Debates of May 2nd, 2000

Fisheries

[The Speaker]

Order, please. That question is very specific. If the hon. minister wants to answer, I will permit him to do so.

[Herb Dhaliwal, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, conservation is a priority for anyone who is fishing under conservation rules to make sure that we have a sustainable fishery for the future.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was earlier pointing out some interesting anomalies in the political structure and relating them to this issue. I do not want to go back there because I think I made the point that we have a genetically modified political party in our midst. I will let people think about that.

The point I want to stress is why an opposition party would feel the need to put forward a motion that would require tremendous regulatory efforts by the government to mandate labels on products that are clearly tested and go through a very stringent safety program. Perhaps we could deal with the facts instead of the fearmongering that we see around this issue.

I am sure it is confusing, if not boring to most Canadians when they hear the issues around modifying food genetically. I am sure it is extremely important, however, to the agriculture producers, to the industry, and to all of the different associations and groups that work in the industry. That is why this government has attempted to work with all of those groups to ensure there is a process in place which will provide the safety mechanisms and checks for food that will be sold to the consumer.

Some comments were made that perhaps the government was not taking this motion seriously enough. There may be a reason for that suggestion or that feeling. The reason is that it smells a little more like pure politics rather than dealing with the facts. I want to take a moment, if I may, to share some of the facts, the background and the research that we have done on this issue.

The government is looking for a solution to the problem which will provide a level of confidence to the Canadian consumer while at the same time allowing producers to access the new science and technology that is available. In virtually every walk of life science and technology grows in leaps and bounds. There are tremendous advances, virtually on a daily basis. We have to make sure that we stay abreast of all of them and not simply scare people into thinking there are problems.

In that regard we invested $90 million in the last budget, not only to ensure that we stay on top and on the cutting edge of this biotechnology, but also to ensure that our food inspection and regulatory system remains first class.

In that area I want to say once again that Canada has a reputation for having the finest safety system for food inspection in the world. It is not just standing and beating our chests or doing a beer commercial and saying “I am Canadian”, it is a fact.

Health Canada works very closely with all different agencies to ensure that the Canadian people can trust the products that go on the shelves of their grocery stores. It works very diligently with the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that there is safety in the drugs that are produced. It works very closely the companies which produce health products to ensure that what is being put on the shelves is safe.

I talked about many of those different products that have burst on to the scene in recent years, which hopefully will help to prevent illness and make Canadians more healthy, with the idea that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Health Canada is very diligent about ensuring that all of the products which are available to the consumer are safe. I would suggest that is true in the case of GMOs just as much as it is in health products and drugs.

It is extremely important that we realize what we as parliamentarians, as a government and indeed as members of the opposition should be saying to the Canadian people. We should be saying that we are prepared to ensure that the new sciences, the new biotechnological efforts that are being put into modifying food for the purpose of increasing production and making more food available to Canadians, will ensure that the food is nutritious and will fit into the Canadian diet without causing any form of illness. We should stop the fearmongering that this motion is attempting to bring about.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to what my colleague from Mississauga West has had to say before and after Oral Questions. I note that he has become more serious.

Before Oral Question Period, he sort of went off topic. He referred to the former Reform Party members, now members of the Canadian Alliance. This was a kind of departure from the debate on GMOs.

Now that he has got back to being serious, I would like to ask him some serious questions. He seems not to be in favour of labelling GMOs. This does not mean banning them or preventing studies or experiments. There is simply a need to respect the public's right to know what it is eating.

When he refers to the numerous consequences of labelling, I would like to hear some figures from him. How much will this cost? Has he evaluated this or examined the studies? Even if he managed to come up with figures, we must ask ourselves: If people want to know what they are eating, is this not a right that must be respected?

Why is Canada one of the countries most vehemently opposed to such labelling? The European countries have adopted it, as have Japan and South Korea. These are civilized nations. Why would what is good for Europe be bad for us and for our producers? There seems to be a world trend toward being more and more in favour of labelling.

I would like to hear his explanation of this. It seems more as if he were inviting us not to support a policy of transparency. It is as if he had something to hide. I trust that is not what he wants people to think, that Canadian farmers have something to hide.

As regards the voluntary code of ethics, voluntary regulation or voluntary labelling, the member for Rosemont recently introduced a bill asking broadcasters to apply the code of ethics they introduced in the early 1990s. We know what voluntary codes mean. They are almost never applied.

I would like the member to clarify his position, to give us the technical and financial data that would justify his position. Otherwise, we do not understand his opposition to the public's right to receive information on something vital, something that affects their health.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious about the question. By the way, I could not resist poking a bit of fun at the genetically modified political party. There is nothing wrong with having a bit of that mixed in with what I perceive to be a very serious topic, but let me answer the gentleman.

No, I have not done an analysis of the cost. This is where I have some concern. The question was about why we are not in favour of voluntary labelling. Those were the member's words through the translator, and I am assuming they were translated correctly. We are. We already have voluntary labelling. We have encouraged the development of standards for the voluntary labelling of new foods including what might be called designer foods. This project was launched by the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian General Standards Board.

Let me just add, in answer to the hon. member, that the government has asked the Canadian General Standards Board to develop a Canadian standard for voluntary labelling in consultation with consumer groups, producer groups, interest groups and other governments. If the member is saying we should have voluntary labelling, I think Bloc members should stand to clarify their position.

To make labelling mandatory when we already have an extremely successful inspection system in place to ensure both quality and safety in terms of the products that hit the kitchen table is nothing more than asking to extend the long arm of government and bureaucracy. Although I have not done the cost analysis, I assume it would cost a tremendous amount of money to the industry and would be a price that need not be paid.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Sit down, sit down.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

I do not need to sit down because you do not happen to agree. Voluntary labelling is a totally different issue. It is like Bloc members to sit there and say “sit down” when they do not like the message, when they do not like the truth that comes from this side of the House.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague who uses great eloquence in the House. With grace, wit and humour he is always on his mark in terms of how he delivers his speeches. He knows exactly the kinds of issues that affect Canadians, and on this there was no exception.

