Lost her last election, in 2008, with 33% of the vote.
Supply March 10th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, we have a fine tradition that usually when members rise on a bill they say it is their pleasure to rise. It is with great sadness that I rise today to respond to this motion urging the government to apologize to the families of murder victims for not repealing section 745.
Committees Of The House March 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, October 7, 1996 the committee has considered Bill C-55, an act to amend the Criminal Code (high risk offenders), the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Department of the Solicitor General Act. The committee has agreed to report it with amendments.
Thanks to all the witnesses who provided some excellent testimony that enabled us to make these terrific amendments.
A Toonie For Canada March 4th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in recognition of A Toonie for Canada, a student driven unity initiative in my riding of Burlington.
On February 14 of this year the Hon. Jane Stewart, the Minister of National Revenue, and member for Halton-Peel, Julian Reed, joined with me to celebrate and officially launch this project.
With Burlington resident, Tom Dykes, the staff and students of Notre Dame Secondary School have developed an innovative approach to educating and exciting other young Canadians from coast to coast to coast about national unity.
The Chrétien government has placed a great deal of importance on demonstrating our confidence in Canada and in Canadians, especially young Canadians.
Clearly the students of Notre Dame Secondary School have given us every reason to be confident that young Canadians are more willing than ever to take an active role in reshaping Canada's future.
I ask colleagues to join with me in congratulating these fine young Canadians on their dedication to our wonderful country.
Human Rights February 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Baha'is in my community and countless Canadians are repelled by the news of death sentences passed on Baha'is in Iran. A few days ago Iran raised the bounty on Salman Rushdie's head to $2.5 million.
I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs, what is Canada's reaction to this latest outrage and to human rights abuses that continue in Iran?
National Child Benefit System February 19th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to draw attention to the Liberal government's commitment toward building a strong future for all Canadians, especially Canadian children.
Yesterday we were presented with a workable budget, a budget that invests in jobs, health care, education and children.
The government has long recognized that children are our greatest resource, that they are our future and we must invest in them. The government has made the investment.
The national child benefit system is an innovative approach to reducing the number of Canadian children who live in poverty. The new system will provide a total of $6 billion in assistance to low
income families across Canada which will improve the living standards of hundreds of thousands of Canadian children.
The national child benefit system is a step forward in the fight against child poverty. It is exactly the type of program that will give our children a fighting chance for a better future. It demonstrates our commitment to our future: Canada's children.
Excise Tax Act December 10th, 1996
Actually, yes, I am.
Since time allocation motions may be moved only at one or two stages of a bill, no bill may pass the House without opposition co-operation unless the government has applied time allocation two or three times to that one bill.
A quick calculation of these facts shows that government bills in the House of Commons have been considered at 429 separate stages at which time allocation could have been applied. On only 27 of these occasions has time allocation been applied, which is only 6.3 per cent of the time. On five of these occasions, however, at least one opposition party gave procedural assistance to the implementation of time allocation, leaving only 22 occasions on which the government unilaterally implemented time allocation. That is only 5.1 per cent of all possible occasions.
Another important issue about time allocation is that Canadian citizens expect us to get on with the business of governing. They request that we move forward. We hear all the time about how slow government is and how much it needs to move forward. I would suggest, as those of us who came from the world of business know, that the time the discussion is called to an end we can agree to disagree, vote and move forward. I have absolutely no problem with our record.
With regard to the blended sales tax I understand in this morning's debate there were some particularly outrageous comments on the concept of the blended sales tax.
It seems the Bloc Quebecois has spent its time for debate on this important issue telling Atlantic Canadians that their elected officials, the bureaucrats and the people of Atlantic Canada themselves do not know what they want and that the BQ knows what
Atlantic Canadians want. It is a pretty curious situation. They are trying to deny the Atlantic provinces the blended sales tax when they have had that system since the GST was implemented.
The second component of their time was used to talk about the adjustment assistance package when that is not even being considered today. In fact it has already been dealt with in a previous bill.
What do members of the House of Commons do? They are supposed to be debating the issue at hand. They are supposed to be getting on with the business of the day. They are supposed to be implementing legislation that Canadians want. Instead the opposition parties are getting into a silly game of trying to oppose the business we are trying to accomplish, to debate other issues that are not on the table and, in the case of the BQ, to use the time to tell people who actually elected them to make the decision for them that they are wrong and the BQ knows better.
I suggest they run federal candidates in all the provinces in the next election and we will see where the chips will fall.
I am particularly disturbed that my province does not have the opportunity to have a blended sales tax, even though we hear from Canadians and business people all the time about the complicated procedure of two sales taxes on two different bases, with two different collection times.
