
I just held a press conference on this issue with the member for
Louis-Hébert. The people in the riding of Drummond have reacted
and they too are concerned about the lack of money for research
on transgenic foods. So do not tell me that I am alarmist.
I want to straighten out another fact. Time permitting, I would
have liked to provide a chronology of the speeches made on
behalf of the Bloc Quebecois by my colleague, the hon. member
for Louis-Hébert. It took her one year of tireless work. I could
mention those made on May 14, June 11, and so on. I have that
list. It took the hon. member one year of tireless work, of
questions and comments. It took a great deal of patience on her
part to get the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
to agree to study the labelling of transgenic foods.
When someone talks to me about the goodwill shown by this
government, give me a break.
Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am sure you
have noticed the difficulty I have in containing my joy in
addressing 301 genetically modifiable organisms this afternoon.
I will begin my speech with a question. Are you sure, Mr.
Speaker, that you have not eaten any genetically modified
organisms today? If you are one of those who do not care, the
question is irrelevant.
1620
However, if you are one of those who wonder about the
appropriateness of such a process, you want to know what you
eat, you want to be free not to eat certain foods and you want
to know the short, medium and long term effects of GMOs on
health, agriculture and the environment. This raises many
questions.
The Bloc Quebecois has taken a clear stance on the issue. We are
not systematically against GMOs but are against the fact that
labelling is not mandatory. As a matter of fact, my colleague
from Louis-Hébert, who is our party's agriculture and agri-food
critic, has succeeded in getting the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food to study the issue, and I
congratulate her for that.
This study will begin on May 16 et will continue until the
summer recess and perhaps even until the fall, in co-operation
with the three other opposition parties and, I hope, all Liberal
members of goodwill. We also want to invite the scientists who
will assess the potential risks of GMOs, members of the public,
farmers, particularly organic farmers, and consumers to give
their input.
The study of GMOs will allow us to analyse the consequences of
labelling on international trade, to know the advantages and
disadvantages of GMOs for agriculture as well as the long term
effect of GMOs on human health and the environment.
On November 4 of last year, my colleague from Louis-Hébert
introduced Bill C-309 on mandatory labelling.
We learned a few weeks ago that Europe has gone ahead and decreed
that from now on all products containing GMOs should be labelled
as such. This is a first victory for consumers. This step taken
in Europe should make it easier for us here.
We are not content with taking action only in the House, we, in
the Bloc Quebecois, have started a petition on labelling, which
so far has been signed by 44,000 to 45,000 people across Quebec.
My office prepared and mailed leaflets on this topic to my
constituents. They were asked to answer two questions. The first
one was “Do you believe the general public is properly informed
about GMOs?” The second one was “Do you believe it is justified
to demand that genetically modified foods be labelled?”
Here are a few of the comments my office has received so far. On
the first question as to whether the public is properly informed
about GMOs, here are some of the answers and general comments:
“Not at all. Governments have no regard for the public”. Or “No,
there is not enough outreach, especially regarding health
impacts”. And again “No, people are just starting to realize how
huge this problem is. Quality and health risks are only the tip
of the iceberg”.
Another one says “No, we only receive very vague information,
often by word of mouth”. And a last one “No, I heard about it
for the first time in the fall of 1999 in my microbiology course,
and I study animal health”. As you may suspect, the answer was
no 99.9% of the time.
1625
On the second question as to whether it is justified to demand
that genetically modified foods be labelled, an overwhelming
majority said yes. Again, here are their comments. “The right to
know is fundamental. Labelling should be mandatory. It should be
mandatory so we can make an informed decision”.
Here is another comment. “If we cannot stop companies from
producing GMOs, we should at least know what products contain
them”. Another citizen said “I am totally outraged to see that
companies could force us to eat whatever they want to put in
their products”.
Another comment says—and I have many, but I will not read them
all, only a few more—that “Labelling should be mandatory,
especially if our lives are at risk. There might be more cancer
or other illnesses that destroy our very fragile cells”. Another
citizen wrote “I would like to have the freedom to know what I
put in my body”. A last comment states “We are given the list
of ingredients that are contained in food products. It is quite
normal that I should know also if they contain GMOs”.
People are very concerned about this issue and support the
mandatory labelling of food products containing GMOs. They said
so in a Léger & Léger poll published last month. According to
the poll, 50% of Quebecers surveyed are concerned about GMOs,
and three people out of four would prefer a tomato without GMOs,
even at a higher price, to a tomato with GMOs that were 30%
cheaper. A proportion of 68% of the Quebecers polled would
prefer a tomato a little bruised or damaged without GMOs to a
more beautiful and redder tomato containing GMOs.
As for the Canadian government, I cannot remain silent about a
brochure that I consider to be misinformation on food and also
on GMOs.
This brochure, entitled “Food Safety and You”, which the federal
government sent to many households during the week of March 27,
talks about the benefits of GMOs, stating that they may reduce
the need for chemicals in agriculture. It also states that they
are as safe as foods already on the Canadian market.
How can the federal government say such a thing when we know
that genetically modified foods are not tested and inspected
differently from other food products? Researchers do not do a
second assessment of GMOs, but simply read the research protocol
provided by companies seeking approval for their products.
In the brochure, there is nothing about the fact that no studies
have been conducted on the medium and long term impact of GMOs
on health.
We cannot just tell the people that genetically modified foods
are good for them without answering legitimate questions about
the possible risks of the GMOs for human health and the
environment.
Furthermore, the federal government, through the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency, has awarded a contract for more than $300,000
to Telemedia Communications, in Toronto, to have Canadian Living
and Coup de pouce magazines insert a special section in their
June issue to reaffirm the security of GMOs.
While the federal government is financing advertising campaigns
with taxpayers' money, Health Canada and the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency have no money to conduct real studies on the
long and medium term impacts of GMOs.
Many questions remain unanswered. This new technology was
introduced very quickly under pressure from a few herbicide and
seed companies.
1630
Therefore, it is important to be cautious and to hold a public
debate on GMOs so that the public can be well informed about the
issue.
If you do not know what a genetically modified organism looks
like, you can get an idea just by looking at my colleagues on
the other side. They are politically modified organisms.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his excellent
presentation. I would like to ask him a few questions concerning
genetically modified foods.
Why do we genetically modify plants and foods? Who benefits from
that and what are the benefits to consumers?
Mr. Serge Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from
Drummond for her question, to which I will answer in a different
way.
Last month, I attended a seminar of the Association des
biologistes du Québec. I had the chance to participate in a
session where people were asking themselves very serious
questions.
They had a number of concerns. Of course, some made speeches,
saying “A certain balance exists in nature”. Thousands of years
were needed for organisms to develop genetically and for a
balance that I would describe as a delicate balance to be
achieved.
People were wondering about the impacts this will have on our
food chain. Incorporating herbicides into genes will eliminate
certain mosquitoes and many other things. They were wondering
about human intervention in genetics.
They were concerned primarily with ethics.
They were wondering how far this will go. Earlier, a colleague
from the other side said “We have a tree and we modify it
genetically because we believe it has too many branches or does
not provide enough shade”. All reasons are good. One must wonder
where it will stop.
Food is now the issue, and then it will be animals. As a matter
of fact, it would seem that it is already the case. Some day, in
the name of the sacrosanct development of science and
technology, it will probably be human beings who will be
modified.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot see the colour of your eyes but if,
according to the government, they are of the wrong colour, will
they be genetically modified? I am wondering. Ethics is
important.
Someone said that organic food producers took their faith in
their own hands. Labelling is not a constraint, it amounts to
marketing.
People have adopted internal regulations concerning the
labelling of organic foods, in order to promote their sale and
support those who buy them.
What is true for organic foods is also true for genetically
modified foods. Some people do not want to eat them. We should
inform them. It is more than a mere marketing decision. With
regard to genetically modified foods, there is a requirement to
let the people decide whether they want such foods or not.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Gasoline Prices; the hon. member
for Halifax West, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, National Parks; the hon. member for
Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, Fisheries; the hon.
member for Lethbridge, Human Resources Development.
1635
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will reread the opposition motion to the House:
That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with
regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making it
mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods containing
genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable Canadians to
make informed choices about the foods they eat.
I compliment the Bloc member for putting forward the motion
today. I totally support the system in the Department of Health
today for making sure that the quality and safety of our food
supply is under control, but I believe it is the responsibility
of the House to have a deep and thorough review because of the
rapid rate with which people are experimenting and working with
altering our food products.
Most of us are not that sensitive to the whole genetically
modified organism system involved with our food. Over the last
few months I have been using a lot of my parliamentary time as a
Toronto member looking at our whole food chain system. It is
absolutely amazing the number of urban or city people who have
never taken the time to get their heads around the food chain.
When we walk into a supermarket in downtown Toronto it is
amazing how much food we see. The quality of the food and its
prices are so consumer friendly, every aspect of it, that we just
do not realize what is going on behind it. We do not get into
the whole area of food processing and what is happening there.
Very few of us who live in cities go back to the contribution
farmers are making, which is ultimately the area we must all
begin taking a closer look at.
Even before we get to genetically modified or altered foods, we
in urban Canada should be aware that most studies will show that
if we do not become engaged in this food chain there could be a
danger two years from now that we will lose close to 80,000
family farms.
This issue deserves long hours of debate and long hours of
analysis. The Bloc is doing a good thing by putting this motion
on the floor of the House of Commons. At the same time we must
realize and reinforce for consumers that the system out there
right now is not without control. The products on the shelves in
stores today have been reviewed by Health Canada and the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency. Let us not send a sense of alarm into
the community today because that is not the way to advance this
debate.
1640
The House has to go right back to the producer of food. The men
and women who have spent their lives producing food are the ones
who are best equipped and have the know-how. They can inform us
in an enlightened and experienced way on whether or not they feel
the food processing system ultimately ending up at the retailer
needs the type of specific recommendation of mandatory labelling
that is proposed in the motion.
The whole labelling system needs to be reviewed, not just in
terms of the notion of genetically modified foods but also the
whole area of foods produced in Canada, specifically family farm
foods. The percentage that most farmers receive, outside the
ones protected by supply management, is something that needs
review as well.
Over the last couple of months my experience with consumers
suggests that if they knew they were purchasing products which
came from Canadian family farms and that there was some type of
royalty system, they would not mind an extra two or three cents
on particular products, whether it be a loaf of bread, a jar of
jam or a box of cereal. I believe they would participate in
something like that to help family farms maintain their viability
and sustainability. That has been my experience in testing the
idea in a very unscientific way over the last couple of months.
When we get into the business of looking at labelling we have to
do it in a most comprehensive way. I do not think we should just
look at genetically modified food. We have to go deeper and look
into where the food is coming from, be specific to Canadian farms
and make sure that we use the process of identifying the quality,
safety and source of our food as a means of rebuilding and
renewing the commitment our country should have to sustaining the
family farm.
Most consumers would hate to see a day when they suddenly woke
up and it was decided that our food dependency should be from
imports rather than from our domestic supply. A good friend of
mine, Paddy Carson, once said, and he actually repeats it often,
that a nation which cannot feed itself will feed upon itself. The
whole realm of rebuilding our agricultural foundation is
something we must become seized with over the next few months as
we work away in this Chamber.
I am totally supportive of the general thrust of the motion on
the floor of the House of Commons today. However, I would also
like to bundle it into a more comprehensive approach where every
food product from a family farm is recognized in terms of its
quality. We could also figure out a royalty system when
consumers choose to buy products identified as Canadian family
farm products. With that economic stability and predictability
when the quality and long term security of supply will be
maintained.
