Debates of May 29th, 2002

Petitions

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Carstairs and the Crossfield area in my riding.

The petitioners call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or any other abnormal activities involving children are outlawed.

The sooner we get this done the better.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present a petition on behalf of Lambton--Kent--Middlesex constituents who call upon parliament to protect their children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia involving children are outlawed.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. In the first petition the signators call to the attention of parliament that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a majority of people in this country. The courts do not seem to be defending the will of the majority.

The petitioners call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all the necessary steps to ensure that materials which are produced and promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities are outlawed.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the signators note that the federal minister of fisheries has a constitutional obligation to protect wild fish and their habitat from the effects of fish farming. As the auditor general and others have pointed out, the minister is not fulfilling his obligation.

The petitioners call on parliament to ensure that the federal minister of fisheries fulfills his obligation to protect wild fish and their habitat from the effects of fish farming.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today from the citizens of Consul, Saskatchewan and area. They would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by the clear majority of Canadians and that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.

They call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by several people from Quebec. They are petitioning the Parliament of Canada to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, because they allege that this provision deprives rural route mail couriers of the right to collective bargaining. I therefore wish to present this petition on behalf of these people.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition in which 580 citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the fact that modern science has unequivocally and irrefutably established that a human being begins to exist at the moment of conception. They request that the government bring in legislation defining a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not, and whether conceived naturally or otherwise, as a human being and making any and all consequential amendments to all Canadian laws as required. This merits the consideration of the House.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I would like to table a petition that I received from Mark and Karen Petersen from my riding of Mississauga South, which is also signed by a number of other Canadians.

The petition has to do with the issue of child pornography. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians and that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way that makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment. Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote child pornography are outlawed.

It is an important issue to the House and to all Canadians.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 156 will be answered today.

Question No. 156

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

With respect to the Department of Health's regulations for the labelling and dating of foods with a shelf-life of over 90 days: ( a ) is there a regulation for the labelling and dating of these foods; ( b ) is there a regulation existing for the placing of a “packaged on” date for these foods, ( c ) if not, is the government considering putting forth regulations to ensure that these foods contain a “packaged on” date; and ( d ) if not, why not?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Health]

(a) In cases where the shelf life of a food product is expected to be more than 90 days, there is no general requirement to label such products with a “best before” or “packaged on” date. Of course, all other labelling requirements, e.g. ingredient listing, common name, et cetera, apply unless exceptions are noted.

(b) As noted above, there is no general requirement to label products with a shelf life expected to be more than 90 days with a “best before” or “packaged on” date.

However, there are two types of products that may have a shelf life of over 90 days for which a requirement for date of packaging or date of processing on the label applies. These are “low-acid foods packaged in hermetically sealed containers” and “whole cheese that is not made from a pasteurized source”.

The regulations pertaining to a requirement for the indication of a date on the label for these types of products are quoted below:

B.27.005 states that “No person shall sell a commercially sterile low-acid food packaged in a hermetically sealed container unless (a) the label or container of the food bears a code or lot number that identifies, in a legible and permanent manner, (i) the establishment in which the product was rendered commercially sterile, and (ii) the day, month and year on which the food was rendered commercially sterile; and (b) the exact meaning of each item in any code or lot number referred to in paragraph (a) is available to an inspector at the establishment or, where the food is imported, from the importer”.

B.08.042 states that “No manufacturer shall sell whole cheese that is not made from a pasteurized source unless the date of the beginning of the manufacturing process is (a) marked or branded thereon within three days thereof or (b) marked on the label at the time of packaging, if the cheese is such that, because of its texture, consistency, or physical structure, such date cannot be effectively branded or marked on the cheese”.

In addition, there are certain foods for which expiration dates are required. Note that these foods all have specific nutritional requirements and several of them are used as sole sources of nutrition.

These are: Formulated liquid diets: B.24.103(g); Meal replacements and nutritional supplements: B.24.202(d); Foods represented for use in a low energy diet: B.24.304(h); Infant formulas, or human milk substitutes, and foods containing human milk substitutes: B.25.057(1)(f) and (2)(f)

“Expiration date”, B.24.001 and B.25.001, for these products means “the date (a) after which the manufacturer does not recommend that it be consumed, and (b) up to which it maintains its microbiological and physical stability and the nutrient content declared on the label”.

(c) There is no current activity with respect to putting forward such regulations.

(d) A durable life date provides consumers with an indication of the date until which a food, stored under appropriate conditions, would “retain its normal wholesomeness, palatability, nutritional value and any other qualities claimed for it by the manufacturer”. A growing number of Canadian companies have voluntarily adopted “best before” dating for their foods with a shelf life greater than 90 days to provide more information to their customers. This trend is expected to continue.

Regardless of whether a food is within or beyond its stated durable life date, if a food is considered to pose a hazard, it must be dealt with by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, or other relevant authority. In the course of an investigation, the CFIA may make a request to Health Canada for a health risk assessment, HRA. It is, nevertheless, the responsibility of food manufacturers/importers to ensure the safety of the food they put on the market and to ensure that the durable life date is valid.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 144 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

o

144--

Question n

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

With respect to the Youth Employment Strategy: ( a ) in the last fiscal year, how much money was allocated to the Strategy by all federal departments, broken down by province; ( b ) with respect to the four Youth Employment Strategy initiatives (Youth Internship Canada,Youth Service Canada, Youth Information and Awareness, and Student Summer Job Action) in Quebec, what organizations received more than $4,000 and what amount did each receive; and ( c ) with respect to the four Youth Employment Strategy initiatives in Canada, what was the total amount allocated, broken down by province?

(Return tabled)

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Request for Emergency Debate

[The Speaker]

The Chair has received notice of an application for emergency debate from the hon. member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my application for an emergency debate made under Standing Order 52 concerns an important and urgent matter affecting the agriculture industry.

For the second consecutive year most farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and many other areas of Canada will confront the effects of another drought. All indications point toward another hard summer for prairie producers.

Throughout the winter and spring the prairies received very little precipitation. Spring runoff levels are in some areas non-existent. The South Saskatchewan river should be teeming with water right now but because of low water levels it looks more like a creek.

Our livestock producers are also dreading the summer. They too rely on the land to feed their cattle. Local forage for cattle and other livestock will be very limited. Again, Agriculture Canada is indicating that grass growth on pastures is poor across the prairies. If producers cannot allow their cattle to graze on local pastures, that means they will be forced to either sell cattle, buy feed or ship their animals out.

There is an added concern of an infestation of grasshoppers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Agriculture Canada has listed a portion of my riding as having a very severe risk of a grasshopper outbreak. Three other areas in Alberta have been given this grade. Drought exacerbates this problem.

By allowing this emergency debate, members would have the opportunity to draw to the attention of cabinet the serious conditions in western Canada and the importance of effective safety nets, unlike the current crop insurance program which is not working.

This topic needs to be debated now before the summer recess so that improvements and other measures can be put in place as soon as possible.

[The Speaker]

The Chair has heard the submissions of the hon. member and has reviewed carefully the letter he forwarded to the Speaker yesterday. I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I do not believe however that the application meets the exigencies of the standing order at this particular time. Accordingly, I am not inclined to permit the debate.

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-55, an act to amend certain acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.