In the last provincial election our premier advanced to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association the reasons we in Ontario need a blended sales tax. I will quote the premier of the province:
I want something that works. And I'll tell you this: that if we had one VAT (value-added tax), one base, one bureaucracy to collect it, the manufacturers and the businesses in Ontario would save over a billion dollars by being able to deduct those costs that you cannot deduct today on the sales tax.
Mike Harris went on to say:
It has been one of the areas of major competitive disadvantage that Ontario manufacturers have had and Ontario businesses have had and I say, stop the rhetoric, stop the politics, stop the finger-pointing. Get on with harmonization and simplification of the GST-or whatever the new initials are-and the PST.
Mr. Harris underestimated the savings to provincial businesses and manufacturers by some $6 billion. The savings to the provinces and their businesses would be $7.8 billion with a blended tax system. So I say to Mr. Harris to stop the rhetoric, stop the finger pointing. Let us get on and make a better system for those provinces and businesses.
Why are we giving a competitive advantage to the provinces of New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Quebec? Why do our business people have to struggle with complicated paperwork many times during the 12 months of the year on two different bases. Why can they not deduct what they should be able to deduct for their input costs?
Now is the time for action. Now is the time to end this debate and to move on to a vote on this issue. Let us go to the electorate with our platforms in place.
Excise Tax Act December 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I will use my time in this debate to talk about two specific aspects of the bill. One is the use of time allocation, and I will speak specifically about the blended sales tax.
It is important that we have the facts on the record. As of December 10, 1996 the government has placed before the House of Commons a total of 162 bills. Time allocation has been used on 20 of these bills or 12.3 per cent of government legislation that has been presented.
On four of the bills, however, either the Bloc Quebecois or the Reform Party gave procedural assistance for the implementation of time allocation, which in fact means that less than 10 per cent of the bills introduced by the government since the last election have been subjected to time allocation unilaterally applied by the government.
Perhaps more relevant are the statistics on time allocation concerning the actual number of times that time allocation motions have been moved.
Food And Drugs Act December 9th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that everyone understands that people are asking to take the responsibility themselves. Again, the issue is that they are not being given the tools to take responsibility.
In fact, I have been there many times over many years where people are laughed at or told no, there is no coconut in something when there clearly is coconut in something. This is not a joking matter. It is life and death. Fifty Canadians or more die every year.
The program that the parliamentary secretary has mentioned has been in place for some five years. At the time when it was done the manual said "take this seriously, folks, or we are going to have legislation". Here we are five years later, 250 more dead Canadians at least, and the government is not taking it seriously.
I challenge the parliamentary secretary to go with me to each and every restaurant within five miles of here and I doubt if we could even find one individual who knew that there was an allergy awareness program or knew what it meant. I was talking to a fellow who was serving roast beef. That has nothing to do with nuts. He could not figure out what it meant. This is a serious issue. People are asking for a tool.
I find it ironic, since the most common and the most deadly allergen is peanuts, that the only time the parliamentary secretary mentioned peanuts was with respect to peanut oil in packaged foods. We are talking about restaurants. We are talking about food service establishments which play with our lives each and every day. They are not giving us something we use externally. They are giving us something we use internally. This is serious. Give us the tools to make educated decisions.
Thirty-five per cent to 60 per cent of Canadians today are trying to avoid a substance in their food for a medical reason. It is not for cosmetic purposes. It is not for fun. It is not because they do not like it. It is because it is life threatening.
The parliamentary secretary is right that the minister takes this issue seriously. We are trying to work on additional initiatives together. However, it is not enough and it is not fast enough. Hon. members have an opportunity today to make a change for the benefit of all Canadians.
Restaurant owners must tell their employees that this is a serious issue. They must take it seriously and they must designate an employee or write the ingredients in a binder. The customer must be told: "This is serious. If this is life and death for you, you can make a decision by looking at this information or by checking out these packages".
It is not about disclosing recipes or quantities, it is about finding out if there is a hazelnut in the food or if the food has been near a hazelnut. It is about finding out whether it has been cooked in peanut oil. It is about finding out about sulphates and lactose and gluten, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned. It is about people's lives each and every day. It is about the Christian Taylors of this world who do not have the opportunity to ask those questions and who pay with their lives as a consequence of sometimes uncaring employees or people who do not realize the risks involved.
I ask hon. members once again for unanimous consent to make this a votable item. I would like the government to work in concert with employers and food service establishments across this country in ensuring that consumers have basic information.
We have not even begun to talk about the cost to our health care providers and the medical system to treat these cases. A physician called me to say that three times he has had to bring his child to the emergency ward of the hospital. A physician cannot even get accurate information for his child because restaurant servers do not take the issue seriously. Some of them are working very hard. They have a lot of things to juggle. They have to ensure that the right order gets to the right place. However, there should be someone who can say: "Table No. 6 has a child with a peanut allergy. How do we make sure this poor child does not die while in our restaurant?"