I appreciate having participated in the debate, but I would say
that it should be bundled up into a more comprehensive labelling
program.
1645
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
my colleague's proposal with great interest because it goes even
further than what I have suggested.
He talks about the traceability of foods and, there again, we
have a lot of catching up to do with Europe. I think that what
he is proposing is ideal.
I was only involved in one aspect of this great project, but it
would really be great if we went all the way, because we would
be protecting both consumers and farmers.
What worries me is the fact GMOs have been on the market for
five years.
We started talking about this a year or so ago and, in the
meantime, things have continued to happen.
I see the Minister of Industry. There is the biotechnology
advisory committee, which was set up in September 1999, and
there is also a committee on the future of biotechnology made up
of scientific experts who will look at what is going to happen
in the next ten years.
I want it to be very clear that I am not against setting up such
committees because looking at the future is already something.
What really bothers me, however, is the present. I have a
problem with the present.
I reviewed a study by Ann Clark, a professor at Guelph
University. She carried out tests on toxicity levels or loads
and found that 70% of the 42 MGO crops in Canada had not been
tested for toxicity.
She adds that allergenicity was not assessed in laboratory or
through feeding experiments for any of the 42 crops.
I am not an alarmist, but a scientific approach requires that we
have scientific answers to our questions.
Today, I have this question for my colleague: Does he think that
a collective effort is in order to move ahead faster in
answering these questions? We are eating these foods; they are
already on the market. That is what worries me.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I believe passionately
that we should deal with this issue in a comprehensive way, and I
think we should have done it yesterday.
We have a health care challenge in this country and one of the
ways we will repair, rebuild, renew our health care system is by
making sure that we focus on diet and nutrition. At the basis of
that is food production. If we do not have our heads around the
quality of food production and the impact of certain types of
genetically modified foods it may have a disastrous effect on our
capacity to renew our health care system. I see food and health
as being inextricably intertwined.
I know that the Minister of Industry, who is in the House today,
feels passionately about this issue. But as the member for
Louis-Hébert mentioned, this is not just a health issue and it is
not just an industry issue; it is everybody working together. I
am confident that all of us in the House will deal with this. I
think I can say on behalf of everyone in the House that we are
all pretty sensitive about the food we eat.
1650
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the member talked a bit about labelling products that
are produced on Canadian farms so that Canadian consumers would
know that. He feels there would be a willingness by the Canadian
public to pay a little extra for that.
One reason our farm community is in trouble is low commodity
prices, and those prices are being driven by subsidized products
from around the world. It seems that every time the agriculture
community wakes up in the morning there is a new challenge facing
it. Fuel costs are up. The government announced that
transportation rates are up for shipping grain off the prairies.
The issue of species at risk legislation could affect agriculture
producers, as well as the idea of controlling greenhouse gas
emissions. These are all issues of concern to the agriculture
community. To say that we would label food produced in Canada so
that the consumer would pay a little more might come up against
some opposition. There are a lot of consumers who cannot afford
to pay any more for food. We would somehow have to do it in a
way that would benefit all of society, the farmer at one end and
the consumer at the other.
I want to be get back to the labelling. A lot of products are
labelled “made in Canada” now. How in the member's mind would
something like that be structured to ensure that the benefit of
such a program would return to the producer?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to
suggest the real specifics, the process or the technique. I do
not have that in my mind, nor do I believe anyone else would
today. We are debating today. However, I think that the
concept of designing a system whereby Canadian family farm
products would be identified in a way that the consumer would
realize that a percentage of the product they purchase would
return in a royalty format to the farm community has merit.
By the way, I would exclude from that those farmers who are part
of supply management. As we know, most of those farmers are very
well protected. I am not suggesting that we enhance that sector,
I am thinking more of those farmers who are outside that realm.
I think we have to sit down to figure out a way to have a
royalty system. We do it in other sectors of the economy. We do
it with artists who perform. They get royalties for their work
on top of their basic wage. They get a royalty, a bonus or a
dividend. We do it in many other sectors. We do it in business.
I do not see why we could not design a Canadian family farm
dividend, which would really be nothing more than the consumer
recognizing and realizing that they want to keep a secure, high
quality farm system in this country.
We have a huge problem in urban Canada waking up certain
consumers to the fact that the food supply which they see when
they go into a Loblaws, a Knob Hill, a Sobeys or a Dominion
might be in short supply a year from now from a Canadian source
point of view. They have a difficult time imagining that.
I do not want the House to think this would be an easy sell, but
our duty as members is not just to take the easy sells. Our duty
is to take hold of an issue that we know is going to hit us
between the eyes in 14 to 15 months, and we may have to go
against the wind of certain consumers who may resist.
We may have to tell them that they will have to do this in order
to maintain that security of Canadian family farm supply. I for
one would be happy to take up that challenge. Once we educate
and inform them of what the long term benefits would be, in terms
of health and everything else, most Canadians would buy in.
1655
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the motion that
this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with
regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making it
mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods containing
genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable Canadians to
make informed choices about the foods they eat. It is an
excellent motion which the Progressive Conservative Party
definitely supports. We support the idea of much greater
consumer awareness of genetically modified foods.
An estimated 60% of processed foods contain genetically modified
ingredients. An Angus Reid poll recently found that Canadians
would be less likely to buy food that they know is genetically
modified. They get very nervous about it, which is
understandable.
Much of what I will say has been said already today, but I think
it bears repeating.
During the 1980s the PC government identified biotechnology as a
key and strategic area of future economic prosperity and promise
for Canada. During its mandate our government encouraged the
creation of a strong biotechnology sector and provided funding
for research and development that would allow every region to
benefit. My region benefits from the Lennoxville research
station, which does a lot of work on biotechnological products,
particularly for the farming industry.
The challenge we must face in creating a solid and dynamic
biotechnology industry is twofold. First, we must create a
climate in which industry sectors can flourish both here and
internationally. Second, we must meet the public's concern for a
healthy environment and the safety of GMOs.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act defines biotechnology
as the application of science and engineering in the direct use
of living organisms or products of living organisms in their
natural or modified form.
Although much of the focus in the media has been on food
products derived from biotechnology, there are also
pharmaceutical, health and pest control issues. I should say in
passing that we have seen many problems from these other
products. Pest control products have been a big item as of late.
People have been treating their lawns with them. That type of
situation has caused many problems.
With respect to food products, biotechnology has the potential
to increase the competitiveness of the Canadian agri-food
industry by increasing individual competitiveness and by
exporting high value agri-food products. It could also increase
yields to compensate for the increase in world population. It
could develop more sustainable agricultural practices by reducing
the need for chemical weed and pest controls and by enabling the
environmentally beneficial practice of no-till agriculture,
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. It could create new markets
by introducing value added products. It could improve nutrition
and remove allergens from food crops.
Value passed on from the producer to the consumer can and is
being done. It is possible to immunize a population by placing
medications known as nutraceuticals or output traits, for
example, in foods to lower cholesterol levels. It was reported
recently that scientists in the U.S. have created a strain of
genetically altered rice to combat vitamin A deficiency, the
world's leading cause of blindness.
1700
Canada is a world leader in biotechnology. If the government
fails to give support in fostering this emerging technology,
Canada's competitive advantage as a leader risks becoming a lost
opportunity.
There are concerns. The principal concern is with the use of
biotechnology in food products as a question of food security.
There have been numerous reports mostly in Europe that have
negatively impacted consumer confidence in Canada as a result of
the claims made about food safety. There are concerns that there
is not enough risk assessment work being done on consumer
products derived from biotechnology in Canada. Most of these
concerns have been raised by lobby groups such as Greenpeace, the
Council of Canadians and the Canadian Health Coalition.
The federal government announced its support for a voluntary
labelling project of foods derived from biotechnology on
September 17, 1999. The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors
and the Canadian General Standards Board launched a project to
help develop the standards for voluntary labelling that are
meaningful and enforceable. There already exists a mandatory
labelling policy for nutritional changes or safety concerns on
food products.
On December 17, 1999 the ministers of health, agriculture and
environment announced their intention to establish an independent
expert panel, the Blue Ribbon Scientific Panel, to examine future
scientific developments in biotechnology. The panel is expected
to file a preliminary report in June and a final report by the
end of the summer 2000. The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory
Committee is also involved in the recommendation process.
In January the Government of Canada agreed to an international
biosafety protocol that will allow countries to assess and
regulate shipments of living modified organisms. A living
modified organism is any living biological entity that possesses
a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use
of modern biotechnology that is capable of transferring or
replicating genetic material. Examples of products containing
LMOs are pharmaceuticals, seeds for sowing, saplings, fish, seed
for food, feed and processes.
The protocol is designed to ensure that the trade of LMOs do not
have a negative impact on biodiversity and the world's
ecosystems. The impacts of the protocol on agricultural exports
are not fully known.
I can give an interesting example not in the food itself but in
what I talked about before, in pest control for lawns and the
dangers involved because things are not properly labelled. We
have heard recently of many cases of people who are worried about
having lawns sprayed and what happens to the neighbours. I have a
personal example. Lawns in my area had been sprayed and then
cut. The cuttings gathered onto the street. After that small
dogs in the neighbourhood which love to eat grass ate the grass.
There ends up being a very heavy concentration and many animals
have died as a result.
Consumers have clearly indicated they want to be informed
through labelling about foods that have been altered. They
favour foods that provide tangible benefits. An Angus Reid survey
conducted in November and December last year found that
two-thirds of the Canadian population would be less likely to buy
food they know has been genetically modified. A study done for
the governments of Australia and New Zealand in October 1999
suggests that mandatory labelling would raise food costs by 5% to
15%. The study states the requirements to label all foods which
may contain GMOs is a very major undertaking for both industry
and regulators. The simple part is the change of labels. A far
more extensive process is needed to determine both GMO status for
food ingredients and monitor their continuing status.
Mandatory labelling could also mean labelling 95% of all food in
this country which is considered genetically modified in some
way. This could provide unquestionable value to the customer.
Developing national guidelines and labelling must be done in
conjunction with the development of standards at the
international level, for example the Codex Alimentarius
Commission which is the international standards setting body for
food.
1705
I want to encourage the member for Louis-Hébert to continue on
her quest to get the government to follow through on this and
take on the project of making sure that we get things labelled so
that Canadian consumers can trust what they are picking up and
what they eating.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker and hon.
members, it is a pleasure to say a few words on this very
important topic.
Canada has an enviable reputation around the world for the
safety of its food and the rigour of its food inspection system,
including foods derived through biotechnology. If imitation is
the sincerest form of flattery, then Canada's food safety system
is certainly one of the best in the world.
Regulation through sound science is an essential step in the
continued safe production of biotechnology derived foods. The
federal budget confirms this priority in Canada's regulatory
system. The $90 million investment in the regulatory system for
biotechnology products will allow Health Canada, the Canadian
Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, and other regulatory departments to
continue to enhance and involve its safety first regulatory
approach to keep pace with the next generation of scientific
discoveries.
There are a number of science based organizations within the
Canadian government that rely on leading edge science to carry
out regulatory and other science based mandates. One of these is
the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Budget 2000 targets regulation of biotechnology products as well
as upgrading federal laboratory facilities. This funding
includes approximately $30 million directly to the CFIA for
biotech regulation. What is this funding for? This funding will
help the CFIA to increase its capacity for monitoring, for
inspection, for testing and for enforcement; to meet human
resource and technical needs to ensure CFIA staff have up to date
expertise; to generate research and knowledge that will underpin
regulation; and to strengthen international co-operation and
harmonization on regulations.
