Mark Eyking

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of the Environment for bringing this very important marine issue to the House today. I am from Cape Breton Island which is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean. We have so many different breeds of sea birds and too often we see them damaged by pollution.

Since the hon. member across the floor mentioned another issue that we have in Cape Breton, the tar ponds, I would like to mention that the Minister of the Environment has been at the forefront in the last few years in dealing with the tar ponds. It was evident in the budget and it was also evident this week in the negotiations that we are going to clean up this mess.

A silent disaster takes place every winter off the coast of Atlantic Canada. Hundreds of thousands of sea birds die every year in the winter. They experience a slow and struggling death, all because of the discharge of oil waste from ships that are making their way through the ocean waters. The ships are not permitted to discharge their waste in the ocean but many do. Let me explain what happens to the murres, the puffins, the dovekies and the gulls that share these waters with the big ships.

A spot of oil no bigger than the size of a quarter, as the minister stated before, can penetrate the natural defences of the birds against the cold waters of the Atlantic. We can liken this to a pinhole in a diver's suit. Over several days the cold soaks the birds and zaps their reserves of body fat and muscle.

Yes, there are laws against discharge of waste by ships at sea, but the problem has been that the fines for violating these laws do not provide a sufficient deterrent. It would seem that the polluters have concluded that it is cheaper to pay the penalties than to pay for disposing the waste in a legal manner. In other words, the way things work now, it is the cost of doing business.

We are proposing to give our enforcement officers the tools they need to do the job by the anti-pollution clauses of the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. We are also proposing that we make sure that those who purposely pollute our ocean waters and are responsible for the deaths of our marine life are brought to justice.

There are members here from Newfoundland and Labrador. They are also surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean and have also seen the problem first-hand.

With the fairly simple proposals in this bill we could, within a year, be able to look back at the winter of 2004-05 and say that we have taken the action that was needed for fewer deaths of sea birds from oil. We could say that we have done the right thing by putting together the legislative tools. We could say that we have taken action on conserving biodiversity and have addressed an ongoing problem. We could say that we have lived up to our domestic and international commitments.

One of the most important parts of the legislation will be to make the investment needed to find the polluters who discharge the waste illegally and bring them to justice. We do not need to invent anything and we do not need to come up with much that is new. The technology is there. Satellites and technology on board aircraft can spot the oil slicks trailing behind the ships very soon after the discharge has been made. Acting swiftly in bringing these violators to justice will send a very strong message.

With the changes in this proposal before us, we could increase surveillance. We could partner with the Canadian Space Agency and use the RADARSAT technology as an eye in the sky. There is something quite fitting in using technologies for this purpose. Human activity is the reason our waters get polluted, but humans are also the creators and inventors of the high technology solutions.

Support of this bill to implement these legislative amendments will signal to all of Canada that we are committed to a conservation regime that works with industry, but also one that is backed by a strong legislative mandate and enforcement of the law. It is an essential move to ensure our natural legacy.

I urge members to support the bill, to reverse the yearly losses from the silent disaster of the oiled birds at sea.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we have to take a very balanced approach in dealing with GMO products in the country. Not only do we need to worry about what people are consuming, but we also have to worry about how farmers will compete with other places in the world.

We have to take a balanced approach, and we are looking into this matter.

[Agriculture, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows we cannot have a definite date when the border will be open. All we can do is keep working on opening up the border and keep bringing financial help to the farming families in this country that are in need.

[Agriculture, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Montana judge's ruling was very disappointing to us. However, we were reassured last week by higher levels in the U.S. government, the President and Secretary Veneman, that they will open up the borders for us in the near future.

[Agriculture, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the only BS in this House is across the floor.

The government has given $1 billion to Canadian farmers to help them fight this. Not only that, we had high level meetings with the U.S. to open the borders. That is the way it is.

[Agriculture, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for bringing forth the question about the beef issue.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food are very much in favour of working hard to open up the border. They had good meetings last week in Washington. The President of the United States reassured us that he wanted the border open. Secretary Veneman wants to use the science based information.