The hon. member for Oakville-Milton was absolutely correct. Surely owners should care whether someone is dying in their establishment. They should care what their patrons think about eating in their establishments. That has not happened.
It is costing money. It is costing lives. It is a simple matter of creating a preventive program which will ensure that people have access to information so they can take responsibility for their own lives.
Again I seek the unanimous consent of the House to make this a votable item. I thank all parties for supporting me in this initiative. Reform members, BQ members and my Liberal colleagues have been supportive in developing this legislation. If this is not made a votable item, even if it is the parliamentary secretary's job to ensure it is not, we can at least know that the public has had an
opportunity to hear more about this very serious issue. Perhaps it will prevent some children and adults from not meeting a horrible fate.
Food And Drugs Act December 9th, 1996
Sometimes employees do not know.
Food And Drugs Act December 9th, 1996
moved that Bill C-309, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (ingredients of food sold in restaurants), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, restaurants are important places in our communities. Whether for pleasure, business or while travelling, most Canadians eat out from time to time.
Families with food allergy sufferers know how confusing and dangerous this situation can be. So I am pleased today to rise in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-309, which proposes to amend the Canadian Food and Drugs Act to provide greater protection for those Canadians who suffer from serious food allergies.
When implemented, Bill C-309 would require restaurant owners to ensure that reliable information is available regarding the ingredients in their menu items. It would not seek mandatory labelling.
Before beginning my formal comments on the bill, I would like to acknowledge Mrs. Betty Lou Taylor of Burlington, Christian Taylor's mother. Christian died at the age of 17 after eating an apple turnover secretly flavoured with ground hazelnuts.
It is due in part to Mrs. Taylor's perseverance that the bill has made it this far. Mrs. Taylor has worked hard to ensure that Canadians who suffer from food allergies are protected. Through her efforts to raise awareness of the severity of food related allergies, more Canadians are informed and respectful of possible allergic reactions to certain types of food.
At 17 Christian Taylor was very aware of the effects that hazelnuts would have on him. He was careful to avoid hazelnuts. But Christian had eaten apple turnovers in other fast food restaurants and in the absence of labelling on the package or in the restaurant, Christian assumed he was safe. His assumption and the absence of labelling cost Christian his life. Yet Christian was doing what most of us do on a regular basis, enjoying a meal in a restaurant. Unfortunately for Christian on this particular occasion eating out would have a very tragic ending.
As we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this bill, I encourage all Canadians, whether or not they personally suffer from food allergies, to remember that we have an opportunity to ensure that we support the type of legislation that reflects our concern for the health and safety of Canadians as well as our appreciation for good common sense.
Bill C-309 meets both of those criteria. It does not mean mandatory labelling. It is a simple bill. It asks restaurant owners and their staff to take responsibility for the foods they serve and to recognize that some of their patrons suffer from something that cannot be controlled with medication but something that can be prevented with education and access to information.
The bill addresses a medical condition known as anaphylactic shock. At least 50 Canadians die in anaphylactic reactions each year. These types of reactions can be triggered by minute amounts of allergen. For example, in 1994 a student on a field trip to Algonquin Park in Ontario died from trace amounts of peanut butter which had been transferred to a jam jar. Essentially anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction that can lead to rapid death if untreated. Like less severe allergic reactions, anaphylaxis occurs when the body's immune system reacts to harmless substances as though they were harmful invaders.
However, instead of developing the familiar runny nose or rash, suffers of anaphylaxis respond with extreme body reactions. The reaction may start with itching, vomiting or swelling of the lips and face. Within moments the throat may begin to close, choking off breathing and leading to unconsciousness and death.
At least 25,000 Canadians are presently at risk of food related anaphylaxis. As I mentioned, an average of two Canadians die per month due to anaphylactic reaction from food allergy.
One in 15 children suffers from a food allergy. Not all anaphylaxis related deaths are reported as such because they are usually
recorded in the provincial records as death by natural causes. One in 50 adults suffers from a food allergy. Some 35 per cent to 60 per cent of Canadians are avoiding specific ingredients each and every day for a medical reason. The bottom line is that issue affects a lot of Canadians, it does not discriminate, it occurs for the young and the old. And yet what is the current legislation?
At the present time the Canadian Food and Drugs Act has provisions regarding ingredient disclosure in the food industry, but it applies only to prepackaged foods sold in grocery stores. Individuals with adverse food reactions are totally dependent on ingredient information. There are no medications or injections available to prevent these adverse food reactions, but once the reaction is under way adrenalin is needed immediately. For those who suffer and for those who know somebody who does, epipens and anakits are the two products available for those with an allergy. An epipen is a tool to self-administer adrenalin and an anakit contains benedril capsules and a double dose injection of adrenalin.