Canada's science based regulatory system for agricultural
products has been a major factor in contributing to the
reputation of the safety and the quality of Canadian goods around
the world. In order to maintain that reputation the government
is dedicated to upholding the regulations that protect the health
and safety of Canadians, of animals and of the environment. This
is the government's first priority and to achieve that we must
have regulation through sound science.
I am pleased to say that the budget confirms the priority of
health and safety for Canada's regulatory system. The government
believes that biotechnology derived products must go through the
same stringent regulatory and approval processes as all other new
foods.
The budget 2000 investment in the regulatory system for
biotechnology products will allow Canada to continue to enhance
and evolve the safety first regulatory approach. The continued
dedication to supporting this regulatory system will mean the
continued reputation of the safety of Canada's food supply.
Canada is committed to protecting human health, animal health
and the environment. Our regulatory system is dedicated to
maintaining the highest scientific standards. We continually
strive to ensure that scientific advice is broadly based and that
our assessments will keep pace with new scientific discoveries.
This commitment is reflected in the establishment of two
important groups. An expert panel and an advisory committee have
been set up at the request of the government. The Royal Society
of Canada at the request of the government has appointed an
expert panel to examine future scientific developments in food
biotechnology and to provide advice to the federal government
accordingly.
This proactive, forward thinking body will advise Health Canada,
the CFIA and Environment Canada on the science capacity the
federal government will need to maintain the safety of our new
foods derived through biotechnology into the 21st century.
1710
In examining the leading edge of this technology, the panel will
identify the possibility of new or different issues related to
the safety of products of food biotechnology. It will suggest
what new research, policies and regulatory capacity if any may be
needed by the federal government to keep our standards of safety
as high for the next generation of biotechnology derived foods as
for what we have for the products approved today.
The Royal Society's panel consists of people who have widely
recognized expertise in specific areas of knowledge. The panel
is carefully balanced with respect to the various points of view
on biotechnology issues.
Royal Society panels operate entirely independently of the
agencies which request their reports, in this case the
government. They also operate independent of the Royal Society
itself. In short, Canadians can be assured that the Royal
Society's expert panel will be balanced, fair and completely
impartial.
There are a number of challenges and opportunities associated
with biotechnology that require detailed consideration and public
discussion. Food biotechnology presents Canadians with
unprecedented challenges but also unprecedented opportunities.
The recently formed Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee,
CBAC, will bring stakeholders and interested parties together to
advise the government, to raise public awareness and to engage
Canadians in an open and transparent dialogue on biotechnology
issues. The CBAC will deal with tasks such as the issues
surrounding regulation and stewardship of emerging applications
of biotechnology with public education about biotechnology and
the social, economic, environmental, legal and ethical issues
related to food biotechnology. It will monitor scientific
developments that underpin new developments in the field of
biotechnology and the application of these new developments.
Canadians want to take part in the dialogue on food
biotechnology. The CBAC will actively create opportunities for
Canadians to participate in its activities and discussions. This
will include an interactive website for interested Canadians to
review, consult and provide input into the issue.
When this work is completed and the CBAC has also received the
work of the Royal Society's expert panel, the CBAC will create an
overarching report with recommendations to the government that
will be informed by the work of the panel. The work of the Royal
Society's expert panel and the CBAC will contribute to a balanced
and consultative process where all concerns can be thoroughly
considered. The government looks forward to the contributions
that the expert panel and the CBAC will make to further the
dialogue on biotechnology issues. This is an example of the
government's commitment to the exchange of ideas and the issues
surrounding biotechnology.
In addition to the expert panel and the CBAC, the scientists and
specialists at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency as well as
those at Health Canada all contribute to maintaining the safety
of the food supply of Canada. They help to ensure that Canada's
regulatory system remains science based, that the regulatory
system is fair and transparent, and that Canada's food supply
remains one of the safest in the world. That is money and effort
well allocated and well spent.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to the member talk about the regulatory process.
I wish the members could understand that we are somehow
questioning the regulatory process because we would like to go
beyond what exists at present, beyond the equivalence principle.
Of course, what we want is the security of our food.
While we are not alarmists, we are quite happy when committees
are struck to advise the government. I do not wish, however, for
too many committees, because things would get bogged down
and everything would be put off.
Yes, we want our food to be safe, and we will go beyond what the
regulatory process offers today.
1715
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We are going to do
things a little differently because I made a mistake. Debate
does not end until 5.30 because this is a non-votable motion.
Therefore, the hon. member for Egmont who is on his feet, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, has nine
minutes in which to continue his dissertation. I had instructed
that there was only two minutes.
If not, the hon. parliamentary secretary can take as long as he
wants in responding to these questions, and then we will get to
the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière if there is time.
Mr. Joe McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I will respond briefly to
the hon. member's question.
She says that she is not an alarmist and that is good news.
There are a lot of alarmists around the world who are upsetting
people unnecessarily when it comes to their comments on foods
derived from biotechnology.
That is why the government is striking these panels, striking
these advisory boards, getting as much information as possible
and going through rigorous testing to make sure that any new
foods are subjected to rigorous regulation and investigation
before we ever put them before the Canadian public as food.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
to begin with, I would like to congratulate my colleague from
Louis-Hébert for having presented this motion to the House, which
reads as follows:
That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with
regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making it
mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods
containing genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable
Canadians to make informed choices about the foods they eat.
I have read this text over many times, particularly the first
words “That this House urge the government to demonstrate
openness—”
Why does the member for Louis-Hébert have to urge the government
to demonstrate openness? We have all followed the debate that
took place in the first few months of the year and that was
orchestrated by the so-called Miami group, to which Canada and
the United States belong and which is opposed to the food
labelling.
Why all this opposition when European and Asian countries like
Japan and Korea have already adopted such measures. If it is
good for the Japanese and the Europeans, why would it not be
good for Canadians and Quebecers to know what is in the products
that they consume?
I commend the member for Louis-Hébert for bringing forward this
debate in the House and also for having toured the province.
She invited the members to accompany her. I was unable to attend
the meeting held in my riding because of a death in the family,
but I inquired about what had happened. I also listened to
colleagues who talked about the various consultations that took
place.
The member for Louis-Hébert did not only consult consumers. She
also talked with producers and people from the industry. She
held a balanced consultation process without bias or witch
hunts.
Of course she has proposed food labelling and in a way was
rather innovative in putting this issue up for debate in the
House of Commons. However, it is a matter that concerned a lot
of people in the country, at least in Quebec.
1720
A while ago I asked her to how many signatures had been
collected for the petitions on the labelling, not the banning of
GMOs, and she said that between 45,000 and 50,000 signatures had
been collected so far, only in Quebec. This means that a lot of
people are worried. The issue is not necessarily being discussed
every day, but occasionally, at the Montreal debate for example.
It is therefore a public concern.
She probably gave out information when she was touring Quebec,
because people came unsolicited to my riding office and said “I
want to sign the petition”. They were well informed. Eight out
of ten were mothers. They are more concerned about the food their
children and their family eat. They probably care more than men,
but I know that some men are also concerned.
We have seen that the majority of Liberal members have spoken
out in opposition, although there were what I might call some
heartening exceptions. The Liberal member who spoke before the
last speaker went even further, asking that all products be
labelled. We cannot object to this principle, but there are some
natural products the contents of which we do not need to know
because they have been around for so long, for hundreds of years,
and they never made anyone sick. But GMO technology is rather
new.
My father was a farmer. I am 52 years old today, and when I was
a kid, I used to help him spray DDT on potato crops. It was not
illegal then, and we did not use any protection or protective
masks. DDT was used to protect the crop from insects, especially
those called potato bugs.
Some time later, it was realized that DDT is extremely
dangerous. As soon as they were made aware of this, farmers
immediately discontinued this practice. Most farmers are
responsible people. They do not want to harm people's health or
their own.
This morning, I sat on the environment committee for my
colleague from Jonquière. The committee had a discussion on
pesticides. We can see their impact and the concerns they raise.
Members in the party opposite are deeply concerned about this.
There are many kinds of pesticides, of course. There is a
certain analogy to be made with GMOs. Members from all parties
were asking whether we have made all the studies we need.
To those who have described the hon. member for Louis-Hébert as
a scaremonger, I would say that she is just being cautious. In
matters of food and human health, caution should prevail. We
should not scare people but we must show them that we need to be
cautious. The principle of openness underpins democracy and we
have a right to information. That is what the charter says.
If a principle is guaranteed in the charter, it must mean
something. It must be adhered to. We cannot say, as the Liberal
government does, that it would be too costly or that we would
need more human resources.
1725
In this regard, 200 food quality experts from the federal
government wrote to the Minister of Health to let him know that
because of a lack of personnel they could not make all of the
required analyses. This is the reality now, but, because of a
lack of personnel, are we going to close our eyes, ignore the
risks and prevent any check? This would be absurd.
I do not want to go too far, because I know that this is a word
that is almost taboo in this House, but regarding hepatitis C and
all the problems caused by the HIV tainted blood and so on, who
would have thought at that time that such a thing could happen?
The problem was acknowledged, because caution is always the best
way to go. Of course, here, we are not talking about these kinds
of issues, but there are people who are concerned.
The member for Louis-Hébert is not being alarmist, because I
know that she is a great specialist in this area. She was the
first woman to become an agrologist in Quebec. This is quite
something. That dates her, but it is true. She was an assistant
deputy minister in Quebec's Department of Agriculture. She was a
member of the Commission de la protection du territoire agricole.
Her father was a searcher in this area. So, I do not see how she
can be embarrassed of my reminding her of it.
I have full confidence in her and I have known her for many
years. When the hon. member for Louis-Hébert immerses herself in
an issue like this, she takes it seriously and is very thorough.
Indeed, she became some kind of an expert on GMOs for many
people.
Personally, I am in favour of progress and I think that we must
not necessarily reject GMOs because they have tremendous
possibilities and many benefits.
If I rise today to speak to the issue, it is to protect the
right to information of the public and to promote transparency.
I think that those principles command that we put the efforts,
the money, the resources, the research and the studies needed.
We know that knowledge is important. For that reason, it is
important to know all that needs to be known and not to let
something as fundamental as food subject to arbitrary or hasty
decisions.
We talked about food, but we could also talk about the risks for
the environment. I am a farmer's son and I know that in some
parts of the United States and elsewhere in the world, the soil
has been overexploited. In the end, if proper care is not taken,
the farming potential of the land can be affected. We cannot ask
too much too rapidly from farm land without dire consequences.
That applies to the use of fertilizers and other things. That is
the risk I saw when I read the documentation on the issue.
At first sight we could think that it would be better to have
bigger and faster growing fruits and vegetables. Of course there
are clearly economic benefits, but I ask myself some questions.
When the same companies, the same corporations, that extol the
virtues of genetically modified organisms are selling
pesticides, insecticides or chemical fertilizers, it is almost
as if the doctor owned the drugstore.
In Quebec, there was a time when it was like that, but it is not
allowed anymore. We are trying to avoid integration, because we
do not want to put people in a conflict of interest because they
are promoting one industry and trying to offset the effects of a
phenomenon that they are benefiting from at the same time.
