Dean Allison

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with that. In terms of a phase in period, one of the things we want to be clear on is what type of timeframe we are talking about. I guess that is not what is a part of this motion. I want to ensure that we have enough time to consult, as the member for my party has mentioned, with all the key stakeholder groups.

They must have a chance to talk about all these issues, meaningful and otherwise, and ensure that there are enough products available. They must be able as well to distribute them and make them available all the way through the food process.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the first question he asked was in terms of this not been proven through technology and in other countries. I think once again we understand that this is happening. We have examples of where this is already happening in the industry right now.

I guess the concern that I would have would be the fact that although we do have this technology and we are able to see that it is happening in some companies so far, the real challenge that remains is that we do not have the ability all the way through to ensure we have the kind of supplies that we need for a whole industry.

The other concern I have is that we really need to look at studying the impacts, not only of our food processes or our end users here in Canada but at what kind of implications this will have as we do trade and as we look across the borders on some of these things.

I think once again the question was correct in saying we do have some of this available. Our challenge is trying to ensure that we have enough available at this point in time with such a short lead in timeframe.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again reiterate my support for the intent of the motion. As we move forward as a society and we find things that are harmful to us, it is important to take the time to debate the issues, to figure out what it is that we can do to make our food supply and those kinds of things safer. It is with that intent that I support the notion that as a government we should be looking at ways to reduce trans fats in some of the food products.

Where I have a bit of a challenge and where I see that the motion is a little vague on details is in terms of the implementation strategy. Even though I think that the motion makes some sense in terms of being able to discuss the awareness of trans fats and looking at ways we can reduce them, we need to look at how exactly we are going to do that. It is the details which sometimes cause us a challenge in terms of how that happens.

My colleague talked about saturated fats and trans fats. The motion talks about looking at trying to eliminate processed trans fats. It talks about how processed trans fats are harmful and more likely to cause heart disease than saturated fats. We could go back to what happened in the 1970s and 1980s with the whole issue of saturated fats. We ended up going with trans fats, and here we are some 15 to 20 years later talking about this issue and once again looking for a very quick resolution.

Finding the real answer to this problem of taking out trans fats is going to take some time. It is not going to happen overnight. There is going to be further research. As colleagues on both sides have said, that process is in place right now. People are looking at alternative forms, whether it be through canola or other fats. However, if we just rush from one thing to the next, we may be in the same situation 10 years from now, not having fully tested it and not having looked at ways to ensure that trans fats have been properly replaced with something more feasible.

Not only do we need to identify those products, but we need to make sure there is a sustainable supply. The member on the other side talked about New York Fries, one of the companies that has been able to successfully do this. The challenge with some of the larger companies is being able to find that sustainable supply for the kind of demand that they have across the border. Certainly New York Fries is a smaller company that has been able to harness some of the smaller products that are available.

If we are going to really make this happen in a meaningful way, we need to look at the long term effects and availability, and make sure that we are able to harvest this product in Canada. It is important to realize that when we replace these trans fats, we will have ended up just complicating the problem and not fixing it for a generation.

Trans fatty acids are like saturated fatty acids, or LDCs or bad cholesterol levels in the blood. Trans fatty acids, unlike saturated fatty acids, also reduce the blood levels of HDL, or the good cholesterol, further increasing the risk of coronary heart disease.

An opinion published by the scientific panel on dietetic products, nutrition and allergies, for the European Food Safety Authority in September 2004 concluded that at equivalent dietary levels, the effects of trans fatty acids on heart health may be greater than that of saturated fatty acids. However the current intakes of trans fatty acids are generally more than tenfold lower than those of saturated fatty acids whose intakes in many European countries exceeded the dietary recommendations. The opinion also reports that the available evidence does not provide a definitive answer to the question of whether TFAs have an effect on the LDLC different to a mixture of saturated fatty acids on a gram per gram basis.

In the whole process of trans fats there is no evidence of a difference in the health impacts of an industrially produced trans fat and naturally occurring fats. In addition, according to the opinion published by the scientific panel on dietary products, nutrition and allergies for the European Food Safety Authority in September 2004, there are no methods of analysis applicable to the wide range of foods that can be distinguished between TFAs which are naturally present in foods, ruminant products, and those formed during the processing of fats, oils and foods.

What I am saying is that there are natural fats that occur in things as well as the trans fats and one of the challenges is trying to distinguish between the two. In order to effectively figure out how to reduce some of these things, one of the first steps is to make sure that we are able to measure that.

