Nelson Riis

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

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?

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

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.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

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.

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.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

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.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

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.

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.

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.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

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?

[Petitions, May 2nd, 2000]

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.

[Petitions, May 2nd, 2000]

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.

[Petitions, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition from tens of thousands of petitioners from my riding and throughout British Columbia.

The petitioners point out the need for a national highway system and that an improved national transportation infrastructure would lead to improved quality life for Canadians through greater productivity, trade opportunities, job creation and tourism.

They call upon parliament to do whatever it can to encourage the government to adopt a national highway system, to put into place a national highway policy and to provide adequate funding for highway development.

[Cultural Industry, May 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to begin debate on Motion No. 259, which speaks to tax fairness for the working creators of our country.

We will all recognize that the Molson's Joe Canadian phenomenon that was introduced a few weeks ago has touched a cultural nerve in the country, that people genuinely feel proud of their country. They feel proud of what we have accomplished. They feel proud about their culture and the fact that it is unique and different from others around the world.

Today we begin a debate to acknowledge those fundamental creators who make this Canadian cultural phenomenon possible. I would like to thank Joe Canadian for helping us out.

Today we recognize those who begin the creative process, those who are the pioneers, those who create something virtually out of nothing, and those who begin the process of our cultural industry, the artists themselves. In other terms we would call them the loggers and the farmers.

I want to begin my presentation today by reading a poem from a professional cowboy poet in my community of Kamloops, British Columbia. His name is Mike Puhallo. His poem is entitled Sage and Pine .

I've traveled to your cities, and for some they might be fine. But I find myself amissin' the smell of sage and pine!

Now I'm just a country poet, Not prone to fancy verse. My grammar is atrocious, My spelling's even worse!!

But my tales are plain an' honest, Like the children of the soil, The cowboys, ranchers and farmers Whose work is honest toil.

The urban crowd don't like my prose they will pick at every line my poems ain't read in fancy theatres, where they sip champagne and wine,

and I sure ain't rich or famous, But that just suits me fine, `Cause you don't need fame or fortune to smell the sage and pine.

That is a piece of work written by one of Canada's professional poets and one of Canada's official creators.

I believe it is the role of the legislator to put issues on the public agenda which will allow a healthy public discourse and hopefully add to the public's understanding of an issue. This is my hope, as we begin a debate on the tax status of Canada's creators in the year 2000, as they continue to seek fairness and consideration in our Income Tax Act.

A 1997 Price Waterhouse report done for the Department of Canadian Heritage found that an unfair level of tax is shouldered by cultural workers who are self-employed and who earn low, fluctuating incomes. According to their analysis, the Canadian who is most vulnerable under the present income tax system is the one who is an artist and self-employed.

It is my belief that culture is the heart of a nation. As a nation, Canada has developed a vibrant cultural sector with numerous cultural institutions: a diverse publishing industry, a talented music industry, a dynamic new media industry, and critically acclaimed film and television industries.

Often we fail to recognize and appreciate that without the individual artists in our country there would be no film industry. There would be no television production. There would be no book publishing or sound recording industry. There would be no theatre productions or galleries and museums. Basically, the cultural industry would collapse.

The important point which this motion attempts to point out is that we must recognize those creators. If it was in a business sense, I would say those innovators and creators who develop the R and D of industry. We cannot have a dynamic industry in our country without the researchers and developers; those people who spend time in laboratories creating that first item.

What we are saying is that we need to apply this logic now to the cultural sector to acknowledge those men and women who are often investing vast amounts of their time and energy into training and education for their professions. They actually create something from which flows the theatre productions, the film industry, the television series and so on; the downstream sector.

I would point out in this very early stage of our debate that this is a growing sector of our community. Those who read David Foot's book Boom, Bust and Echo will remember that he said the cultural sector would be one of the booming industries in our country as a result of the demographic changes occurring.

We have also recognized that our cultural sector accounts for 5 per cent to 8 per cent of the Canadian labour force, larger than agriculture, logging, forestry and mining combined. It is only second to health and social services. This is a huge industry, but this industry and all those who participate in it, either as spectators or participants, depend upon those creators who start the industrial process.

Special treatment for artists exists in other countries, notably Ireland, where income earned by artists, writers, composers and sculptors from the sale of their work is exempt from income tax altogether. There is no cap at all. Of course we all know from our readings that the cultural sector of Ireland is alive, well and dynamic as a result of a number of initiatives, including this one.

Over the years we have spent a great deal of attention giving our efforts over to political sovereignty, the development of territorial sovereignty and our economic sovereignty. Now it is time to devote that same attention, that same consideration, to cultural sovereignty. As one music composer expressed in a fax to my office the other day “Our cultural identity is barely surviving the barrage from the American cultural industries. Anything that will make it easier to be creative in Canada should be done, particularly if it comes at a reasonable cost to government”.

I want to say at the beginning that this would come at a very reasonable cost to government, based on the Irish experience, where there is no cap. If we were to put a $30,000 cap on it, it would therefore be very, very reasonable.

In 1982 Canada commissioned a study of our cultural sector called the Applebaum-Hébert report. One of its overall findings was that the largest subsidy to cultural life in Canada comes not from governments, corporations or other patrons, but from the artists themselves through their unpaid or underpaid labour.

As recently as last month renowned writer Margaret Atwood reinforced this conclusion by saying that the artist, by and large, does subsidize the rest of us. Even when the artist does make some money, others make a good deal more.

I am embarrassed to say that the average income of Canada's creators, the average income of an artist in Canada today, is about $13,000. Hon. members know that no one can make ends meet on $13,000 a year, yet that is a fact.

I have thousands of things to say in this discussion, but I want to share my time with our cultural spokesperson, the hon. member for Dartmouth. I hope that this will put the issue on the public agenda of the country and, perhaps more important from our point of view, on the political agenda of the country to ensure that we do whatever is possible as parliamentarians to ensure that our creators, those who begin the cultural process, are fairly rewarded. One of the things we can do is to consider this motion that looks to the Income Tax Act to enable those artists to exempt the first $30,000 of income from tax.