How do you prevent anaphylaxis shock? Avoidance is the only way to prevent anaphylaxis and this is where Bill C-309 can make the difference between life and death. How many people here realize that walnuts are commonly ground into salad dressings or added to dishes such as chicken or Cornish hen? How many know that peanut oil is frequently used to fry foods? It adds a nice flavour to fried chicken. Some restaurant chains have in fact built their success on its flavour, but it can kill some of our fellow citizens. How many people know that ground almond is commonly added to pastries and that ground hazelnut is commonly added because it adds terrific flavour to chocolate?
If one takes an item out of a food store there is a label and one can avoid an anaphylaxis reaction. In a restaurant one is playing Russian roulette. Bill C-309 attempts to reconcile the public safety concerns of consumers with the legitimate concerns of the restaurant industry regarding the prohibitive costs involved in the mandatory labelling of all restaurant foods.
As I have said many times, Bill C-309 does not seek mandatory labelling. It seeks to protect food allergy sufferers by giving them something as simple but crucial as access to reliable information regarding ingredients.
There are two scenarios for how it would work. One relates to the individual restaurant and the other relates to a chain restaurant. In an individual restaurant customers with food allergies or other ingredient related concerns would approach an employee in a restaurant. That employee would recommend that the person speak to the designated individual, usually the cook, to find out what ingredients are about to be used in the food that is being served them. It does not demand that they have long list. It can be as simple as saying: "I am going to cook with this oil, with this can of tuna and with this box of pasta. You read the ingredients and you make a decision". It is not hard to administer.
In a chain restaurant the customer would approach an employee and that person would either again refer to the designated employee or check in a binder of information. In some restaurants we have seen people list their ingredients on a board that people can refer to. Most McDonald's restaurants have a binder and in other kinds of chain restaurants one could rip off the end of the box that contained the buns that arrived at the restaurant for the hamburgers and if there is a change in supplier that is put in the back of the binder and people can make their own decisions.
There has been a lot of support for this bill since I have started to talk about it. There have been many days where there have been whole page articles in the Toronto Star or in the Ottawa Citizen and the Hamilton Spectator . There have been at least 36 municipalities, 15 boards of education and numerous national and provincial groups and associations that have specifically passed resolutions asking the federal government to act on this issue. Many Canadian schools have developed policies to protect anaphylactic children. Some have taken more drastic steps than others, banning certain types of foods altogether.
The federal government, in co-operation with the school board association, recently launched a booklet to help schools organize themselves around this issue. It is a terrific handbook and something that was desperately needed for schools.
The Canadian Food and Restaurant Association launched "Allergy Aware" in 1991. It is a voluntary program that requires participating restaurants to give patrons accurate ingredient information on request. Because it is voluntary, it is difficult to enforce, not well supervised and there is a very low participation rate. Not all restaurants in Canada are members of the Canadian Food and Restaurant Association.
The risks are that its campaign is not fully understood by employees. To test it out one evening, I asked someone who was proudly displaying the "Allergy Aware" sign at a convention type venue what that person could tell me about it. I was told that it was an "Allergy Aware" program. I then asked what I would hear if I said I was allergic to nuts, in reference to the food being served. Instead, the person told me not to eat nuts. Critical information was needed about the food that individual was serving me and yet that individual had no clue how the program worked.
I spoke to the Canadian Medical Association. Dr. Peter Noel in Newfoundland has been a great source of assistance, information and encouragement.
I did a survey of all members of the House of Commons and had a terrific response. Eighty-seven per cent of the MPs surveyed were supportive of this bill. Finally, and most importantly, Burlington
residents support this bill. We received over 100,000 signatures on a petition asking the federal government to take action in this area.
What do the opponents of Bill C-309 say? They argue that some restaurants will be driven out of business because of the costs. They suggest that it is too hard to administer. To these people I suggest they consider the following. Bill C-309 does not seek mandatory labelling. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect that something you are about to be served and consumed that you should be able to get some information about what you are about to eat. It is not unreasonable to think that the chef or the cook would know what the ingredients are in the food you are about to eat. This is life or death for a number of individuals. It does not impose unreasonable costs on restaurant owners. Providing a manual is a low cost solution to a life and death problem.
This is really not about cost. This is about health and safety. Food allergy is not a trivial disease. It is not easy to manage and can be fatal. More and more people are suffering from adverse reactions to food.
This bill suggests an easy way to implement a prevention program. Emphasis on prevention allows consumers to make informed choices instead of playing Russian roulette.
We have the responsibility to ensure that where possible we are protecting the health and well-being of Canadians and those around us. Bill C-309 is about accepting that responsibility. This bill is about ensuring that no other mom has to lose a child as precious as Christian Taylor.
I hope I have the support of all members on this bill. I ask that unanimous consent be given for Bill C-309 to become votable.