1730
I congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hébert who is speaking
only of labelling, only of information. The public must know
what they are eating.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m., it is
my duty to inform the House that the time allowed for debate on
the motion has now expired.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT
The House resumed from April 12 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-223, an act to amend the Witness Protection Program Act
and to make a related and consequential amendment to another act
(protection of spouses whose life is in danger), be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order
made on Wednesday, April 12, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second
reading stage of Bill C-223 under Private Members' Business.
Call in the members.
1800
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Alarie
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Brien
| Brison
| Caccia
| Cadman
|
Calder
| Cardin
| Casey
| Casson
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Crête
| Cummins
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis - et - Chutes - de - la - Chaudière)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
|
Epp
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Gouk
|
Grewal
| Gruending
| Guarnieri
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Hart
| Herron
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Ianno
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Konrad
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Loubier
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Marceau
|
Mark
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
Ménard
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
|
Muise
| O'Reilly
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Peric
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Chatham – Kent Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Price
| Reynolds
|
Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Speller
|
St - Hilaire
| Steckle
| Stinson
| Stoffer
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Volpe
| White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 115
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
|
Bennett
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Clouthier
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Harb
| Harvard
|
Hubbard
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas – Charlottenburgh)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
|
Lavigne
| Limoges
| MacAulay
| Malhi
|
Maloney
| Manley
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Proulx
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Sekora
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert – 109
|
PAIRED
Members
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
1805
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. It
being 6.06 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration
of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should defend
the constitutionality of Section 43 of the Criminal Code in the
Courts and, if necessary, should take legislative action to
reinstate Section 43 in the event that it is struck down,
including invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms (Section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1982).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour for me to
rise to speak to Motion No. 341, a motion which would protect
teachers, parents and their children from unwarranted and heavy
handed state intrusion. I will read the motion again:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should defend
the constitutionality of Section 43 of the Criminal Code in the
Courts and, if necessary, should take legislative action to
reinstate Section 43 in the event that it is struck down,
including invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms.
The reason I brought the motion forward is that some children
rights advocates want to see section 43 declared by the courts to
be in violation of the charter of rights and freedoms.
In December 1999 a group calling itself the Canadian Foundation
for Children, Youth and the Law asked the Ontario superior court
to declare section 43 to be in violation of the charter and
therefore unconstitutional. My motion opposes such efforts. I
understand from other colleagues in the House today that there is
a fair bit of support for the nature of the motion before us, and
I am grateful.
Under section 43 of the criminal code today parents are allowed
to use physical force to restrain or correct their children as
long as it is not abusive, is by way of correction and is
reasonable under the circumstances. The relevant statute is
section 43 of the criminal code which reads as follows:
Every school teacher, parent or person standing in the place of a
parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a
pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the
force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.
This section of the code limits the way force can be used on a
child in two ways. First, a parent is justified in using force
only if the force is intended and used for a specific purpose,
namely by way of correction.
That requirement has existed in Canadian law since 1864 in a
decision in which the court stated that the power of correction
can only be used in the interest of instruction. It cannot be
for some arbitrariness, anger or bad humour. That would be an
offence punishable like other ordinary offences.
In other words, force is only justifiable if it is used in the
best interest of a child to correct a child from engaging in
improper conduct. The section does not justify a parent using
force to vent anger. An instructional purpose with respect to
the child's interest must motivate the use of force.
Second, a parent's use of force is limited also in that it must
be reasonable under the circumstances. In assessing whether the
force used by the parent was reasonable, the courts have
formulated a test which considers the following factors, and I
think they are good factors.
The court takes into account the nature of the child's offence
calling for punishment and whether such conduct merits
punishment. It takes into account the age and the character of
that child; the likely effect of punishment on the child; the
degree and gravity of the punishment; the manner in which the
punishment was inflicted; the injuries that resulted, if any; the
parts of the body where the force was applied; and whether
punishment was motivated by arbitrariness, caprice, anger or bad
temper.
1810
While judges sometimes apply these criteria differently it is
safe to say that the successful application of such criteria
demonstrates the effectiveness and the value of section 43.
In court hearings in December last year the Coalition for Family
Autonomy noted that a database search of the weekly criminal
bulletin showed that there were 99 cases in which parental
discipline was the issue. In these cases we see the criteria of
reasonableness at work. For example, since 1965 there have been
five cases where acquittals were entered when bruising occurred
but 16 cases involving bruising where the accused was convicted.
The court took this into account and convicted 16 of these
individuals.
In cases involving objects used to strike a child, the case
survey indicates that there were twice as many convictions as
acquittals. Of the 47 cases which reported the use of some
object in striking or the “discipline”, there were 31
convictions and just 13 acquittals. In every case involving
children under two a conviction was entered. The case law survey
also indicated that courts are mindful of the manner in which the
discipline is administered.
The point is simply that section 43 has operated in practice in
a manner where the jurisprudence has developed a detailed set of
factors which the courts have used to interpret section 43 and
its demand for reasonableness. All this points to the fact that
this section in the criminal code is both workable and is
working.
In the 34 year period from 1965 to 1999 in only 24 of the 99
cases found in the database search was there an acquittal of a
parent charged of assaulting his or her child. That very low
number hardly suggests that adults are routinely using section 43
to get away with abusing their children. In fact the more
numerous convictions indicate otherwise. In the 24 acquittals
there may have been instances in which the judge made a error and
should not have acquitted the parent. That is a problem with the
judge. The appeals should happen and it should be pursued to the
full extent of the law.
Section 43 of the criminal code is doing its job. Prior to the
enactment of this section of the code there was no legislation
placing limits on the use of physical correction and there were
no government agencies designed to protect children from abuse.
When section 43 of the code came into law, children had for the
first time legal protection from physical abuse. Thanks to
section 43 parents cannot physically abuse their children in the
name of discipline. They cannot exceed what is reasonable under
the circumstances. As long as the police and the courts do their
jobs, child abusers will be prosecuted under the law.
It is somewhat ironic that the very same people who are arguing
for the removal of section 43, argue that it protects only
parental rights. That is clearly not the case. The irony is
that the whole reason section 43 came into existence in the first
place was to balance the right of parents to correct the
behaviour of their children and the rights of children not to be
abused.
It is a good law. It was well conceived at the time. It has
served its purpose well and continues to serve us well today. For
that reason section 43 strikes that necessary balance between the
rights of parents and the rights of children. On one hand,
parents must have the freedom to fulfil their responsibility to
their children and to society and to raise their children to be
moral, decent people who respect others. On the other hand, we
believe that children have the right to be free from physical
abuse and bodily harm. Section 43 strikes that proper balance.
That is why it is disconcerting that some children rights
advocates, specifically the group calling itself the Canadian
Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law, are trying to have
this section of the criminal code removed or declared
unconstitutional. If this group succeeds in having section 43
struck down, the results would be absurd and totally
unacceptable. Many good and loving parents from that point on
would be made criminals overnight.
The statistics indicate that some 70% of parents spank their
child from time to time as a reasonable corrective discipline in
respect to their children. Removing section 43 would mean that
many of them would become criminals overnight. It would simply
not be true of parents who swat little Johnny on the bottom from
time to time. It would be true of parents who do not even spank
their children.
When a parent tries to restrain a child, that could be treated as
an assault subject to criminal prosecution.
1815
I am going to talk about why there is a real chill for teachers
if section 43 is removed. If section 43 is removed, a parent
could be charged with criminal assault for forcibly removing a
misbehaving child from a shopping mall, for picking up a
misbehaving child and putting him or her out of the way of harm
or for putting him or her to bed against his or her will.
Teachers share this exact same concern.
The Canadian Teachers' Federation appeared as an intervenor in
last December's court case in Ontario and argued in favour of
retaining section 43 of the criminal code. The federation
believed that removing the section would be detrimental to
maintaining a safe and secure school environment. The federation
pointed to a number of day to day school situations in which the
safety of students and the learning environment could be
adversely affected.
I am sure there are teachers here who could tell us of specific
instances where restraint is required in a school situation for
the safety of a student and the protection of others as well. The
teachers in their intervention cited instances where there is the
need to protect students or teachers when a fight occurs at
school, including the need to restrain those students if
necessary. Also there are situations where there is a need to
escort an uncooperative student to the principal's office, to
bring him or her along by the arm. In that instance lo and
behold an assault charge may be laid for that type of escort down
the hall.
The teachers referred to a situation involving ejecting a
student who refuses to leave the classroom or the school itself.
The teachers' federation also referred in its intervention to
situations such as during a field trip when they have to place a
young student on the bus who has refused to return to the bus.
There are also situations where teachers may have to restrain a
cognitively impaired student.
The teachers' federation is concerned that if section 43 were
removed from the criminal code, the result would be widespread
fear among teachers of being charged with assault. As a
precaution teachers would be advised or would choose not to
intervene in school situations since stepping in to resolve the
difficult situation might lead to their being charged with
assault. That reticence of teachers to step into the gap could
result in more serious injuries to students as well as in a
deterioration of the school learning environment.
Removing section 43 for our schools and Canadian families would
be a disgrace to our judicial system. If it were struck down, it
would be a massive intrusion of the state into the educational
and family environments of our nation. Former Prime Minister
Trudeau said that the state had no business in the bedrooms of
the nation. Anyone who removes section 43 of the criminal code
will be moving the state into the nation's family rooms. That
would be tragic. The state makes a lousy parent and should not
presume to tell parents how best to shape the moral character of
their children as long as abuse is not involved.
That is why I have introduced this motion, to defend section 43
of the criminal code, even to the extent of going into court
situations and invoking the notwithstanding clause if necessary.
The aim of the motion is to enable caring non-abusive parents to
do the best job possible of raising their children to be
responsible, well adjusted individuals and members of society. It
protects the rights of parents to raise their children in
accordance with their moral and religious beliefs about the
effect of child rearing, their personal knowledge of the unique
characteristics of their own children and their own understanding
of how best to discipline children which has been gained from
their parents and their own experiences during childhood.
The motion accomplishes this goal in two ways. First, it
requires that the government defend section 43 of the criminal
code in the courts. In the event that one or more rulings were
to strike down section 43, the motion would permit the government
to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the charter of rights and
freedoms. Notwithstanding a court's decision to strike down the
law, section 43 would remain the law of the land. After the
Sharpe decision relating to child pornography, more and more
parliamentarians are realizing that parliament has an obligation
to protect Canadians from judicial rulings which we cannot
understand and which do not make a lot of sense.
Parenting has always been a challenge. Raising children to be
responsible and law-abiding members of society is more of a
challenge than ever before. The surge in teen violence during
the past decade testifies to that fact. The shootings a year ago
in high schools in the U.S. and Canada have horrified all of us.
Now is not the time to handicap parents in their role as moral
guides. It is for these reasons that I brought forward this
initiative.
1820
In my wrap-up in the last five minutes I will refer to some of
the effects of physical discipline on children.
At this time I want to ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to have the motion before us deemed adopted and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Wanuskewin has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to
have his motion passed. Does the hon. member for Wanuskewin have
the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to the member's motion in support of the
general thrust of the motion. The tone of my support is somewhat
different from that of the member who moved the motion. He
tended to configure his support for the motion in the context of
being anti-state or keeping the state out of how the family is
run. I would suggest to him that section 43 is already a
manifestation of the state having a right to set limits on what
parents are able to do in terms of disciplining their children.
There was somewhat of a contradiction in the member's argument.