I was interested in the Bloc member's question. Some $37 million went missing in terms of federal money that went to Quebec. Even the auditor general of Quebec is quoted in Le Devoir as wondering where that money was. They can caterwaul all they want over there. They can natter away, but the reality is that there are $37 million of federal money for which they cannot account.

I have a question for the hon. member for Mississauga West. He represents a great part of Ontario. I listened with interest to how he noted that the Reform-CCRAP alliance has been genetically modified. The only comment I would add is that in light of the genetically modified Reform-CCRAP alliance perhaps we should have an amendment today that requires the Canada Elections Act to be amended so that there is a warning label on the ballot to indicate that those people opposite are nothing more than the reformed, warmed over people they were before.

Never mind that. Does the hon. member agree that Canada, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the minister of agriculture, has the best food safety system in the world? Does he agree that as a result of what we have been doing we have nutritious quality food?

Does he agree that instead of taking cheap political partisan shots all members opposite should be standing and congratulating the government, the minister of agriculture and the Prime Minister for doing a fabulous job to protect food and food safety in our great country?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we should stand to congratulate the member for Waterloo—Wellington for those wonderful words.

On a serious note, though, I want to share with the House what actually takes place. It is important that Canadians understand that the motion was drafted with some political intent. All GMO foods must be submitted to Health Canada for a strict safety evaluation by an expert team of toxicologists, biologists, environmental scientists, chemists and nutritionists to determine if the food is as safe and nutritious as food already in the Canadian marketplace. I do not know if I want to eat it after they have all had a hand in it.

The team considers how the crop was developed, including the molecular biological data which characterize the genetic change, the composition of the food compared to its traditional counterpart food, the nutritional information compared to non-modified counterparts, and the potential for introducing new allergens and toxins.

We are on this file as a government. We are doing the job. To the question asked by the hon. member on whether Canadians can feel safe with the quality of food I say absolutely, with the systems we have in place.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak to the Bloc motion concerning mandatory labelling of foods produced from genetically modified plants and seeds.

From what I have heard from the Bloc Quebecois speakers today, they seem to place a high emphasis on the organic farm industry. That is what they seem to be trying to represent with the motion today. At the end of the debate we will see that a broader perspective should be taken and the whole of agriculture, including a lot of social aspects of the issue, has to be examined.

The biotech industry is important to Canada and is growing. It must be debated within reason and not have restrictions placed on it that would unduly hamper, for no good scientific reason, the advancements that will make our lives and the lives of our grandchildren better in the years to come.

There are 282 biotechnology companies in Canada. There are 10,000 employees in the industry, 1,900 in agriculture and food processing and 6,700 in the health care sector. Employment forecasts are that it will increase by 10% over the next year. Biotechnology company sales are in the neighbourhood of $450 million in seed, feed, foods and other products. The last statistic that I will give is that 46% of Canadian biotechnology companies operate in health care and 29% in agriculture. The issue is much bigger than just food supply.

A few years ago most people would not have heard of biotechnology or knew what it meant. Scientific breakthroughs such as Dolly the cloned sheep have vaulted the word into headlines around the country. However, most of us still have the uncomfortable feeling that we really do not know what biotechnology means. That is where the government of the day needs to come in with excellent information programs for the general public so that public fears will be allayed and people who are fearmongering, like some of the special interest groups are doing, will not hold sway with their arguments.

The government must address the concerns of Canadians who chose not to eat food containing GMOs, as well as Canadians who want to chose the increased variety at lower produce costs. We see that this can be accomplished through voluntary labelling in the marketplace, including food companies, grocery stores and fast food outlets quickly going to a voluntary system in order to continue making sales.

I have heard a few red herrings being thrown out, particularly by our NDP friends, with regard to Europe not accepting beef that had received growth hormones at some point while it was being fattened for slaughter. That one case is the best example that science should rule the trade world. Europe has been found at fault in that issue and has no scientific reason to restrict imports. As a result it is paying penalties for that.

I will not go into the rest of the NDP logic with regard to supporting mandatory labelling, but it is a poorly thought out position for a party to take.

Mandatory labelling of all genetically modified organisms would place a significant financial burden on Canadian farmers, food manufacturers and consumers. Increased costs of product segregation beginning at the farm gate would dramatically increase the costs of storing, transporting and processing Canadian grain. It is not impossible to do this, but if it were a mandatory requirement by government regulation the question of who would pay the costs would have to be decided. All technological requirements of segregation would be very complex and would increase the cost of our food.

The Bloc is calling for this in spite of the fact that there is no scientific evidence of any kind that food produced from genetically modified seeds is any different from food produced from seeds that have not been genetically modified. We are talking about the same food with no detectable change to it.

Because of the increased costs, the product price for consumers would rise and the net commodity price for farmers would fall. Farmers have traditionally never been able to pass along the costs. I do not see how this would be any different if mandatory labelling were required.

Farmer choice would also fall. Because of increased costs farmers would have fewer commodity varieties to choose from. In modern farming practices it is important to have access to GMO crops due to disease that is better controlled through genetic manipulation of the plant characteristics. Consumer choice both in terms of price and variety would also be lessened by mandatory labelling. Without having genetically modified crops available, all these options would be taken away and we would all be poorer for it.

Consumer demand has created a market for products voluntarily labelled free of genetically modified organisms. No one has any problem with that. If the farmer is fully compensated for his production he will produce what the consumer is willing to buy.

Federal regulators recognized this demand far too late and have failed to develop guidelines for voluntary labelling. I know that is currently being done, but it should have been done when GMOs were being researched back in the early nineties and science was advancing to the point where we knew they would be available.