Members of the scientific panel of the Heart and Stroke Foundation also expressed concerns about the exclusion of natural trans fats in legislation since there is no feasible method to detect the differences between natural and man-made fats. Some felt the legislation would lack credibility if it did not include natural trans fats, that it would be unfair for some companies because it would create an uneven commercial playing field. It is very important to highlight the need to be able to distinguish between the two.

I cannot emphasize this enough. If we are going to look at changing what we are providing in our products, we need to look at the whole supply. I mentioned that before but I think it is critical.

We have talked about some other forums coming onside but we are not quite up to speed in terms of what we are able to transfer out at this point in time. We need to be mindful that we are not just looking at one industry but we are looking at all our supply. A whole range of suppliers needs to be in the loop as far as this goes.

I appreciate the intent of the motion in that it talks about a multi-stakeholder consultation process. That will be very important as we move this forward.

Members should understand that a huge number of stakeholders are involved, whether they be in the health sector or people involved in the food process. There are food service operators and food manufacturers who are working closely right now to develop these things. Some of the companies were mentioned earlier. We talked about some food manufacturers and food service companies that have made progress in the transition to trans free products, such as New York Fries which says it has removed all the trans from its fries. As well, Pizza Pizza has removed trans fats from its pizza dough.

We need to be mindful that finding a suitable replacement for oils that contain trans fats is a significant challenge. This is not something that can be done overnight. Also, we need to understand that in some cases alternative oils also present health risks, such as an increased polymerization of fat if the polyunsaturated oils are used for frying. Some replacement oils are only available in limited supply. I think we touched on that earlier.

Some TFA alternatives remain cost prohibitive while others cannot be easily substituted without changing the products, their taste, texture and shelf life. We need to realize that it does take time to develop and test these new products. In addition to ensuring the alternative products provide the same flavour, texture, taste and structure characteristics, food companies and food service operators must be able to secure a reliable supply of the ingredient that is being substituted.

In conclusion, we support the intent of the motion but we need to be very mindful of the consequences on the whole food chain.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I believe everyone in the House shares the belief that the government has the responsibility to negotiate and settle outstanding comprehensive claims according to the principles of both fairness and practicality.

The Conservative Party believes giving aboriginal governments the power to raise their own revenues will reduce the cycle of dependency and that the performance and accountability of aboriginal self-government is enhanced when those who receive services contribute to the cost of those services.

While I agree with the general intent of Bill C-14 in seeking to ratify agreements on land claims and establish aboriginal self-government for the Tlicho, I cannot support this legislation because of the way it has been drafted.

Self-government must occur within the context of the Constitution of Canada to ensure fairness and equality. Any settlement of comprehensive claims needs to be ratified on the basis of a clear framework balancing the rights of aboriginal claimants with those of Canada. Specifically, negotiated settlements need certainty and finality of terms, and need to be practical in their institutional structure so as not to impede or supercede how all residents of our nation are governed. Unfortunately, this bill fails to measure up to these principles.

The agreement here is precedent setting and will guide future claims, settlements and self-government provisions across the north. I hope government members will take the time to consider the impact that this legislation will have. If passed, the bill will create a new order of government for approximately 3,500 people residing within an area roughly measuring 39,000 square kilometres who will be governed by a distinct Tlicho constitution.

This legislation, if enacted, would compromise Canada's international sovereignty because it does not limit the Tlicho government's authority to enter into international, national, interprovincial, and interterritorial agreements. This is a clear and definite erosion of federal jurisdiction and governance authority, and could only lead to legal confusion and conflict in the future.

Just a quick glance at how this bill prescribes the hierarchy of authority is essentially a recipe for confusion. Article 7.7.2 through 7.7.4 lists governance authority in this order: federal legislation of general application, territorial legislation implementing Canadian international agreements, Tlicho laws, territorial legislation of general application and specific federal legislation relating to the Tlicho. In other words, Tlicho laws may take precedence over territorial laws and also over federal laws relating to the Tlicho.

This may sound like some sort of technical argument that only a constitutional lawyer would be interested in, but let us consider how this precedence of authority would function if it applied to any other level of government with which many Canadians are much more familiar. Would it make sense to give a municipality, like my home town of Lincoln, the authority to pass bylaws that supercede provincial and federal legislation? I know quite a few mayors and aldermen and maybe even a few residents in my riding of Niagara West—Glanbrook who might think this is a good idea at first glance, but only at first glance.