Either the state has this right or it does not. I would suggest
that it does and that section 43 is an appropriate reflection of
that right of the state. The member himself pointed to the fact
that the origin of this section was an intention to protect
children and to limit and to eliminate physical abuse of
children. It was not designed to condone, to permit or to
promote, but rather to set the appropriate context where physical
discipline can be used by parents on children and by teachers on
students.
I would call the attention of the House to the fact that this is
not just a matter of individual members of parliament having this
concern, it is also a concern that teachers have. It has been
expressed as the member noted by the Canadian Teachers'
Federation.
The federation argued quite persuasively that with the
elimination of section 43, if it were to be removed from the
criminal code, there would be a dramatic increase in the number
of assault charges on teachers. As a precaution teachers would
be advised or would choose not to intervene in school situations
since their stepping in to resolve the situation might lead to
their being charged with assault. The reticence of teachers to
step in would result in more serious injuries to students as well
as a deterioration of the classroom and school learning
environment.
What we are talking about here is not the premeditated corporal
punishment of strapping that used to occur in schools. We are
talking about those situations in which teachers want to have the
freedom to intervene in the moment to protect students when there
is a fight, to escort uncooperative students, to eject a student
who refuses to leave a classroom, to place a young student on a
bus who refuses to leave after a field trip or who refuses to go
and needs to go, or to restrain certain students.
All these things do not have to do with the old fashioned
premeditated corporal punishment that took the form of strapping,
the efficacy of which I always doubted very much. I think
schools are better without it. I do not see any evidence that
schools perform worse in any significant respect given the
absence of strapping or the absence of premeditated corporal
punishment.
To suggest that teachers would not be able to do anything would
be a mistake, just as it would be a mistake to suggest that
parents cannot do anything. Whenever we get into a zero
tolerance situation we create a culture of fear and intimidation.
We already see this now with the whole notion of physical
contact.
Teachers and other people who deal with children are afraid to
put their arms around anybody. They are afraid to hug a child
who needs emotional support. They are afraid to do all kinds of
things for fear they might be accused of child abuse or sexual
harassment.
1825
We are trying to eliminate judgment from our society. When
anything can possibly be used in a negative way we say let us not
have it at all. That is a mistake. We are human beings. We are
given a certain amount of freedom and we have to exercise
judgment. The motion says that we do not want parents or
teachers to be able to exercise judgment and to be held
accountable for the kind of judgments they make. We want to
eliminate that capacity for judgment. That is a mistake.
I can think of obvious examples. When toddlers or kids want to
put their hands on a hot stove, are we to be criminalized for
tapping the tops of their hands and telling them not to put their
hands on the hot element or in the fire? Are we to be
criminalized for patting them on the bottom if they persist in
running out into traffic? These kinds of little things can
create an atmosphere for various kinds of witch hunts. There is
also the example of siblings harming each other who need to be
kept from doing so even if it is by physical restraint or
physical discipline.
I think section 43 at the present time is sufficient. I have
received a lot of mail from constituents who seem to feel that
the elimination of section 43 is imminent and they want me to
stop it. There is a bit of political campaigning here. Some
people are trying to exploit this issue for political purposes,
creating a sense that something is about to happen which is not
about to happen.
I have always made it clear to constituents who have written to
me that I would not be in favour of repealing section 43 for the
reasons I have just outlined, and I think the majority of members
of parliament would not either. If there is a way we can put this
to rest both for the sake of the substance of the matter and to
eliminate some of the politics that have surrounded the issue,
that would serve everybody very well.
I come from a family which for at least two generations the use
of corporal punishment was something that was exceedingly rare so
my comments are not out of defence of anything I have found in my
own experience. I think all of us, at least those in my
generation, would attest that many of our parents come from a
generation where corporal punishment was the rule of the day.
Family stories are replete with what happened if a child talked
back to his or her father or misbehaved. There has been all
kinds corporal punishment.
I am not making an argument for corporal punishment. I am just
saying that some of the connections we often simplistically make
do not always hold up sociologically and historically. I think
one of the best generations that ever existed in this country, my
parents' generation, was a generation that was raised in a
context where parents dished out a lot more physical discipline
than any of us here would regard as acceptable. I am not saying
that was a good thing; in fact in many respects I think it was a
bad thing, but to draw any quick and easy psychological or
sociological conclusions about when people are on the receiving
end of corporal punishment, if it happens in an appropriate
context it is not always for the worst.
We should leave section 43 as it stands. I hope other members
feel likewise.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I seconded this motion because I support section 43. I
want to discuss this motion and take the approach of a lawyer as
opposed to a teacher.
I want to say for those who are following the debate either in
Hansard or on television or in other reported media that
this is a motion, not a bill. This motion was not deemed to be
votable by the subcommittee on private members' business so there
will be no vote.
Indeed, the speeches this evening will end after one hour of
debate and the subject matter will be dropped from the order of
debate. Having said that, I think the subject matter is
important. I commend the hon. member who is the mover of the
motion for bringing it forward, particularly in view of the
current legal history.
1830
The motion calls for the federal government to defend the
section. As I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice will point out when he gets a chance to
speak, the federal government is defending section 43 and did
defend section 43 before the Supreme Court of Canada. I want to
take a look at the section specifically. We are talking about
section 43, but perhaps people do not truly know what it says.
It is really very short, so I propose to read it.
I am referring to Martin's Criminal Code, which refers to
section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada. It states:
Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a
parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a
pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the
force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.
It is important to note exactly to whom this section applies.
It applies to schoolteachers. It applies to parents. It applies
to persons standing in the place of a parent. It applies to
child and pupil. It does not apply, let us say, to police,
coaches or others who might come in contact with children. It
applies to those individuals named.
I want to read a brief synopsis of section 43 contained in
Martin's Criminal Code.
Of course “force” is not defined. Some people call this the
spanking section, but there are many other kinds of force that
may be used in varying degrees that are not spanking. It is
important to note that we are talking about the use of force.
It continues:
The persons who may rely upon this section are schoolteachers,
parents or those standing in the place of a parent. The child or
pupil must be under the care of the person using the force, and
the force must be applied for the purpose of correcting the
child.
That is critically important. The force must be applied for the
purpose of correcting the child. It continues:
Thus, if the child is too young to learn from the correction or
is incapable due to mental disability, the use of force will not
be justified by s. 43. The force applied cannot exceed what is
reasonable in the circumstances...
In determining whether the force used has exceeded what is
reasonable under the circumstances, the court must consider both
from an objective and subjective standpoint such matters as the
nature of the offence calling for correction, the age and
character of the child and the likely effect of the punishment on
the particular child, the degree of gravity of the punishment,
the circumstances under which it is inflicted and the injuries,
if any, suffered.
These two citations I have made specifically because to me they
indicate how this section is to work. It is a very specific
section, designed for very specific people in very specific
circumstances. It is designed to be examined on a fact by fact
situational basis. To me that is what is important. What may be
reasonable use of force by a teacher in one circumstance may not
be reasonable use of force by a teacher in another circumstance.
It is very important that there be a combination of the objective
and subjective tests.
It is also very important for the reasons we heard from the two
members who spoke previously, that the use of force in
appropriate circumstances in a reasonable manner be continued to
be permitted.
We heard a couple of the more obvious examples given by the
member for Winnipeg—Transcona, in particular where the immediate
safety of the child is of concern.
1835
The people who have opposed section 43, in my opinion, have
taken worst case fact situations and applied them to tar section
43 with an unnecessarily black brush. The court system is
adequately designed to deal with each individual fact situation.
If there is an aberrant decision by an aberrant judge, the court
of appeal is there to provide guidance in a particular
circumstance.
The use of appropriate force in appropriate circumstances has
been part of human history since the first child was produced.
It seems eminently reasonable that section 43 is there not only
for the protection of the child, but also for the protection of
those who apply force in reasonable circumstances for the purpose
of correction.
Having said that, I really do not want to go on ad infinitum.
The section is reasonable. There is no reasonable argument that
I can see or accept for the abolition of the section. I think it
should be maintained.
I want to say one thing, however, about the use of section 33.
I think that the motion stated that if the section were to be
found unconstitutional, then we should use section 33. With that
I agree. That is a nuclear option that parliament has to control
the courts. It should be used very sparingly and very carefully,
but it can be used and should be used in appropriate
circumstances to demonstrate the supremacy of parliament.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting and timely debate that
has been brought forward by the hon. member for Wanuskewin.
Private member's motion No. 341 talks about defending the
constitutionality of section 43 of our criminal code and, if
necessary, taking the legislative action to reinstate section 43,
including invoking the notwithstanding clause of our Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I am very supportive of the upholding and the reinforcement, if
necessary, of section 43 of our criminal code. I think the
member opposite and previous speakers have spoken quite
eloquently and have set out before the House the necessity and
the background with respect to why we have section 43 in the
criminal code. It is there essentially to set very much a
standard for the reasonable force that can be used to take
corrective measures or to take action when necessary to
discipline a child in a situation, whether it be at home or at
school.
That section of the criminal code has been in place for a number
of years. It has been tested in the courts. It has been
examined extensively by courts and by litigators across the
country.
I want to thank the hon. member for Wanuskewin for bringing this
motion forward.
Unfortunately, I have some difficulty with respect to invoking
the notwithstanding clause with respect to this type of criminal
code section. That is not to diminish the importance of what the
hon. member is seeking to accomplish. I think it is a productive
opportunity here in the House to examine the situation, to flesh
out this issue further and to look at the issue of discipline, in
particular with respect to parents, teachers and community
workers, those who are in regular contact with children. It is a
very trying time.
It goes without saying that adults are very much in a situation
at times where they are forced to make the judgment call to
decide whether to take the appropriate physical action, which
they must measure, and somehow try to apply a standard of
restraint when it comes to physical coercion or restraint of a
child. It becomes a very dicey and grey issue. This type of
debate is helpful in that regard.
1840
Parents are in a unique position because they know their
children best and they know when they have to take that type of
extraordinary measure in terms of controlling a child in certain
instances. Children, obviously, at times need discipline and
parents need the power to invoke this type of reasonable
corrective action. Parents know best. They know the unique
characteristics of their children and they know the most
effective way, for the most part, to raise their child, including
discipline in that process.
There is obviously a need to protect the bodily integrity of
everyone, and our criminal code does so. It goes without saying
that children are more informed about their rights than they have
ever been at any time in our history. That is a good thing. The
education system teaches children and teaches our citizens
generally more about the law than in previous generations. It is
very important that Canadians know and understand their legal
rights and the obligations which flow from those rights.
Section 43 would help to defend the right of a parent or an
adult to intervene in certain circumstances and apply measured,
reasonable, restrained physical force. Thus, the issue becomes,
is there a necessity to protect that right? Yes, there is. That
is what is at the very root of this motion. It is a genuine,
sincere attempt to protect and uphold a section of the criminal
code that has a very important and productive background and
necessity in this country.
That is not to say that there should ever be any indication that
this section should be misused or that this section should be
construed in some way as to condone or encourage any sort of
excessive physical force.
There have been some high profile cases before the courts. The
one that comes to mind is a recent case in which an American
citizen, in this country, was seen to be using what was
perceived, in a parking lot area, to be excessive force in
disciplining his daughter. That case resulted in the police
intervening and has become somewhat of a cause célèbre in this
country.