Under a voluntary labelling system GMO-free foods would be marketed similarly to organic foods. Voluntary labelling would address the calls for consumer choice. Ultimately that is exactly where it has to be. I will point out later in my speech some of the problems that consumers face if food prices become very high. Consumers would shift to various types of foods to find a source of protein.

Voluntary labelling would address the needs of producers, giving producers who want to grow GMO-free crops the ability to develop niche markets. There is nothing the matter with that.

Voluntary labelling would also correctly dilute the costs associated with segregation. Here again it would be farmers, the grain handling industry, the grain companies, the railways and the truckers all responding to a legitimate market signal indicating that there was a demand for segregation and the foodstuff that is either GMO or non-GMO.

I hear a lot of negativity that it is people who do not want the GMOs but as we see, developments are coming along so that people will demand the GMO product and GMO food. One indicator for the poor countries of the third world in particular is that rice is to be modified. It will give them a vitamin source which they do not currently have which will prevent blindness which is endemic in some parts of the world due to diet. Voluntary labelling would correctly distribute the costs associated with segregation.

I have spoken about the size of the industry in Canada and that it is growing. I should point out at this time that other countries are booming along with their research and development. In particular the third world countries realize it is the only way they will be able to feed their ever increasing populations. It is only the super rich countries that have the luxury of saying “Maybe we should label this, maybe we should scare everybody off and we will not have to worry about feeding our population because we can afford to do it”. An awful lot of poor people around the world cannot afford that luxury. In fact there are a lot of poor people in Canada who cannot afford it either.

Biotechnology offers significant benefits. One benefit is drugs to treat cancers, AIDS and diabetes. We also see increased and more effective vaccines, antibiotics, insulin and hormone replacement. We see new high nutrition foods, new production methods and varieties that will allow farmers to better manage weeds and insects while reducing the use of chemical pesticides. We will also see opportunities for better management of municipal waste and toxic spills.

The biotech industry has indicated that its research will have great benefits for the future. Examples are new vaccines for common diseases such as malaria and cholera. Those diseases kill millions of people each year, not in Canada but in third world countries which have those problems. There is gene therapy for hereditary disorders. It is also possible to remove allergens from food crops. There is the improvement to the nutrition or shelf life of fruits, vegetables and grains. I mentioned rice with enhanced vitamin A and iron to reduce child blindness. Vaccines are built into crops, fruits and vegetables. We have increased productivity from the world's farmers. This is necessary to meet the nutrition needs of the world's growing population.

We also are looking for rapid reforestation of areas that have either been logged or destroyed through natural means. We need to restore those forests. There is conversion of organic wastes into biofuels. There is also better, more efficient use of the world's scarce arable land.

These tremendous advancements that are available and the potential benefits to mankind will not come about if we scare the consumer from consuming the very products both on the health care side and the food side to the point where the research companies will no longer invest in research. I take the stand quite clearly that if the product, the vaccine, the treatment for AIDS or cancer or the food that we consume has been checked out by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and it has been scientifically proven to be safe within acceptable risk limits, then we should purchase those products as a society and use them. That gives the companies the incentive to continue their research. If we do not do that they will pull back their horns and we will not have these great advancements.

I am told it takes at least seven years of testing before new plant varieties are given a Canadian licence. When I hear groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace or the Council of Canadians pooh-poohing and going against the idea that GMO foods can be good, I question their motives and where they are coming from when they make statements which are not based on scientific evidence.

The other day I met with two young women from the Sierra Club who were very nice and pleasant. As our debate and discussion went on in my office, I asked them who was going to pay for the segregation and the added costs of mandatory labelling. They were quite serious and were not being flippant but their answer was that the big company Monsanto would pay. I said that in the real world that was not the way it worked. The farmer, the lowest level, will pay. He cannot dictate his costs to anybody else. He has to stay in business. He cannot start and stop a farm easily. The reasoning by some of the objectors to genetically modified foods does not stand up to common sense.

I also wonder about fellows like David Suzuki who is really a media personality although it says on his resume that he has a bit of a background in genetics. When he makes his arguments how many times does he actually come up with scientific evidence and research or points out that it is accepted by the scientific community? It is more a case of generalizations and assumptions which are not backed up by scientific fact whatsoever. Being media personalities, I know these fellows and women are paid big salaries, in the millions of dollars, including endorsements and that. In Mr. Suzuki's case, I wonder if he has some investments in the non-GMO companies and he thinks it would help them along if we could kill off the GMO industry. We have to look at the background on this.

Some people have called for absolute scientific guarantees that GMOs will not have any negative long term impact. In any endeavour this is an impossible measure to meet. Had this standard been in place, we never would have had the light bulb. We would have avoided the industrial revolution and we would still likely be debating the benefits and perils of fire.

If governments listened to these radical lobby groups, they could significantly slow or even stop essential research. It is not their direct influence that counts; it is their scare and fearmongering toward individual consumers and users of these products that hurts research and development.

In 1969 the House of Commons, except for the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance Party which were not here, said that it was going to eliminate or drastically reduce child poverty. Child poverty has actually increased. What would the low income earners and children who are considered to be in poverty say if the government and parliament required mandatory labelling? It would drive up the price of food and they would have to pay for that at the grocery store.

We have to make things better for people and for children who live in poverty. One way is to continue to provide them with cheap, reliable and safe food. The basic necessity for food has to be the primary consideration for all the population as opposed to some idea that mandatory labelling would be nice to have and would help some industry group which is lobbying for it.

Any decisions must be based on sound science and not on political interference. All new food products must be tested by Health Canada scientists to determine if the new food is safe for Canadian consumers. We have heard about allergenic considerations. It is my understanding that we test for allergenic properties in food and if they are present, the food is labelled. That is another red herring which has been brought up by other parties.