We are very positive that the border will be open.

[The Income Tax Act, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this issue before us tonight. The issue of GMOs is a concern for many consumers all over the world.

I do not have a definite answer for the member on when exactly we will fulfill all the obligations in that protocol. As I stated before, it is a very complicated process and it has a lot of impact on our food producers, especially our exporters.

Some key provisions in that protocol are documentation requirements, compliance, liability and redress, transit, trade with non-parties, and relationships with the WTO rules.

We must also recognize, and it is also important to note, that no major exporter has yet ratified the protocol. The United States is Canada's most important trading partner and it is not a party to the protocol. As we have found out over the last year, we are very intertwined with the United States, whether we buy or sell products to the Americans, so we have to work with them also in going through this process.

[The Income Tax Act, May 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question regarding when Canada will ratify the Cartagena protocol on biosafety.

The biosafety protocol is a multilateral environmental agreement designed to address the potential adverse effects on biological diversity of transboundary movements of living modified organisms.

Living modified organisms are genetically modified organisms, what we call GMOs, that can replicate in the environment. Living modified organisms currently in commercial production in Canada are corn, canola and soybeans.

Canada supports the environmental objectives of the biosafety protocol and this is one of the reasons that we signed the protocol in April 2001. However, at the time of the signing, Canada indicated that we had a number of concerns that would need to be addressed, including documentation requirements for shipments of food, feed for processing, and obligations and responsibilities in a number of specific areas.

Central to Canada's position is the need to finalize the implementation details of the biosafety protocol in a practical way that does not impede trade. Consultations with industry in this respect are ongoing.

As the hon. member knows, Canada currently has one of the most stringent regulatory frameworks for plants with novel traits, which include living modified organisms. All plants with novel traits undergo a stringent environmental, human and animal health and safety risk assessment prior to being approved. As such, Canada ensures that no living modified organism poses a risk to biological diversity.

With respect to some of the concerns that Canada had at the signing, documentation provisions were discussed at the first meeting of the parties in February 2004. Some decisions taken at that meeting, however, warrant careful consideration by all interested stakeholders.

A final decision on the documentation provisions will be taken at the second meeting of parties, which is scheduled for next year. The fact that Canada has not ratified the protocol has no effect on the continuing obligation of Canadian exporters to meet the import requirements of other countries.

Let me clarify that the biosafety protocol is an environmental agreement and was never intended to regulate the labelling of genetically modified products.

Consultations regarding the outcome of the first meeting of parties have been initiated, with a view to assess the decisions taken by the first meeting of parties. Our government is committed to work closely with all stakeholders on this very important issue.

[Agriculture, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Portneuf for asking this question. He always works hard on agricultural issues, not only for his riding and his province but also for the country.

In December 2003, $62 million was provided to support systems development for food safety, quality, tracking and traceability. Last month, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced $80 million to help producers implement food safety systems on their farms. This will put producers in a stronger position to meet consumer demands.

[75th Wedding Anniversary, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to announce the 75th wedding anniversary of two of my constituents, Walter and Regis Day.

Mr. and Mrs. Day were married on April 23, 1929 by Father Henry Barry in the original St. Joseph's Church in Little Bras d'Or, Cape Breton. They have 10 children, 44 grandchildren, 61 great grandchildren, 4 great-great grandchildren and 4 more on the way. That is a total of 119 offspring.

I was fortunate to be able to visit Mr. and Mrs. Day at their home to wish them a happy anniversary last Saturday, and what a pleasure it was. They shared a few stories and a few jokes, but in all seriousness, it is obvious why their marriage has lasted 75 years.

It is very rare that we have the opportunity to recognize such a wonderful, long-lasting marriage. Today in the House of Commons I would like to offer congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Day in celebration of their 75th anniversary. Along with the community, their family and friends, I wish for Walter and Regis many more years of continued happiness.