The courts have been quite measured in examining these
situations. They have, in their discretion, looked at the
factual circumstances of each and every case. Again, as referred
to by the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, it is very much
an individualized situation. In every case before a court of law
there is an ample opportunity to flesh out the circumstances, the
factual evidence. The crown prosecutor, in conjunction with the
police, is to present evidence that would support a charge of
assault or a like charge that involved the use of force. Section
43 is very much there as a filter and a sword to protect the
person who has been accused of exercising this type of physical
intervention.
It is understandable that there is some trepidation. We have
all received calls both in our constituency offices and here in
Ottawa from concerned citizens every time there is a case before
the courts. Every time this situation arises there is a concern
that parents and adults, likewise, feel that they will not be
permitted to use reasonable force.
The only trepidation I have in the wording of this particular
motion is with the reference to the notwithstanding clause.
I have had discussions with the mover of this motion, who gives
assurance, and I think it is implicit when we read it carefully,
that it is very much not a pre-emptive strike, but it is there in
its wording to suggest that if things proceed in the fashion that
the hon. member anticipates, there may be the need for the
government to intervene.
For that reason I find it difficult to justify the way in which
it is presented. That is to say, at this time there is not an
epidemic of abuse, where individuals are relying on this section
to justify abuse. We are not faced with a situation where there
is a great deal of misunderstanding as to what type of force is
appropriate.
Obviously, when physical injury results or when force is used in
a very inappropriate way, sometimes it is not just the physical
abuse that needs to be examined.
We obviously know of occasions where a child can be berated,
verbally abused, intimidated and scared, and that type of abuse
also has to be examined when looking at like situations.
1845
There is an important quote by Morris Manning that I want to put
on the record. In his legal commentary, he said:
If our freedom of conscience or religion can be taken away by a
law which operates notwithstanding the Charter, if our right to
life or liberty can be taken not in accordance with the
principles of fundamental justice, what freedom do we have.
He is obviously suggesting that we must tread very lightly when
using the notwithstanding clause. Much akin to the idea behind
this motion and behind section 43 of the criminal code, we must
be very measured and careful before invoking such an extreme
measure. It was referred to as the nuclear bomb of our legal
system.
To use the notwithstanding clause essentially annihilates
precedent. It annihilates the use of the courts to do their job
and to exercise discretion and judgment over our laws. It
suspends discussion on a legal principle and on a law. We have
to be extremely cautious before going down that road. I know the
hon. member who moved this motion is aware of that.
This is a very subjective and objective debate when it comes to
the appropriateness of physical intervention. I suspect all
members in the House feel very strongly about upholding the
importance and integrity of section 43 of the criminal code.
For those reasons, I feel it is appropriate that we exhaust all
avenues currently within our system and that judicial discretion
be respected in each and every case. One would hope that this
particular factual circumstance under section 43 will not be
struck down by our courts. That is not to anticipate what any
superior court or supreme court in the country will do, but at
this time I do not feel it is necessary to invoke or at least
threaten to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
I again congratulate the hon. member on his initiative in
bringing this forward. It is a useful debate and one that may
have to be revisited at some time in the near future.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
speak. I have done a lot of work in this area and have
formulated a declaration of parental rights and responsibilities,
which, if time allows, I will go into a little bit.
I want to say several things in the short time I am allowed. I
want to show the necessity of the resolution we are debating. I
also want to point out clearly that the government says one thing
but does another. It talks the talk but it does not walk the
walk. That is why this resolution is necessary. I will give a
couple of very good examples of that. That is why this should
have been voted on in the House but the government would not
allow that.
Before I go into this, I will point out my view and the views of
many of my constituents on this. Parental discipline is quite
different from child abuse and neglect. Child abuse and neglect
should not be tolerated but section 43 strikes a balance by
protecting children from abuse while still allowing parents to
correct their children, within the limits that are acceptable to
Canadian society.
The Canadian Teachers' Federation states:
Section 43 of the Criminal Code does not sanction or condone
child abuse.... There is no evidence to indicate that the
existence of Section 43 is a root cause of child abuse or that it
encourages abuse of children.
I also point out that responsible, loving parents sometimes have
to correct their children to keep them from harm. Removing
section 43 of the criminal code may make criminals out of parents
who use reasonable corrective action with their kids.
Parents, not the government, are best suited to determine the
needs, including disciplinary measures, of their own children.
Removing a means for parents to discipline their children will
result in more state intrusion into family life.
Maintaining section 43 of the criminal code shows respect for
Canadian parents. It shows respect for the democratic process.
It is through debate in parliament, not in the court chambers,
where important public policy decisions like this should be made.
1850
If there are concerns about what is deemed reasonable in
parental discipline, it would be better to develop guidelines
rather than potentially criminalizing all parents by a court
decision. Using tax dollars to fund a lobby group to make an end
run around the democratic process and push social policy through
the courts is inappropriate.
Those are my views and that is where I am coming from when I
make my comments.
We have laws that address abuse. The government has done a
terrible job on family issues and should not interfere with
parental rights.
I am a former teacher. I want to read what the Canadian
Teachers' Federation had to say about section 43 of the criminal
code, because this section does not just deal with parents, it
also deals with teachers.
The Canadian Teachers' Federation appeared in court in December
to argue in favour of keeping section 43 in the criminal code.
The federation believes that the removal of section 43 would be
detrimental to maintaining a safe and secure school environment
for all students. Removing section 43 would encourage some
students to engage in insubordinate or disruptive behaviour.
As an aside, I was a teacher for 24 and a half years and I think
that is a very key point. We should not tie the hands of our
teachers in this regard.
The Canadian Teachers' Federation points to a number of day to
day school situations in which the safety of students in the
learning environment would be adversely affected if section 43
were to be repealed. Such situations are more likely to occur in
a school setting than in the home given the large number of
children and youth who attend school.
Here are some examples that the Canadian Teachers' Federation
puts forth. There is a need to protect students or teachers when
a fight occurs at school, including the need to restrain students
if necessary. Another example is the need to escort an
unco-operative student to the principal's office. A third
situation would involve ejecting a student who refuses to leave
the classroom or the school itself. A fourth situation would be
placing a young student on the bus in a situation where the
student has been on a field trip and refuses to return on the
bus. The last example would be restraining a cognitively
impaired student.
These are all examples I can relate to because I had similar
concerns and incidents when I was teaching.
The Canadian Teachers' Federation is concerned that if section
43 were removed from the criminal code, the result would be a
dramatic increase in the number of assault charges. As a
precaution, teachers would be advised or choose not to intervene
in school situations, since their stepping in to resolve the
situation might lead to their being charged with assault. We
would accomplish the very opposite of what we want, which is the
protection of our children. That is why we should not change
this.
I also want to point out that since the state has discouraged
the use of physical correction in schools, violence has
increased, which is the opposite of what many of these groups
have argued.
I said I would give a couple of examples in the few minutes
remaining. I do not have time to read the entire response to a
petition I had submitted in the House. The response comes from
the government and indicates quite clearly that the government
says one thing to the public but it does not walk the walk.
This document states:
This government fully recognizes the indispensable role of parents
in the upbringing of their children and the need for governments
at all levels to support parents and families in the exercise of
this role.
It then goes on to say that section 43 of the criminal code is
consistent with these principles and that it will protect them.
There is no indication on the part of government that it is going
to withdraw this.
It goes on to say “and is not funding any research on its
removal from the criminal code”. The government said this on
July 22, 1998. Guess what we found out in November of that year?
We found out that it was funding the Canadian Coalition for the
Rights of Children, a loyal lobby group purchased with $365,000
of taxpayers' money. We also found out that the government was
only funding one side of the issue, and this was the only
organization it was funding.
I wish I had more time because I think this is a key point. The
government says that it is defending parents, that it is
defending their rights, that it will not touch section 43 and
that it will not fund any of these things, but a few months later
we find out that it was in fact pouring big bucks into that.
When my colleague from Calgary Centre pointed this out, he sent
an inquiry to the bureaucracy about the parliamentary review of
Canada's report that it was sending, and we found out that the
government funded only one side of the issue.
The second example is the court challenges program. Here we
have the government again funding only one side of the issue. I
have evidence on this but I do not have time to give it. This is
yet another example of the government saying one thing but doing
another. The funding of the Canadian Foundation for Children,
Youth and the Law is clear on this issue.
I wish I had time to quote from my declaration of parental
rights and responsibilities but I will refer people to my website
on the Internet if they want to know what I proposed in this
regard.
1855
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this motion calls on the federal government to, first and
foremost, defend the constitutionality of section 43 in the
courts. I want to indicate at the outset that the federal
government is doing exactly that. We are defending the
constitutionality of section 43 in the courts. This matter is in
fact still before the courts and, accordingly, it would be
inappropriate for me to provide further comment on this specific
case.
There has been a general misunderstanding of the purpose and the
ambit of section 43. Section 43 provides that a parent, teacher
or a person standing in the place of a parent may use force to
correct a child, provided that the force used is reasonable in
all circumstances. This is what sections 43 says.
Section 43 does not, however, condone or authorize the physical
abuse of children. Equally important, it does not shield
parents, teachers or caregivers from interference by the state or
guarantee their freedom to discipline or correct children in any
manner they see fit.
How does section 43 operate? A person who has been charged with
the assault of a child under his or her care can raise section 43
as a defence. In other words, section 43 provides a defence to a
criminal charge of assault for a limited category of persons in a
limited set of circumstances.
Section 43 is a limited defence to a criminal charge because it
is only available to an accused who is a parent, teacher or
person acting in the place of a parent, and only with respect to
a child or pupil under the person's care. It is a limited
defence because the force in question must have been administered
for the purpose of correction. Force exerted in a fit of rage or
in a deliberate attempt to hurt a child will not be justified
under section 43.
Finally, it is a limited defence because the force used must
have been reasonable in all of the circumstances.
Canadian courts are very accustomed to applying a standard of
reasonableness. Courts that are asked to consider a section 43
defence generally assess the reasonableness of the force by
considering a number of factors. For example, they consider the
nature and severity of the force in question, including any
injuries suffered by the child, the child's behaviour or action
calling for correction, the age of the child and the history of
disciplinary action by the parent, vis-à-vis that child. Further,
when determining whether the force used was reasonable, the
standard that the courts apply is that of the Canadian community
and not the standard or practice of the individual family or
school.
To return to the specific issue raised by the motion, the
federal government is defending the constitutionality of section
43 on the basis that it reflects a constitutional balance of the
interests of children, parents and of Canadian society. However,
section 43, interpreted and applied in conformity with the
charter, does not condone or authorize child abuse.
It is also important to note that the protection of children
from child abuse is not only a priority for the federal
government in terms of criminal law reform. Provincial and
territorial child protection legislation authorizes state
intervention to protect children in need of protection, including
to protect children from child abuse. As a result, even if the
charges are not laid under the criminal code, child protection
authorities can and do intervene under provincial or territorial
legislation where parental discipline is inappropriate or
excessive.
The motion also calls on the federal government to invoke
section 33 of the charter or the notwithstanding clause in the
event that section 43 of the criminal code is struck down. In my
view, it is inappropriate to consider the invocation of the
notwithstanding clause of the charter at this point in time.
Invoking section 33 is a serious step that we must not take
easily or casually.
If section 43 is ultimately struck down as unconstitutional, I
would caution us to allow for a considered review of all of the
options open to us to deal with both the criminal law system and
the child protection laws before ever contemplating using section
33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Invoking
section 33 of the charter is a serious matter which should only
be considered in exceptional cases and only after all other legal
avenues have been exhausted. This is the only responsible choice
open to us as members of parliament.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (WanusKewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
I think it was the understanding of all members in the House, including
the Liberal member opposite, that the use of section 33, the notwithstanding
clause, was only “if necessary”. We would first use the full
extent of the law and the appeals process. Because of the
importance of this whole issue, once that was exhausted only then
would section 33 kick in. The record has to be clear. We are
not talking about using section 33 pre-emptively or prematurely.