Any food that has a demonstrated health risk cannot be released into the Canadian market. It has been that way for years. Any food that could generate an allergic reaction must be labelled. All regulatory decisions must be based upon clear independent scientific information and not just public opinion.

Canadian consumers have lost confidence in the scientific testing process overseen by Health Canada in some instances. The BST issue with the dairy cattle was one example. As a result we have seen political interference and loss of confidence in that issue. It is the federal government that has really contributed to that. I blame the Liberal government we have had since 1993 for not being ahead on this issue and making sure that consumers were informed and ready for the future, for the changes that were coming that are for the benefit of all of us.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech by my colleague and I am a bit disappointed by his position. He is well aware of the issue, since we talked about it several times at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

When he talks about fearmongering groups, I can tell him that it is also a frightening idea to let the farmers alone bear the burden of all that will happen.

How can the companies wash their hands of all this? How can the government leave all the responsibility for this to the farmers? This is not how I see events unfolding.

It is embarrassing to hear the member talk about the poor children, when groups of Canadian bishops, of American bishops and ecumenical groups are studying the question and are asking for mandatory labelling both in Canada and the United States. If ever there were people concerned about poor children, they are surely the ones.

However, I want to get back to the producers. I have heard it said that farmers producing non genetically modified foods will simply have to find their own market. Because my colleague comes from western Canada, I must say that in Saskatchewan, Mr. Hyden, an organic farmer, is losing customers because his neighbours are growing genetically modified foods. The seeds are blown into his fields or carried there by the birds and the bees, and when he applies for approval of his products, he gets a poor rating at the international level.

What can the member propose as a solution to those organic farmers who want to stay with traditional farming but are surrounded by genetically modified crops and lose their own market because of that? Last fall, in spite of all the problems they had in western Canada, organic farmers kept their market and fared better than the others.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I support the Bloc member for Louis-Hébert in her motion which we adopted at the agriculture committee to look into all of the aspects of genetically modified organisms as it pertained to the agriculture industry.

I think the answer to some of the questions that are being posed in the House today will be answered by the experts. I would hope Mr. Hayden will be one of the presenters who will give us the scientific evidence he has that the products that he is producing were contaminated by GMOs, to whom he was trying to sell them and how they determined there was GMO content in the food that he was selling. I think we will have very good hearings on the GMO issue. The question of food costs to not only low income people but to all Canadians is one of great importance. I also welcome any studies done by ecumenical church groups on this issue and invite their input when we hold our hearings.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to enter into the debate on genetically modified organisms. As I walked into the Commons today, somebody offered flowers signifying cancer research. I would note that cancer research is another area where we actually use genetically modified organisms to solve some of the real problems of our health care system.

I do not think there are too many people here today who would argue against finding a cure for cancer. Similarly, I do not believe there are too many people here who would argue against finding better ways to produce agricultural substances and doing that in a healthful way.

The reality is that the debate is somewhat skewed. The fact that people do not like genetically modified organisms is not so much that GMOs exist but rather the process undertaken to create GMOs. This to me is essentially what is wrong with this debate.

Our primary concern and the primary concern of Health Canada is that the food we consume is safe, not the process that was undertaken to create it. It is analogous to the production of steel. If manufacturers were to buy steel for their automobile production facilities, their concern would be whether the steel was suitable for producing an automobile, not about the actual process that created the steel. This is part of the labelling process.

It seems to me that what people want to say—

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The debate is important and I would like the members to speak to the motion. The hon. member is going on about steel, cancer and all kinds of things. These too are very legitimate concerns, but as the motion is rather precise and we are short of time, I would like us to stick to the subject.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I will pay much closer attention.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member cannot understand the importance of the differences in processes, genetically modified organisms being a process similar to a steel-like process, I am sorry but I cannot help her with that.

As I was saying, we live in very exciting times. I farmed for about eight years in another part of my life, which I enjoyed very much. I was very aware of the concerns of not only consumers but producers and people who worked in the agricultural sector about the use of pesticides, herbicides and so forth in farming.

For our farm communities, genetic modification is not new. I can recall someone coming into my office one day and presenting me with a cob of corn that was only five inches long. That was the average length cob of corn that existed approximately 30 years ago. We are consuming genetically modified foods every day.

In the riding I represent, we have built a huge industry in the breeding of Holstein cattle. We have used artificial insemination. We have used the superflushing of cows for embryo transplants. This has been very successful for the last 20 or 30 years. The basic cow in our area is the Holstein-Friesian. Durham has been so successful in producing purebred Holstein-Friesian animals that we now actually ship them back to Holstein and Friesland where they are used in genetic stock.

I come to this debate with some interest in the whole area of genetic modification. As I mentioned, farmers have been using this for some time. Just look at the great benefits that exist in genetic modification. As hon. members know, Canada is a threatened country when is comes to its climate. The growing season is very short, but with the use of genetic modification we have been able to shorten the growing time for many crops. That has not affected the quality of the end product. It has increased the ability of some Saskatchewan and prairie farmers to effectively compete on the world market. That has done nothing but good and we will continue to do that.

In my area, for instance, people are using genetic modification in apples to thwart blight. In other words, we can actually get the product off the trees and into the supermarkets faster, better and more efficiently and it is a healthier food.

The great assumption is that genetic manipulation is somehow bad. The fact is that we have been able to reduce disease and pestilence in our food supplies to the betterment of the consumer. The consumer is far better off with these genetic changes.

Needless to say, we cannot have a situation where that kind of experimentation gets out of hand. We cannot have a situation where the mutant organisms are allowed to cross-pollinate and possibly cause dangerous mutations. There is a great deal of work that goes on, not only in Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada but also in Health Canada, to ensure that sort of cross-pollination does not occur.

