Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the Group No. 3 amendments to Bill C-32 which deal with animate products of biotechnology.
The essence of the Group No. 3 motions is to remove the powers of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health to give the governor in council the exclusive responsibility for decisions on animate projects of biotechnology. At a time when Canadians are asking more and more questions about the unknown factors of biotech and asking for further information and transparency, Motion No. 138 of the Liberal cabinet puts decisions on environment and health effectively behind closed doors, the governor in council doors.
When a lot of folks listening hear the term governor in council, I am sure they are wondering what it means. It is the executive arm of government. It is in effect cabinet. If this piece of legislation goes through, neither the Minister of the Environment nor the Minister of Health will be responsible for this area but rather it will be the governor in council. The entire cabinet will be responsible. There is an old saying that when everybody is in charge, no one is in charge. That is the fear we have with the particular piece of legislation before us this afternoon.
Canadians today are watching and listening to the news from around the world about a variety of biotechnology issues such as food labelling, biotech crops, genetics and cloning. They do not necessarily understand everything but they are certainly listening. They require some answers and they deserve some answers. I submit that only through public debate can misunderstanding and fear be addressed.
Throughout the world we are witnessing an exponential growth in the technology field. At the same time the international alarm bells are ringing and some people are even beginning to wonder if we are in fact going too far too fast in this area.
Canadians witnessed the recent debacle related to bovine growth hormone and the silencing of scientists at the health protection branch. Their concerns are shared by many across the country. The science and studies necessary to protect Canadians are based on cost recovery far too often. Cost recovery for whom? For industrial clients. As the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis asked earlier today in the debate, is the fox guarding the henhouse?
Canadians want to know how the promoter, this government, can also regulate against any possible harmful effects. The KPMG analysis done for the health protection branch mentions the need to consider the various industry and client interests. There is concern that there may be a conflict of interest bias, and Canadians certainly deserve an open and clear process.
There are calls for the government to rebalance the scale, to step back from the ardent proponent and remember that a balance is necessary to be struck on the side of public health and safety. The decision making must return to science, away from the political arena and backroom deals.
All of us as children spent some time on a teeter-totter. Some of us in political life still spend time on teeter-totters. What I remember about them is that the centre point of a teeter-totter is the fulcrum. If there is too much weight on one side it becomes unbalanced.
What is happening now on the teeter-totter of biotechnology is that we have industry and government on one side and the consumers are up in the air literally and figuratively on this issue. We need to have the government in the middle, in the fulcrum, so that there is a reasonable balance between industry and certain protection and assurances for the consumer.
Cross-pollination from modified crops to other crops has occurred and the question is could this cause problems. The process must be an open one. Can we expect the Liberal government to take a precautionary approach and err on the side of protection? A series of Liberal motions to weaken dramatically the precautionary principles suggests to us that we cannot.
Canadian farmers are becoming concerned about the issue. The potential loss of producer markets in Europe, and I will talk about those in a few minutes, presents additional concerns as well.
We certainly cannot lose sight of the success Canadian agriculture has achieved around the globe with specialty crops. We think of winter wheat, in particular, and the food delivered to less fortunate tables.
I am our caucus critic on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We all had the opportunity to travel to Washington this past February and had a good week of discussions on the future of agriculture.
One of the things that I recall from those discussions is that with 80 million new mouths to feed each and every year for the next 20 years food production will need to double throughout the world over the next 50 years, by the year 2050. It cannot be done, as it has been done in the past, by more irrigation and more development of arable lands. We simply do not have the capability. We recognize and scientists generally recognize that agricultural biotech will be the future for the millions of new mouths to be fed over the next half century.
We must ensure however that the best process for scientific review, analysis and monitoring is in place. It has to be based on science not on science fiction. Why can Canada not have the best, most open, highest scientific standards that ensure product safety for the environment and human health? An increasing number of Canadians are calling for food labelling to provide informed choices in their decision making.
I said I was going to talk very quickly about Europe. I want to note that following European labelling regulations, restaurants and fast food outlets in Britain have been ordered by the government to tell consumers if their meals contain genetically modified products. “People who are supplying food, whether it is in a shop or a restaurant, are really duty bound to know as much as they can about where the food came from before they offer it to the public”, said the food safety minister, Minister Rooker.
Genetically modified food is a hot political topic in Britain. The government says that it is confident genetically modified food is safe, but opinion polls show most consumers are anxious remembering similar early assurances before the mad cow crisis of a few years ago.
On this topic, recently the Western Producer had an editorial entitled “GMO familiarity may breed comfort”. I want to read a little of that editorial into my comments. It states:
One of the biggest debates surrounding genetically modified foods is whether they should carry an identifying label. In Europe in recent months, the issue has come to a head and the European Commission has instituted rules for labelling GMO foods.
There is a climate of growing public distrust in Europe. Denmark, Britain and France have all called a partial halt to GMO approvals, while Austria, Luxembourg and France have slapped unilateral bans on certain new crop strains.
The companies that have created genetically modified seeds are generally against mandatory labelling.
They say that if there is no real nutritional or health difference between altered and regular food, why should GMO products be singled out? It could be viewed not as information but as a warning.
As I have noted, and the editorial notes:
Many consumer groups say that for the public to make an informed decision, products must be labelled.
Last year AgBioForum , a quarterly on-line magazine devoted to agricultural biotechnology, tackled the issue.
The contributors, mainly academics at Canadian and American universities, argue that labelling, especially if voluntary, could build acceptance for agricultural technology.
To conclude the editorial, it further states:
Companies with products made from GMO foods might do well to institute voluntary labelling. Although they might take some heat in the short-term, in the long-term they will familiarize the population with the benefits of the science.
And the process should become easier as researchers move from the first wave of bio-tech crops, which were directed at giving farmers more options, to products directed at consumer needs like lower fat levels and higher protein.
To wrap up, how can well-informed consumer decisions be made if the entire process is clouded and under a veil of secrecy? Shutting out environment and health ministers and placing critical decisions behind closed doors with the governor in council sends a wrong message to Canadians. What is this government trying to hide? Why limit the safety net in the decision making process if everything is above board?