I note with some sadness though, and members of the House may be
aware of the fact, that the government has defended section 43.
1900
On the other hand it is with sadness that I say it has also
funded the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law,
the very group that brought this challenge into the Ontario
superior court to declare section 43 in violation of the charter.
It is a bit sad that tax dollars are used by the government to
erode or undermine section 43 by way of the funding dollars given
to such a group through the court challenges program.
In the remaining moments I want to talk about what the research
says about the effects of physical discipline on children. A
number of studies have been done over the years. Some studies
have found negative outcomes while others have found positive
ones. I would like to describe why the conclusions have varied
so much by referring to the work of Dr. Robert Larzelere of the
University of Nebraska Medical Centre.
In 1996 he published in the journal “Pediatrics” one of the
most important resources we have for understanding the debate
among current researchers. He undertook a literary review of all
the empirical studies published in scholarly journals over the
last 30 years. He studied 35 relevant articles on this topic and
found conflicting results among them.
In reviewing the literature he discovered that the different
results could largely be explained by the different methods and
approaches used by the researchers. His key finding was that
studies which show that physical punishment had negative results
did not distinguish abusive from non-abusive physical discipline.
They sought families in which physical discipline was used but
failed to inquire about the nature of the physical discipline.
Some of these methodologically flawed studies then included
family situations where unreasonably harsh or abusive measures of
physical punishment were used. On the other hand, studies which
showed positive results from physical punishment or discipline,
the word I would prefer to use, were the ones that excluded
abusive family situations.
Here is a breakdown of the results from those 35 studies done by
Dr. Larzelere. Only 11 of the 35 studies excluded abusive family
situations. Those are the ones within the parameters, the ones
to consider. The others in effect could be set aside because
they had a methodologically flawed approach. Six of these eleven
studies showed beneficial outcomes, four showed neutral outcomes,
and only one showed any negative outcome. That suggests that
when used properly by parents who truly love their children,
mild, moderate physical correction when kids are young can have
positive results and no negative results.
These observations are relevant to the debate over section 43 of
the criminal code. Both sides in the debate agree that abusive
physical punishment is harmful to children. We should not allow
it or tolerate it. Where we disagree is on the effects of
non-abusive physical punishment.
The studies that saw negative results from physical correction,
which included abusive family situations, have to be disregarded
in the interest of fairness and in the interest of truth for the
situation here if we want to learn about the outcomes of
non-abusive physical discipline by loving parents.
I can cite from my own family situation. I have a son who is 21
years old, a daughter who is 18 years old, a son who is 6 years
old, and a little one who is five months old. The six year old
has had one little spank on the bottom in his some six years of
life. Considering his personality and so on, I suspect that he
will not ever require more than a glance sideways or some other
method of discipline. However I do believe that the backup, the
fact that he knew it happened once in the far distant past, is a
good thing. It is also helpful that we use all other alternative
methods of discipline.
I think we cannot confuse apples and oranges here by talking
about clearly abusive family situations where there is all kinds
of dysfunction and balanced and proper functioning family
situations.
There have actually been more recent studies since the 1996
publication of Dr. Larzelere's article, but all those studies do
not challenge the finding of his literary review that in
non-abusive situations physical correction can in fact be
positive and beneficial to the child. The most recent study by
Marjorie Gunnoe in Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, August
1997, provides important confirmation of those findings.
At this point I very humbly and straightforwardly seek unanimous
consent of the House to have the motion before us deemed adopted
and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1905
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time provided
for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable
item, the order is dropped from the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
GASOLINE PRICES
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on February
21, I asked a question on gasoline prices and I would like to
read this question to be sure that those who are listening
understand why I am speaking in the House today.
At the time, I said:
Canadians are discouraged and now truckers from Ontario, Quebec,
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are protesting at the New
Brunswick border against this drastic increase in the price of
gasoline. Some of them even think they may have to hand over
their trucks to the banks.
Will the federal government finally
act, or will it wait until the situation becomes a national
crisis?
This was the answer of the Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions:
Mr. Speaker, it is true that the price of oil has actually
doubled since last year. Taxes went up by only 1 cent.
This is not the problem for people buying gasoline. The problem
is not taxes, but the fact the price of oil has doubled.
I never mentioned taxes in my question. What I asked was if the
government intended to act. I asked the government to take
action because, as we all know, it has responsibilities.
We know the cost to truckers, not only those of New Brunswick
but everywhere else in Canada, to drive their truck and work day
after day. For instance, they had to go to the New Brunswick
border. How many truckers in Quebec were forced to organize
protests because of oil prices?
I asked why the federal government did not take action like, for
instance, the Government of Prince Edward Island.
The federal government is going to say that it is not its
responsibility, that it is the provinces' responsibility.
My question dealt with the fact that the federal government
could have co-ordinated national meetings. It was unacceptable,
in our country, to see how oil companies reacted when the price
increased. On weekends, the price of gas was high, on weekdays,
it was lower. It changed every day. In my book, that is almost
like stealing.
But, speaking of taxes, I will give an example. In the Atlantic
provinces, the government brought in the harmonized tax. Before
that tax, people in New Brunswick did not pay tax on heating
oil. After that tax was introduced, even the poorest people had
to pay tax on heating oil.
The federal government can work with the provinces and reach
agreements to help people. It did not do that. In fact, it did
the opposite.
The answer I got to my question was that it was just a one cent
increase. In my question, I did not talk about taxes. But since
we are on that subject, I will tell the government that it can
do better than that, that it can remove the GST on heating oil,
that it can help Canadians, that it can do something and also
that it can join with the provinces in telling oil companies
that this is unacceptable in our country.
It is unfortunate that I do not have more time. I just wanted to
raise this issue and show how the government is out of touch
with the people. Again, it missed a golden opportunity. But,
what can one say, it is a Liberal government after all.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to
respond today to the arguments presented by the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst on the effects of the gas and diesel oil price
increases on consumers and on the Canada trucking industry.
1910
First I want to point out that recent gas and diesel oil price
increases in Canada are directly due to the fact that
international crude oil prices have almost tripled since the end
of 1998.
Although the federal government does not control crude oil
prices, under an agreement signed in 1995 with Alberta, British
Columbia and Saskatchewan, it closely monitors the conditions and
competition practices on the oil markets under the Competition
Act.
The increase in oil prices is probably temporary. OPEP ministers
will meet to discuss the possibility of increasing supply, which
would reduce prices.
Nevertheless, I can assure hon. members that the Canadian
government, as one of the 24 members of the International Energy
Agency, will co-operate with its international partners to ensure
stable international oil markets.
As for Canadians truckers, they will benefit from the tax relief
measures provided for individuals as well as businesses
in the February 2000 budget.
[English]
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada
must not in any way be party to nuclear arms buildups or to
actions which may lead to a cold war environment. Canada must
loudly and proudly say no to the U.S. proposed national missile
defence system. On behalf of the federal NDP I urge the
government to take a stand sooner rather than later.
I raised the question of our participation in the system on
March 16. The Minister of National Defence stated:
I could not believe my ears. Of course we can take a stand. We
should take a stand and we must take a stand.
The minister is also fully aware that DND started work on a $637
million project to provide Canada with a foothold in the arms
buildup strategy of the U.S. This expenditure involves putting
military surveillance sensors in space. The U.S. treats Canada
like the 51st state and the Liberal government reacts like a
whipped dog.
The U.S. threw down its gauntlet in comments from U.S. deputy
defence secretary in a speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce
when he said:
We are at an important pivot point in our relationship with each
other. Unfortunately I think that pivot point is going to
revolve around the issue of national missile defence. Canada
needs to take the lead.
This is an explicit threat from where I sit: either do what the
U.S. says or we will suffer. I am shocked that the government
did not respond to this thinly veiled threat. The foreign
affairs minister said on March 22:
Unilateral efforts to build defences against these dangers are
unlikely to provide lasting security, and might quite possibly
increase insecurity.
The impulse to build walls should be resisted. The answer
instead lies in creating a multilateral approach to stop missile
proliferation in the first place.
On the other hand we have the minister of defence meekly
stating:
Now, however, it seems as if the big defence corporations and
the U.S. brass have given our minister of defence marching
orders. More recently he is making statements which seem very
much to suggest that NORAD is anything but a joint Canada-U.S.
defence command and is in reality an easy way for the U.S. to
tell us to heel and to roll over.
This is a serious matter. Canada's role in international
affairs hangs in the balance. I ask the Liberal government for
an answer to my question. Whose words rule the Liberal roost? Is
it those of the defence minister or the foreign affairs minister?
I ask the Prime Minister to make a public statement on Canada's
opposition to the U.S. government's plans to crank up the arms
race with this national missile system.
The defence minister says there are too many unknowns. Allow me
to clarify the picture for him a little. The defence minister of
France, Alain Richard, has said the threat of ballistic missile
attack is sometimes hyped or exaggerated. Military affairs
analyst John Clearwater said of the proposed system:
It is money down the toilet...any rogue country shooting a
missile at the U.S. knows it will be wiped out.
This insane missile plan will destabilize the current state of
arms control. Even the conservative Globe and Mail stated
that Canada should deny U.S. support on this measure.
There is no question the U.S. is consciously heading on a
collision course with Russia, despite Russia's most recent
positive efforts at ratifying the START II, the Non-Proliferation
Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The NMD totally
contradicts the 1972 ABM Treaty with Russia. The U.S. would have
to withdraw from or violate the treaty.
Canada has the duty and the responsibility of playing a
leadership role. The U.S. plans to fuel the arms race and to
destabilize international relations must be actively opposed.
1915
The government has a choice. It can continue to invest in this
U.S. missile system and act like the 51st state or it can take a
clear and strong stand against something that is fundamentally
wrong and do so with pride.
The Liberals are perched on a very high and narrow fence and
Canadians are waiting to see on which side of the fence they will
fall. If the government falls on the side of complicity with the
U.S. NMD system through silence on the matter or through open
support, then all of Canada will be hurt in this fall. The pain
will also be felt by those in other countries looking to Canada
to play a leadership role.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the most fundamental point about
the national missile defence program is that it is a U.S.
program. The United States has not yet decided to deploy it and
the U.S. government has not officially invited Canada to
participate.
Work has continued in the U.S. on ballistic missile defence
since the start of the star wars program in the mid-eighties. A
national missile defence system, NMD, would be based on Earth and
not in space although space sensors would be used to detect and
track missile launches. An NMD system would launch from the
ground an unarmed projectile called a kill vehicle that would
intercept an incoming missile and destroy it by the sheer force
of impact. As currently planned, NMD would counter an attack by
a limited number of missiles and warheads.
The proponents of NMD in the U.S. argue that the emerging threat
caused by the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass
destruction technology is a new factor, that the old bipolar
world no longer exists and that U.S. security is being
undermined. A rogue state with an ICBM, an intercontinental
ballistic missile, could limit American foreign policy options by
blackmailing future American governments. Its intelligence
estimates indicate that states of concern could develop such a
capability within the next five to 10 years.
On July 23, 1999 President Clinton signed the National Missile
Defence Act which states that an NMD system will be deployed when
technologically feasible. The deployment decision has not yet
been taken and might not be taken by this or even a succeeding
administration.