I had the benefit of being in British Columbia where we were experimenting with that sort of genetic manipulation. What we are attempting to do in Canada is to reduce the infestation of our softwood lumber in British Columbia to improve forestry stocks. This is another way of genetically using the science available to us to have better products.

When I talked to the science community, I asked them what was up in the real world of science and forestry. They talked about some of the research going on in Weyerhaeuser in the United States which is using genetics to build a faster growing tree with fewer branches and therefore more efficient when harvested. It causes less pressure on existing forestry and our conservation program is protected because of the abundant source of softwood lumber being grown commercially. These are all positive ways in which the economy can co-exist with the concerns of environmentalists, which is what I fancy myself to be.

There are of course limitations to genetic manipulation. Most of us have read recently about the cloning of cows and sheep. There is certainly a moral argument that goes along with this whole file. I will not get into that issue today because I know the Bloc member wants to talk about relevance and genetic modification. However, there is no question that most members of the public today are concerned about cloning and some of the moral issues that revolve around that. That is not a part of my speech today but I am sure there are limitations to the amount of genetic manipulation that we should engage in. I know our government has a concern about regenerative technology and has studied it to the point of possibly passing legislation on the use of that kind of technology.

The Department of Health, under the food and drug administration, requires any food process that has been altered or has changed its nutritional value to be labelled. We have a labelling system already in Canada. The Bloc members would like us to think that we have a laissez-faire attitude toward labelling, but that is not the case.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is another agency that has as its primary purpose to ensure that the food we eat is safe and consumable. The government supports the efforts of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian General Standards Board, which are entering into the process of people coming forward and voluntarily labelling their products.

A lot of the concern about genetic manipulation seems to be generating, to some extent, out of Europe. The European Union, which I had the advantage of being in about two weeks ago, in using its precautionary principle in trade, is using a lot of these areas, not for the protection of their own populations but rather to embargo Canadian imports. It is embargoing Canadian beef into the European Union. It is embargoing wine into the European Union. It is embargoing many of our agricultural products. I really question whether the European Union is a free trade area or an anti-free trade area because it does not want to trade with anyone other than the people who live within the European Union.

It is important that we not let that kind of fear take over our communities. One of the other speakers mentioned the increase in populations around the world. This is a great opportunity for Canadian agriculture. There is no question that southeast Asia and China will unlikely be able to continue feeding their populations.

We have not only an opportunity but an obligation to meet the challenges in the world definition of countries being able to feed themselves. We have an obligation to continue with a science-based approach to agriculture to ensure that our food products are the best in the world and that we can increase the amount of production.

Canadian farmers have led that challenge. Canadian farmers have been at the forefront. We now ship close to over $2 billion worth of agricultural products around the world. We have been successful in those things because we have been willing to embrace, accept and use change and new processes to make our products safe for Canadians and everyone in the world.

I do not have to tell members that the need for protein by different countries is increasing at an alarming rate. There is no question that these countries will be depending more and more on Canadian production.

I once had the advantage of visiting Taiwan. I was impressed. I had just arrived at the Taipei airport when someone asked me how the biological industry was doing in Saskatoon. I must admit that at that time I was not fully up to speed about the tremendous experimentation and results of our own scientists in Canada who have made such a huge contribution to biotechnology.

A simple thing, like the ability of plants to absorb nutrients, such as phosphates and nitrogen, from the soil is done imperfectly. There are now ways to inoculate seed so that the seed actually assists the plant. The plant will absorb more phosphates and more nitrogen than it did previously. Why is this important? It is important because farmers will now need less fertilizer to grow their crops. It will create less degradation of their environment because they can grow crops more efficiently.

Some of the things the Bloc members are talking about, some of what they believe the organic farm is doing, biological technology is allowing other farmers to also do that. This is a tremendous accomplishment for Canadians. Being the size of country that we are, we have become world leaders in the whole area of biotechnology.

It is time not only for politicians but for the science community itself to get out there and tell their message. A lot of people in this country, in the European Union and others are saying no, it is a terrible thing and that people are going to be born with three legs and four eyes because this stuff has been genetically altered.

I was in England not long ago and talking to the science and technology committee. They have had lots of problems with this issue politically. People are concerned about genetically altered food. They did a study on the media and what the responsibility is of the media in their country to inform people about the basic importance of the foods they eat. They discovered in the articles and the newspapers where people are talking about this issue that less than 15% of the writers in any of the newspapers had any background in science. In other words, the people who are spreading the stories about biotechnology are not scientists. They are people who are using most of their information as innuendo and things that are totally unsubstantiated by the science community.

The bottom line is we have to provide more responsible debate on the whole issue. There has been too much emotion and not enough science. There has been too much concern that somehow someone is manipulating our food supply and not enough thought process about the potential benefits not only for Canadians but for our ability as a country to feed the world.

I would like to end on that note. I probably have not used up all my time but that is not necessary. All I can say is I certainly defend the importance of using genetic manipulation but within the obvious context to ensure that our food is safe. I believe that is happening. We can do more. We are going to do more. People are demanding that we do more. Clearly our health department and our department of agriculture are very focused on the area to ensure that Canadians are consuming safe food but at the same time to unleash our ability to do even better in the future.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

I am very happy to speak to the motion from my colleague from Louis-Hébert which says:

That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making it mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods containing genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable Canadians to make informed choices about the foods they eat.

The debate on genetic engineering has been going on for some years, mainly because the development of cloning techniques was widely reported in the media. In recent months, the public learned that genetic engineering has been extended to the food industry and that, for some years now, much of the food that ends up on our table is genetically modified, this without the public having been informed or consulted.

This raises several questions: Why are plants and foods genetically modified? Who is benefiting from that? What are the benefits to consumers? What are the effects of GMOs on health and the environment? What are the challenges for agriculture and the environment? What are the economic and trade issues? What are the social repercussions of the GMOs? What are the regulations on GMOs? And what is the position of the federal government on GMOs?