We have ended up with a patchwork of unworkable and conflicting legislation across Canada that makes no sense and is inconsistent with the governance structure established by the Canadian Constitution.

The Tlicho government has power to enact laws in relation to: fish harvest licensing; use of water for aquaculture and other activities; fish harvest limits; fish openings and fish gear; businesses, occupations and activities of a local nature on Tlicho lands; control or prohibition of transport, sale, possession, manufacture or use of weapons or dangerous goods; control or prohibition of transport, sale, possession, manufacture or use of intoxicants; use of Tlicho language and culture; traditional medicine; heritage resources; adoption in the Northwest Territories of Tlicho children; direct taxation of Tlicho citizens on Tlicho lands; and enforcement powers.

Assuming that similar self-government agreements are put in place across the rest of the Northwest Territories following this precedent, I wonder what responsibilities or powers the government plans on leaving for the territorial governments. In fact, the governance structure that this bill would establish is treading on a very dangerous line.

There are serious implications for the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to Tlicho citizens. The agreement and the Tlicho constitution may speak of consistency with the charter, but at the same time the Tlicho constitution is quite clear in article 3.1 that the Tlicho constitution shall be “the Tlicho nation's highest law”. Unclear, inconsistent and unworkable are the best ways to characterize this legislation when it comes to the relationship between the Canadian Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Tlicho constitution.

The agreement itself outlines a racially based governance system. A new category of Canadians called “Tlicho citizens” is established and only a Tlicho citizen may be elected as the chief of the Tlicho community government. As well, at least 50% of the elected councillors must be Tlicho citizens.

This legislation sets up a racially segregated electoral system. Someone not defined as a Tlicho citizen under this agreement may live and participate in the community, but will not have the right to stand for election as chief. Does the government not see the basic problem with creating different levels of citizens? Not only would I argue that this is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I would argue that this is just plain wrong. It does not take a constitutional lawyer to see the basic injustices here.

Finally, despite the tremendous generosity in terms of the lands, moneys, resources and authority which are provided to the Tlicho, this agreement is not even final.

I would also like to mention something when it comes to our freedom of information. Under 2.12 “Disclosure of Information”, it states:

Subject to 2.12.3, but notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, neither government, including the Tlicho community governments, nor the Tlicho Government is required to disclose any information that is required or entitled to withhold under any legislation or Tlicho law relating to access to information or privacy.

What we have once again is a question about Tlicho laws. If the government requires information, will it have freedom of that information? That is not very clear.

Article 2.12.2 states:

Where government, including a Tlicho community government, or the Tlicho Government has a discretion to disclose any information, it shall take into account the objects of the Agreement in exercising that discretion.

Article 2.12.1 states:

--withhold under any legislation or Tlicho law relating to access to information or privacy.

That brings into question what exactly the requirements are when it comes to freedom of information and what will be possible.

We have a piece of legislation that establishes a racially based system of governance, erodes federal and territorial authority, and creates a framework of legal confusion that will probably make a few constitutional lawyers very wealthy. To cap it all off, the agreement with the Tlicho is left open ended so the matter is not really settled.

This agreement and legislation have obviously not been considered from the perspective of the interests of Canadians. There is no balance between the economic and social needs of the Tlicho with Canada's need for a workable and final agreement that establishes practical precedence. This bill has far too many holes in it to proceed. All the government will accomplish if this is pushed forward is decades of constitutional and legal uncertainty.

[Sponsorship Program, October 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in an open letter from Mr. Gagliano, which has nothing to do with the Gomery inquest but everything to do with the Prime Minister's knowledge of the sponsorship scandal, he said that all ministers supported the strategy and the direction of the sponsorship program, including members of cabinet.

When the Prime Minister was asked why he did nothing to address the problem while he was finance minister, he said he had no idea what was going on here.

The Prime Minister has continued to dodge questions from the opposition. Will he now respond to his own former cabinet colleague?

[Justice, October 15th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, without commenting on the specific case, could the minister explain why repeat violent offenders are being let out on the street?

Will the government admit that the current system is simply not working? How many more tragedies have to occur before the Liberal government realizes that we need to be tougher with violent offenders?

Why do the rights of convicted criminals continue to supercede the rights of law-abiding citizens and innocent victims?

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, we understand that at this point in time the government doing everything it can. The real answer here is that it has been reactive, not proactive.