When he signed the National Missile Defence Act into law,
President Clinton stressed that a final decision to deploy a NMD
system would take place only after a deployment readiness review
had been completed. He also set out the following criteria that
would govern a deployment decision: whether the threat is
materializing; the status of the technology; whether the system
is affordable; and national security considerations, including
arms control and disarmament regimes, relations with Russia and
the impact of the decision on allies.
The target date for this review is now July. While a decision
to deploy could be taken as early as August this year, it would
be some years before any—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt but the member's time has expired. The hon. member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.
NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Dennis Gruending (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in March a panel on Canada's national parks released
a landmark report which called for the re-establishment of
ecological integrity as the guiding principle for parks
management in the future. Rightly so.
National parks were originally created out of a desire to
preserve some of our natural beauty for people to enjoy. In fact
it was in 1885 when Canada established one of the first national
parks in the world, Rocky Mountain National Park or Banff as we
call it today.
The vision and the commitment of countless Canadians to preserve
some small part of our natural heritage is best put to words
appropriately enough by the authors of the first National Parks
Act which was passed by the House of Commons in 1930:
Parks are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their
benefit, education, and enjoyment....Such parks shall be
maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations.
Sadly, this vision has become clouded. The value of our parks
and their natural heritage has been reduced to a matter of
dollars and cents by the government in particular. Our parks
have suffered as a result.
The drive to generate revenue from park services puts an
emphasis on the development of things like golf courses, hotels
and even movie sets. At the same time services like park guides,
wardens and the upkeep of camping facilities have been cut to the
bone.
I want to use the example of Prince Albert National Park. In
Prince Albert National Park the Narrows campground is a popular
spot where many people take their families to camp each summer.
Liberal government cuts have diverted resources away from the
campground to the point where it is now in a shambles. The park
has struggled to keep up the campground but last winter people
were told that this summer they might have no modern toilets or
fresh water.
1920
The Minister of Canadian Heritage embraced the blue ribbon panel
on parks. She told me that we have to get our ecological house
in order before we go to the Minister of Finance for more money.
She told me that in the House earlier this year. That is fine
and good but I sincerely hope the minister is not simply using
this report as an excuse to delay reinvestment in services.
Services consistent with the spirit of ecological integrity
should have their funding restored and restored right away.
The expert panel's report acknowledges that the concept of human
use and enjoyment is fundamentally linked with national parks,
but this human use and enjoyment is under attack. As I have
mentioned it is under attack in the Narrows campground where
people are not going to get even the basic services which they
really deserve and have used for years. This is not an attack on
the integrity of the park. This use has coexisted with the
integrity of the park for many years. Why should people who are
prepared to make responsible use of the park have to wait for
basic maintenance?
The minister has not issued an edict to stop the use of
pesticides on golf greens or hotel lawns within the borders of
the parks, nor should she allow Liberal cutbacks and neglect to
shut down simple campground services.
One wonders what the minister might be waiting for. I certainly
hope it is not another federal election and more red book
promises to provide funding required to begin the process of
preserving our parks for future generations.
Responsible use without abuse and experience in the parks are
goals we all share. Ecological integrity must be our long term
goal and it must come before profit, before greed and before
politics.
[Translation]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, basically, we agree with
a great deal of what the hon. member has just said.
The government has introduced Bill C-27, the purpose of which is
to establish ecological integrity as a basic and priority
principle, and to proclaim loud and clear that this is a basic
principle we consider of the utmost importance.
I hope members of all parties opposite will support this very
important bill now before the House, because it shows that the
government is committed to implementing the report of the panel
on ecological integrity and to create eight new parks. This is
in contradiction with some of the remarks of the hon. member
opposite, to the effect that the government does not intend to
keep its word and complete the national parks network.
We hope hon. members will support this bill, as the NDP critic
seemed to indicate, because it meets the legitimate aspirations
of Canadians, who want to preserve our national parks for future
generations.
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern
Shore, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to once
again rise in the House to discuss a very serious matter on the
Atlantic coast with regard to the fishing industry and the recent
case of R. v. Marshall.
I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a couple of weeks
ago basically what the government was doing to ensure common
peace in our waters as the May 1 lobster season opens in Atlantic
Canada. The minister said that the government is looking at all
avenues and almost half out of 34 bands in the area have reached
either agreements or agreements in principle after the Marshall
decision and that was a positive sign in that regard.
The question which still needs to be asked is what about the
other half of the other bands which have not yet come to an
agreement? It has caused discord between the non-aboriginal
communities and the aboriginal communities throughout Atlantic
Canada on exactly who is fishing what, when, where, how and who
is actually mandated to regulate the industry to ensure that
precautionary principles and conservation principles apply in
each and every single term.
I have great respect for the hon. member for Labrador, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I would ask him in his rebuttal to this query to put the
bureaucratic notes down that he received from the DFO office and
speak to the House as the member for Labrador, which I know he is
very good and capable of doing.
1925
I know that in the end he stands up for the fishing communities
of his riding. That is why he has been elected and why there is a
good chance he will be re-elected. However, I can assure him if
he continues to speak from bureaucratic notes from a department
that has destroyed the stocks throughout Atlantic Canada and
western Canada, his prospects of being re-elected will get
slimmer every time. That is my bit of election 101 advice for
the parliamentary secretary.
The fact is what the communities need to know and what the five
provinces and even Nunavut need to know is does the government
have a long term strategy in place to integrate the aboriginal
communities on a long term basis? Right now the agreements are
short term only. Negotiations will be ongoing in the future.
We all know that elections happen. Ministers go through the
Department of Fisheries and Oceans like it has a revolving door.
Who is to say that certain strategies may not change as we go
along? This uncertainty is scaring a lot of fishermen,
especially a lot of independent fishermen in Atlantic Canada.
The lobster fishery is the last independent fishery in Atlantic
Canada. The groundfish stocks are gone or have been
corporatized. The crab stocks are more or less into area
management zones now. The larger crab dealers in the Gaspé for
example have control of the crabs. Lobsters are the last
independent resource for an independent living for lobster
fishermen.
Does the government have a long term plan to protect the
resource and the livelihood of all fishermen in Atlantic Canada?
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed
quite gratifying to hear the comments from my colleague and great
friend. I salute his mom once again for a great breakfast in
Richmond, B.C.
I will say this much to the hon. member. While I did come fully
prepared to speak with notes today, I will make him a promise
that the next time I make an adjournment debate speech, I will
speak without prepared notes. That is a fact. I will make my
points and I will make them the way he did which was in a most
compelling way. However, I have the pleasure right now to speak
from notes.
It is my pleasure to speak about the progress that has been made
to accommodate aboriginal peoples in Atlantic Canada pursuant to
the Supreme Court of Canada's Marshall decision of November 1999.
The conditions are coming into place for a successful, orderly
and regulated fishery in the maritimes and Quebec. We have now
made interim fishing agreements or agreements in principle with
over half of the aboriginal communities. We expect that most of
these will be in place by June.
We listened to the voices of the fishing industry who asked that
a voluntary licence retirement program be used to make room for
aboriginal fishers in the commercial fishery. We initiated such
a program over three months ago and have received some 1,400
applications and have acquired over 350 licences so far.
The approach is working well and we are matching supply and
demand. The overall number of aboriginal entrants remains low
relative to the total of 23,000 vessels and 44,000 fishermen—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please. The
hon. member has too many notes.
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it has been four months since Canadians first learned
that the Liberal government bungled $1 billion of their tax
dollars. That is a disturbing thought for the millions of
hardworking Canadians who just filed their tax returns.
Since then there has not been a single resignation, there has
not been a cabinet shuffle, and there has not even been an
admission of guilt. Instead Canadians have been subjected to a
steady stream of arrogant abuse from the government.
The Prime Minister tells us he is only doing a good job as an
MP, despite numerous RCMP investigations into HRDC grants in his
riding.
1930
We have discovered that one Liberal member after another
benefited from well timed government grants. In a glaring
conflict of interest the HRDC minister approved three grants
totalling over $700,000 in her own riding which went against the
rules of the transitional jobs fund. Even more shocking was the
news that she had approved an additional $840,000 in grants the
day after her officials told her about the bungled funds.
Every week new details surface about more improprieties in how
the HRDC grant money was doled out. Just this week we heard how
the Deputy Prime Minister took advantage of Canadian taxpayers by
directing $1.6 million into his riding and skirting the rules by
spending only a paltry 20% of the funds on wages for employees.
The government fails to understand that the money it so
callously threw around is not its money. It enrages Canadians
when they realize that the government has yet to understand this
concept, continuing to bungle billions of tax dollars on
boondoggle spending while hardworking Canadians suffer because of
deteriorating health care systems.
Instead of treating this health care emergency the Liberals
patted themselves on the back, increasing the 2000 budget for
federal grants and contributions by a further $1.5 billion.
The Canadian Alliance believes that Canadians would rather see
money spent on improving the quality of health care than see it
lining the pockets of the Prime Minister's friends. We believe
that this funding is better spent upgrading the quality of health
care. We are deeply concerned about the future of our health
care system. No one wants to see people suffer when they fall
ill. No one wants an American style health care system in
Canada. We believe that health care should not be based on
financial status and that all Canadians should have timely access
to essential health care services.
When we form government we will provide greater freedom of
choice when it comes to ensuring well-being and access to medical
care and medical facilities. We believe that the needs of
patients must come first in the delivery of health services. We
will work together with the provinces so that they have the
resources and flexibility to find more effective approaches to
the financing, management and delivery of health care, thereby
ensuring that patient choice and quality of care are maximized.
It is time for the government to go. It becomes clearer every
day that the government is incapable of offering solutions to
these problems. It has become detached from the concerns of
Canadians and cares only about feeding its own inflated ego.
Canadians can be assured that the Canadian Alliance is ready and
willing to tackle the ongoing problems of high taxes and
substandard health care. We can no longer afford to become
complaisant as our country falls to pieces under the Liberal
government.
How much longer will long suffering, overtaxed Canadians have to
put up with this Liberal arrogance instead of getting reasonable
value for their tax dollars?
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the
hon. member first asked his question in the House he referred to
a specific grant. At that time the minister invited him to
provide us with the details of the story he was telling. She
promised to look into the matter and provide him with an adequate
response. However he did not bring it forward.
I was not surprised because he is continuing on with the style
of the party he represents. That involves presenting incomplete
information and leaving innuendoes, giving Canadians the
impression of wrongdoing on the part of the government.
One thing that is consistent is that members of that party never
have any proof. When invited to bring forward information in
order that an investigation can be launched, they never bring
their information forward. This suggests to me that they want
their accusations and their innuendoes to hang in the air,
poisoning the trust of Canadians in their government, eroding the
traditional bond of trust that has existed between Canadians and
their government and is the basis of civilized behaviour in this
country. This is irresponsible. If taken to the extreme, if
Canadians believed these innuendoes, it could lead to social
chaos.
Why would they be doing this? The reason is that they want
Canadians not to have faith in sending their tax dollars to
Ottawa. Why is that? It is because their rich friends want
their taxes reduced. They want the government to have less money
to provide the kinds of programs that HRDC provides so well to
Canadians who do not have so much, Canadians who do not have
jobs, Canadians with disabilities, unemployed Canadians.
We need tax dollars to provide those programs to give all
Canadians the dignity of work and the dignity of a life that is
as comfortable as most other Canadians have.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.35 p.m.)