There are many questions, and I think it is only natural to ask ourselves such questions, because right now we do not know what we are eating.

Thanks to the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, we have the opportunity today to discuss those issues and to offer answers to the legitimate questions of the public. I hope to have time to provide a chronology of the speeches made by my Bloc Quebecois colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, on the GMO issue. It took her one year of hard work to finally get the chairman of the agriculture committee to agree to undertake a study on the labelling of GMOs. I congratulate my colleague on this.

What are the effects of GMOs on health? According to Health Canada, transgenic foods are not dangerous in the short term. However, there is no study on their long term effects on human health. In order to approve a transgenic product, the federal government relies on studies conducted by the companies, which it merely reviews. While the approval of new drugs may take years of in-depth study and testing, that of transgenic foods takes just a few weeks.

The federal deputy minister of health himself, speaking before a Senate committee in the spring of 1999, recognized that, at the time, the government did not have any expertise whatsoever in genetics. As he put it, “its labs are not really up to it”. How can the government guarantee the safety of these foods without adequate expertise and independent scientific studies? How can the government say that transgenic foods are not dangerous in the short term? There is currently no analysis being done.

It is also said that, because of a shortage of personnel at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, there are major shortcomings, particularly in the area of research on transgenic foods.

On September 30, 1999, 200 federal experts on food quality and safety wrote to the Minister of Health. Their letter underscored the fact that the Agency is in a conflict of interest position as it must, on the one hand, ensure that foods are harmless, while on the other hand encourage food production and export.

GMO lobbyists are very powerful. They often win over our ministers and this government because they are using GMOs for partisan purposes.

Allow me to say, because people must know, that these lobbyists often interfere, but not always to promote the health of the public. They often do for partisan purposes. Considering their contributions to election campaigns, the government prefers to ignore some situations, particularly in research on transgenic foods. Let us not delude ourselves. There is big money in GMOs. We all know what money can do. But it is often to the detriment of the public.

These federal experts wrote to the Minister of Health that they were in a conflict of interest situation. It was not an easy decision for these 200 federal government scientists to abandon their usual reserve and sign their names to such a letter, thus endangering their jobs. They were so concerned that they felt they had to speak out. These are career scientists; they know what they are talking about.

Here is what they say: “We are not testing these products ourselves. Not a single researcher in Health Canada has been assigned to genetically modified foods, because we do not have the financial resources for that kind of work, a scientist said”. Yet, these products end up on our tables. No study has been done to date, yet Health Canada states that there is no danger.

There are also concerns about food allergies. Why is it that more and more people, and especially children, have food allergies? Could it be because of the nature of what we eat? For the time being, we cannot answer this question, because there have been no studies. But there are food allergy problems.

There are also concerns about resistance to the antibiotics present in certain GMOs, because GMOs are spread in the natural environment. The EU scientific steering committee has recommended that antibiotic genes in genetically modified plants be removed because of the dangers of antimicrobial resistance for health.

Proponents of GMOs are not short of arguments. Let me go through a few and comment on them. They say that GMOs will make it possible to feed an increasing world population, in particular in developing countries. There is no shortage of food around the world; in fact, there is an overproduction. There is, however, a problem of distribution, among other things, because developing countries do not have the means to buy food produced in developed countries.

Developing countries use vast agricultural lands for primary crops, like coffee, cocoa, cotton and flax, which they sell to industrialized countries instead of using them to feed their own populations. So, these lands offer an opportunity. It is still possible to increase the yields in these countries through traditional techniques and financial support. It is worth mentioning that this government has reduced its international assistance budget.

Proponents of GMOs contend that there is no proof that those organisms represent a health risk. They may be right, but the absence of studies on the long term impact of GMOs on human and animal health as well as on plant and animal life does not prove that they are not dangerous. Yet, food containing GMOs have been sold for the last five years and the production of 42 genetically modified plants is authorised in Canada.

David Suzuki, a renowned broadcaster with a background in genetics, once said that politicians who say that GMOs are not dangerous are either liars or idiots. Countries in the European Union advocate the precautionary principle according to which, in the absence of scientific evidence, caution must be exercised to prevent potential damages from GMOs to the health and the environment.

Proponents contend that all genetically modified foods are tested in Canada. Actually, GMOs are not systematically tested. The government relies on companies who produce GMOs and simply reads their studies without any further assessment. It should be noted that new drugs are approved after long studies conducted over several years, sometimes up to ten years. This reduces risks while not eliminating them completely. GMOs used for agriculture and food production are approved very quickly, within 60 to 90 days, without any in-depth study or second assessment.

We are being told by some people that we are currently eating food containing GMOs and that there is no cause for concern. No study has been done. This is the reason why we call at least for the mandatory labelling of GMOs, so that people can choose what they want to eat.

[Gilbert Normand, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to qualify what the hon. member just said on the government's position on GMOs.

My colleagues from agriculture and health never said that GMOs were totally without danger. The role of the government is to protect Canadian citizens. Our protection agencies do the best they can based on the knowledge currently available.

We also know that some countries which adopted regulations on voluntary or mandatory labelling some months ago are now forced to back down because they do not have the technical and scientific means nor the necessary financial resources to implement these regulations.

I think that the whole GMO issue is being overdramatized. I do not want to stand up for GMOs as such. It is biotechnology. The role of the government is to control risks associated with GMOs as with, for example, drugs or public transportation, like planes. When the government issues a licence authorizing a plane to fly, it is clear that it cannot guarantee that that plane will never crash, but at least the risks are weighed. It is the same thing with drugs.

As for GMOs, the government is doing a great job of protecting the public. We have set up a committee of experts who will make recommendations on labelling to the government. We are also looking at what is being done in other countries.

I personally met with officials from other countries such as Australia and New Zealand, where labelling is currently impossible for scientific and financial reasons.