Like so many other things that have happened with this government, what it is doing is reacting to issues that should have been dealt with 17 months ago and not recently.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

We have spent the last couple of days talking about BSE and all we have heard is one excuse after another, and we still have no answers. The fact remains that after all this talk our farmers are still hurting and something needs to be done about it.

On behalf of the cattle farmers with whom I have spoken, I need to express the lack of public confidence in the ability of the government to handle this BSE crisis. The tremendous cynicism out there is completely understandable and the facts, unfortunately, justify the loss of faith in the government's competence.

Billions of dollars and thousands of jobs have been lost since May 20, 2003, when BSE was found in one Alberta cow and the U.S. closed its border to all beef products and live cattle as a result. Thirty other countries followed suit.

Two facts bear repeating because they show how mishandled and neglected this issue has been by the Liberal government. Fact number one: there was only one cow. Fact number two: this happened back in May 2003. Here we are 17 months later and, while some cuts of beef are now being allowed to flow south, live cattle is still being banned.

Can anyone sitting on the government benches tell me with a straight face that they think the government's efforts to get our border reopened for exports of Canadian beef have been that effective?

A few weeks ago when I was at the Lincoln county fair in my hometown of Beamsville, a cattle farmer told me bluntly that too much time without any progress has passed for him and many others. He is getting out of the cattle business because the government has done absolutely nothing to deal with the terrible crisis.

From the outset the government had no real plan and, in its arrogance, it ignored the plan that the Conservative Party presented. This side of the House proposed strategies to increase domestic slaughter capacity, to diversify our export markets and to better manage the market capacity through methods such as using more funding to keep surplus cattle fed through the fall. Major industry groups echoed the plans put forward by our party.

What action did our beef and cattle industry get from the government? Seasons changed but nothing else did. The crisis has grown and, as the government trumpeted hollow words about reopening the borders, the fact remains that just because one wants it to happen does not mean it will happen. We need a realistic plan, and please, all partisanship aside, our party welcomes the Liberals to talk to our MPs on the BSE advisory panel so that we can implement this plan to lead to concrete results.

For the members on the opposite side, the so-called plan announced by the Minister of Agriculture on September 10 is too little, too late. This $488 million plan is less than half of what the Conservative Party determined was needed last February. The need has grown since that time because again the government did nothing to help with this industry. The dairy farmers of Canada say that there is nothing for them in the proposal. The money allocated to increase slaughter capacity is barely enough to support one plant, let alone stimulate the entire industry.

Where is the funding for those with practical plans to increase slaughter capacity? Time is running out to get the new plan initiatives started for this fall.

Perhaps the one component of the Liberals' BSE plan that has contributed the most to their lack of credibility was pretending that there was actually new money available under the transitional industrial support program to sustain the industry. The Minister of Agriculture knew the deadline for applications for payments was July 31, 2004, and applications are no longer being accepted. Reannouncing existing programs does nothing to help the struggling cattle industry. What was done was temporarily giving people false hope.

The final insult to producers who wanted to apply for some of the limited cash made available was that a month after the program announcement was made, there were no application forms available. It is fairly obvious that this was not so much a plan to help cattle producers as it was a communication strategy to give the appearance of government action.

If the Minister of Agriculture wants to focus on a communications plan, we would welcome some practical efforts on his part to effectively communicate to the U.S. government that science shows our beef is safe. This is a political problem that has been mismanaged for 17 months.

Our cattle industry cannot afford any further delays. Again I ask the members on the government side to listen and to cooperate with our party in resolving the BSE crisis.

If the government continues on the path it has been on for the last year and a half, we will be having the same debate again next spring and the livelihood of thousands of additional cattle producers will have disappeared forever. Do not let arrogance get in the way of doing what is right.

[Agriculture, October 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to stand here today. I am grateful to the people of Niagara West--Glanbrook for their faith in electing me to express their views in this Parliament. I trust that I will be a worthy representative.

The future of the greenhouse industry in my constituency is at risk because of delays and complications at select border crossings. U.S. customs has now implemented a policy of inspecting 100% of Canadian cut flower shipments for potential infestations. Ever increasing numbers of shipments are being unjustly turned away. Our grape growers are also experiencing difficulties due to extreme waits at border crossings.

I would ask that the government address both of these issues immediately.

Agriculture industry exporters are particularly vulnerable because of the perishable nature of their products. It is time for federal intervention. Whatever negative comments some government members may have about our neighbours to the south, we need to establish a better working relationship with the U.S. government, specifically in this regard. Quick action must be taken to resolve the barriers to efficient agriculture exportation.