Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a few more minutes to speak on this important issue. Before doing so, I would like to thank members of all parties in the House for participating in this debate and ensuring that we had a very comprehensive discussion in the brief amount of time allocated for a very important topic.
In response to some of the comments, I wish to say four things. First, this debate is about ensuring that the concerns of consumers as well as farmers are addressed. There is no doubt that the uncertainty in this field is wreaking havoc not only in terms of individuals' concerns about their own health and well-being but also the grief and anxiety caused to farmers everywhere in the country.
It is absolutely apparent to me and I am sure to the hon. member for Brandon—Souris and others, that farmers and consumers, Canadians everywhere, want from the government a clear public policy, an open consultation process, a tough regulatory regime and decisions based on scientific evidence and independent research. That is absolutely clear. That is not happening today.
The Liberal spokesperson suggested that there was a wide open consultation process involving Canadians. That is not the case. There has been little opportunity for individual Canadians, citizens groups and farmers organizations to participate in an open discussion about where we go in the future with respect to biotechnology.
When it comes to the government statement around in-depth research and scientific investigation of this matter, I want to tell the hon. member that he is not portraying the situation as it actually is. There is now very little capacity in government in terms of in-depth research to determine the long term impacts of genetically modified food on health, soil and the environment.
As one example, I want to mention to the hon. member that his own Minister of Health promised back in 1997 to reopen a lab in the health protection branch to study genetically modified foods. Three years after that, the lab is still not open.
I also want to mention to him that I actually tried to inquire of the government how much money is spent on research in terms of genetically modified foods and how much of that $65 million it keeps touting as being assigned to food safety has been spent on genetically modified foods. What did I learn in a recent response to my question? There is currently one ongoing research project on a topic related to genetically modified foods with a planned expenditure in 1999-2000 of $166,389. There is no secret around the fact that the government has neither the capacity nor the will to do the ongoing research that is required.
Finally I want to say that no one in the debate has ever questioned the fact that there are benefits in terms of biotechnology. We are bringing to this discussion the issue of human safety and the right for consumers to know. What we are proposing today is very clearly a process that will allow individuals to know what they are eating and to make decisions based on the knowledge they are able to acquire.
We would like to go beyond that. Hopefully there will be time for another debate in the future to get the government to be more proactive and not to be bound so much by the needs of industry. It should not restrict its actions to blue ribbon committees which are very closely tied to the industry and not linked to consumer groups. We would like it to broaden the approach, be proactive on this issue, involve citizens and create exactly what I think every member of the House wants, which is a regulatory and policy framework that takes into account the impact on human health and the environment, and that it be done on the basis of ethical determinations that are agreed to by all Canadians. I do not think that is unreasonable.
As a final comment, I want to put on the record some thoughts from the New Democratic Party in terms of where we would like to see the government go with respect to biotechnology.
We have said that biotechnology as applied to food production is poised to expand significantly in the next millennium. That is no surprise to anyone. That is why we are having this debate today.
We have said that agricultural biotechnology contains both the promise of increasing production and adding value to agriculture, but also poses potential risks to production patterns, food safety and the environment.
We have said, and it is intrinsic to this whole debate, that preserving the health and safety of Canadians should be given the highest priority in evaluating and regulating new technologies in food production. This safety should be determined through science based decision making and independent sources of information.
We bring to this debate the sense from Canadians that they have grave concerns over the safety of genetically modified foods but lack the means to identify those products and make an informed choice about their purchase and consumption.
Those are the concerns that we bring to this Chamber and hope they form the basis for government action.