I ask my colleagues not to be alarmists. Yes, there may be risks, but the government is there to control them.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to name the countries that backed down, because it is the first thing I hear about this.

Secondly, I do not think that the Bloc Quebecois is fear mongering. We just want the people to know what they are eating. I think it is a very basic proposal to ask that Canadians and Quebecers be told that the food on their plates contains GMOs.

In addition, scientists at Health Canada denounced a number of things. A research scientist with the department told us that no research was being conducted at Health Canada and no researcher had been assigned to transgenic foods, because there is no money for that kind of research. This is not the Bloc Quebecois that is saying this, but a research scientist with Health Canada.

I am concerned and the people I represent are concerned as well. I just held a press conference on this issue with the member for Louis-Hébert. The people in the riding of Drummond have reacted and they too are concerned about the lack of money for research on transgenic foods. So do not tell me that I am alarmist.

I want to straighten out another fact. Time permitting, I would have liked to provide a chronology of the speeches made on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois by my colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert. It took her one year of tireless work. I could mention those made on May 14, June 11, and so on. I have that list. It took the hon. member one year of tireless work, of questions and comments. It took a great deal of patience on her part to get the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to agree to study the labelling of transgenic foods.

When someone talks to me about the goodwill shown by this government, give me a break.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have noticed the difficulty I have in containing my joy in addressing 301 genetically modifiable organisms this afternoon.

I will begin my speech with a question. Are you sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have not eaten any genetically modified organisms today? If you are one of those who do not care, the question is irrelevant.

However, if you are one of those who wonder about the appropriateness of such a process, you want to know what you eat, you want to be free not to eat certain foods and you want to know the short, medium and long term effects of GMOs on health, agriculture and the environment. This raises many questions.

The Bloc Quebecois has taken a clear stance on the issue. We are not systematically against GMOs but are against the fact that labelling is not mandatory. As a matter of fact, my colleague from Louis-Hébert, who is our party's agriculture and agri-food critic, has succeeded in getting the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food to study the issue, and I congratulate her for that.

This study will begin on May 16 et will continue until the summer recess and perhaps even until the fall, in co-operation with the three other opposition parties and, I hope, all Liberal members of goodwill. We also want to invite the scientists who will assess the potential risks of GMOs, members of the public, farmers, particularly organic farmers, and consumers to give their input.

The study of GMOs will allow us to analyse the consequences of labelling on international trade, to know the advantages and disadvantages of GMOs for agriculture as well as the long term effect of GMOs on human health and the environment.

On November 4 of last year, my colleague from Louis-Hébert introduced Bill C-309 on mandatory labelling. We learned a few weeks ago that Europe has gone ahead and decreed that from now on all products containing GMOs should be labelled as such. This is a first victory for consumers. This step taken in Europe should make it easier for us here.

We are not content with taking action only in the House, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, have started a petition on labelling, which so far has been signed by 44,000 to 45,000 people across Quebec.

My office prepared and mailed leaflets on this topic to my constituents. They were asked to answer two questions. The first one was “Do you believe the general public is properly informed about GMOs?” The second one was “Do you believe it is justified to demand that genetically modified foods be labelled?”

Here are a few of the comments my office has received so far. On the first question as to whether the public is properly informed about GMOs, here are some of the answers and general comments: “Not at all. Governments have no regard for the public”. Or “No, there is not enough outreach, especially regarding health impacts”. And again “No, people are just starting to realize how huge this problem is. Quality and health risks are only the tip of the iceberg”.

Another one says “No, we only receive very vague information, often by word of mouth”. And a last one “No, I heard about it for the first time in the fall of 1999 in my microbiology course, and I study animal health”. As you may suspect, the answer was no 99.9% of the time.

On the second question as to whether it is justified to demand that genetically modified foods be labelled, an overwhelming majority said yes. Again, here are their comments. “The right to know is fundamental. Labelling should be mandatory. It should be mandatory so we can make an informed decision”.

Here is another comment. “If we cannot stop companies from producing GMOs, we should at least know what products contain them”. Another citizen said “I am totally outraged to see that companies could force us to eat whatever they want to put in their products”.

Another comment says—and I have many, but I will not read them all, only a few more—that “Labelling should be mandatory, especially if our lives are at risk. There might be more cancer or other illnesses that destroy our very fragile cells”. Another citizen wrote “I would like to have the freedom to know what I put in my body”. A last comment states “We are given the list of ingredients that are contained in food products. It is quite normal that I should know also if they contain GMOs”.

People are very concerned about this issue and support the mandatory labelling of food products containing GMOs. They said so in a Léger & Léger poll published last month. According to the poll, 50% of Quebecers surveyed are concerned about GMOs, and three people out of four would prefer a tomato without GMOs, even at a higher price, to a tomato with GMOs that were 30% cheaper. A proportion of 68% of the Quebecers polled would prefer a tomato a little bruised or damaged without GMOs to a more beautiful and redder tomato containing GMOs.

As for the Canadian government, I cannot remain silent about a brochure that I consider to be misinformation on food and also on GMOs. This brochure, entitled “Food Safety and You”, which the federal government sent to many households during the week of March 27, talks about the benefits of GMOs, stating that they may reduce the need for chemicals in agriculture. It also states that they are as safe as foods already on the Canadian market.

How can the federal government say such a thing when we know that genetically modified foods are not tested and inspected differently from other food products? Researchers do not do a second assessment of GMOs, but simply read the research protocol provided by companies seeking approval for their products.

In the brochure, there is nothing about the fact that no studies have been conducted on the medium and long term impact of GMOs on health. We cannot just tell the people that genetically modified foods are good for them without answering legitimate questions about the possible risks of the GMOs for human health and the environment.

Furthermore, the federal government, through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, has awarded a contract for more than $300,000 to Telemedia Communications, in Toronto, to have Canadian Living and Coup de pouce magazines insert a special section in their June issue to reaffirm the security of GMOs.

While the federal government is financing advertising campaigns with taxpayers' money, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have no money to conduct real studies on the long and medium term impacts of GMOs.

Many questions remain unanswered. This new technology was introduced very quickly under pressure from a few herbicide and seed companies.

Therefore, it is important to be cautious and to hold a public debate on GMOs so that the public can be well informed about the issue.

If you do not know what a genetically modified organism looks like, you can get an idea just by looking at my colleagues on the other side. They are politically modified organisms.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his excellent presentation. I would like to ask him a few questions concerning genetically modified foods.

Why do we genetically modify plants and foods? Who benefits from that and what are the benefits to consumers?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Drummond for her question, to which I will answer in a different way.

Last month, I attended a seminar of the Association des biologistes du Québec. I had the chance to participate in a session where people were asking themselves very serious questions.

They had a number of concerns. Of course, some made speeches, saying “A certain balance exists in nature”. Thousands of years were needed for organisms to develop genetically and for a balance that I would describe as a delicate balance to be achieved.

People were wondering about the impacts this will have on our food chain. Incorporating herbicides into genes will eliminate certain mosquitoes and many other things. They were wondering about human intervention in genetics.

They were concerned primarily with ethics. They were wondering how far this will go. Earlier, a colleague from the other side said “We have a tree and we modify it genetically because we believe it has too many branches or does not provide enough shade”. All reasons are good. One must wonder where it will stop.

Food is now the issue, and then it will be animals. As a matter of fact, it would seem that it is already the case. Some day, in the name of the sacrosanct development of science and technology, it will probably be human beings who will be modified.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot see the colour of your eyes but if, according to the government, they are of the wrong colour, will they be genetically modified? I am wondering. Ethics is important.

Someone said that organic food producers took their faith in their own hands. Labelling is not a constraint, it amounts to marketing. People have adopted internal regulations concerning the labelling of organic foods, in order to promote their sale and support those who buy them.

What is true for organic foods is also true for genetically modified foods. Some people do not want to eat them. We should inform them. It is more than a mere marketing decision. With regard to genetically modified foods, there is a requirement to let the people decide whether they want such foods or not.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Gasoline Prices; the hon. member for Halifax West, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, National Parks; the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, Fisheries; the hon. member for Lethbridge, Human Resources Development.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will reread the opposition motion to the House:

That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making it mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods containing genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable Canadians to make informed choices about the foods they eat.

I compliment the Bloc member for putting forward the motion today. I totally support the system in the Department of Health today for making sure that the quality and safety of our food supply is under control, but I believe it is the responsibility of the House to have a deep and thorough review because of the rapid rate with which people are experimenting and working with altering our food products.

Most of us are not that sensitive to the whole genetically modified organism system involved with our food. Over the last few months I have been using a lot of my parliamentary time as a Toronto member looking at our whole food chain system. It is absolutely amazing the number of urban or city people who have never taken the time to get their heads around the food chain.

When we walk into a supermarket in downtown Toronto it is amazing how much food we see. The quality of the food and its prices are so consumer friendly, every aspect of it, that we just do not realize what is going on behind it. We do not get into the whole area of food processing and what is happening there. Very few of us who live in cities go back to the contribution farmers are making, which is ultimately the area we must all begin taking a closer look at.

Even before we get to genetically modified or altered foods, we in urban Canada should be aware that most studies will show that if we do not become engaged in this food chain there could be a danger two years from now that we will lose close to 80,000 family farms.

This issue deserves long hours of debate and long hours of analysis. The Bloc is doing a good thing by putting this motion on the floor of the House of Commons. At the same time we must realize and reinforce for consumers that the system out there right now is not without control. The products on the shelves in stores today have been reviewed by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Let us not send a sense of alarm into the community today because that is not the way to advance this debate.

The House has to go right back to the producer of food. The men and women who have spent their lives producing food are the ones who are best equipped and have the know-how. They can inform us in an enlightened and experienced way on whether or not they feel the food processing system ultimately ending up at the retailer needs the type of specific recommendation of mandatory labelling that is proposed in the motion.

The whole labelling system needs to be reviewed, not just in terms of the notion of genetically modified foods but also the whole area of foods produced in Canada, specifically family farm foods. The percentage that most farmers receive, outside the ones protected by supply management, is something that needs review as well.

Over the last couple of months my experience with consumers suggests that if they knew they were purchasing products which came from Canadian family farms and that there was some type of royalty system, they would not mind an extra two or three cents on particular products, whether it be a loaf of bread, a jar of jam or a box of cereal. I believe they would participate in something like that to help family farms maintain their viability and sustainability. That has been my experience in testing the idea in a very unscientific way over the last couple of months.

When we get into the business of looking at labelling we have to do it in a most comprehensive way. I do not think we should just look at genetically modified food. We have to go deeper and look into where the food is coming from, be specific to Canadian farms and make sure that we use the process of identifying the quality, safety and source of our food as a means of rebuilding and renewing the commitment our country should have to sustaining the family farm.

Most consumers would hate to see a day when they suddenly woke up and it was decided that our food dependency should be from imports rather than from our domestic supply. A good friend of mine, Paddy Carson, once said, and he actually repeats it often, that a nation which cannot feed itself will feed upon itself. The whole realm of rebuilding our agricultural foundation is something we must become seized with over the next few months as we work away in this Chamber.

I am totally supportive of the general thrust of the motion on the floor of the House of Commons today. However, I would also like to bundle it into a more comprehensive approach where every food product from a family farm is recognized in terms of its quality. We could also figure out a royalty system when consumers choose to buy products identified as Canadian family farm products. With that economic stability and predictability when the quality and long term security of supply will be maintained.

I appreciate having participated in the debate, but I would say that it should be bundled up into a more comprehensive labelling program.