Debates of May 31st, 2000

Budget Implementation Act, 2000

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Reform Party for his intervention into—

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think my friend will remember that Mr. Speaker has already commented that the reform party no longer exists in this place and there is another party here now called the Canadian Alliance. I just thought I would point that out for my friend.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sure everyone here feels much better now.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it was an honest mistake. Sometimes I forget, and I think the majority of Canadians tend to forget, that this is a different political entity. I guess my confusion comes from the fact that reform is still in the name. I do not understand why there is a difficulty in referring to the Reform Party. It is the same as calling the Progressive Conservative Party the Conservative Party, periodically, or the Tory Party. It was an honest mistake, Mr. Speaker, and I assume that Canadians will make that honest mistake in the next election, as well, in forgetting that the Canadian Alliance is nothing more than a corporate re-imaging or a revamping of the Reform Party.

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure today that I rise to support my hon. colleague's motions to remove clauses 35 and 36 from Bill C-32, the budget implementation act. I share with my colleague his concern that the revenue agency already has more than ample power to enforce tax policies in Canada, and that in fact it has too much power.

I have not had one constituent come to me seeking help to strengthen the abilities of Revenue Canada in collecting money from Canadians. I have, however, had numerous constituents come to me citing egregious examples of abusive practices being performed by Revenue Canada. People, particularly those in small businesses, are being clamped down on by Revenue Canada at a time when it is difficult, with our level of taxation and regulatory burden, to have a successful small business to begin with. To have as one of their greatest enemies the federal government, through the revenue agency, which is on the attack and out to destroy them if unwittingly they fall into one of those grey areas because of the complexities of our tax codes, is clearly unfair and not consistent with the government's efforts to supposedly create an environment within which business can grow and prosper in Canada. The best way to have a small business in Canada is to start a big one and wait.

I have seen numerous examples of the abuse of small business people over GST issues in my riding. The heavy handedness of Revenue Canada, now the new Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, is consistently unfair and has created a situation of fear across Canada in the small business community and with ordinary Canadians who live in fear of that call or that letter from Revenue Canada.

A few years ago there was a study which evaluated the psychological impact of a number of events in people's lives. The fact is that people receiving a letter telling them they are being audited by either the IRS in the U.S. or by Revenue Canada has the same psychological impact as the death of a close relative.

I am sure that none of us would want to see the death of a close relative, but compared to a full audit by Revenue Canada there are probably some relatives we would trade in quite easily. All kidding aside, this is a very serious issue and I intend to support the motions of my hon. colleague, my unreformed colleague, in this regard.

The tax tinkering that I see in the budgets coming from this government, whether it is on the enforcement side or in terms of general tax policy, is clearly unacceptable. Other countries are using tax policy as a vehicle to create greater levels of economic growth and opportunity for their citizenry. Here we are in Canada with this government continuing its pathetic, anemic tax tinkering which will not really do anything that will have a major impact on the future of Canada.

The government boasts of progress in the recent budget and of steps in the right direction because of the fact that there was some level of tax reduction. These are baby steps. Baby steps in the right direction do not help Canadians if other countries are taking gigantic leaps. The finance minister is bragging of these small steps in the right direction, but a tortoise on the autobahn that is moving in the right direction is still roadkill, because the cars are moving faster. We as a country cannot afford to be that tortoise moving in the right direction on the autobahn. We have to be moving ahead of the pack and we have to provide our citizens and our businesses with the tools to not just compete globally, but to succeed globally. That means not just tax tinkering, but significant levels of tax reform. I do not mean reform in a party sense; I mean tax reform in a more generic sense. I would not want to be accused of tomfoolery in the House of Commons.

The issue of tax reform is extraordinarily important. I am sure my hon. friend would agree with me that we need a greater level of tax reform in the upcoming years. One of the most important areas of tax reform would be the elimination of the personal capital gains tax in Canada, which represents one of the single largest impediments to growth in the new economy of any of our taxes.

I see my colleague in the New Democratic Party shaking his head because he believes that the capital gains tax reduction would be a tax cut for the rich. He could not be more wrong. Over half of personal capital gains taxes in Canada are paid by people who are making less than $50,000 per year.

In terms of the new economy, there is no form of taxation that is any more deleterious in terms of its impact on the new economy than the capital gains tax.

We are, through our capital gains tax disadvantages, driving entrepreneurs, driving venture capitalists, driving the innovators whom we need to strengthen the new economy out of Canada. There is a consensus on this issue. The Senate banking committee and the House of Commons industry committee have spoken of the significant need for a reduction in capital gains taxes. We have seen a movement in the right direction, but our capital gains tax is still 13% higher than that of the United States. A 13% disadvantage is a signal to our innovators in Canada that we do not want their innovation. These people could build a stronger country. They could build stronger businesses. I want those businesses. I want that country to be Canada. I do not want it necessarily to be the U.S. We are driving people out of Canada.

The capital gains tax issue is particularly important based on the degree to which the new economy uses stock options to compensate employees. In the new economy the beneficiaries of stock options will not just be the fat cats on Bay Street, but the ordinary people: the receptionists, the innovators, the software engineers and the assembly people. All employees will benefit from these types of initiatives. We would be far better served as Canadians if the government and parliament were to focus on these types of issues as opposed to trying to strength Revenue Canada's ability to pillage and burn the private fiefdoms of Canadians. We should be trying to reduce the tax burden and impediments that the government places on Canadian entrepreneurs by changing our tax system and by reducing not just the tax impediments, but also the regulatory impediments.

When the government hears the need for tax reform, I suggest that its emphasis is on the wrong syllable. The government thinks that tax reform means strengthening Revenue Canada so it can collect more taxes. We in the Progressive Conservative Party suggest that tax reform means reducing and simplifying the Canadian tax system such that more Canadians succeed and ultimately do not have to pay as much tax when they choose to build their futures here in Canada.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is wonderful to have the support of the pathetic Conservatives. However, I want the House to know that it is a disappointment that it is always a day late and a dollar short.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat is good with the puns, but usually in debate, not on a point of order. We cannot let that slip through.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite amazed at the alliance member for Medicine Hat who introduced two motions which will effectively delay the enactment of Bill C-32, a bill that will deliver $2.5 billion in increased payments under the CHST to the provinces and territories for their health care systems and post-secondary education. It will ensure that students receiving assistance under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act will have a seamless transition in the fall and that their student loans will be protected. I am amazed they would introduce these spurious motions to delay the implementation of this bill, which Canadians want. Canadians have responded very favourably to budget 2000.

We can stand in the House to debate tax cuts and the pace at which we are making tax cuts. Of course, the alliance would like a flat tax, a tax which would move the tax burden from higher income Canadians to middle income Canadians. We could debate that and unveil the fact that the tax is not progressive and that it would hurt middle income Canadians. We could also demonstrate quite clearly that the tax would not be more simple. It would not be a simpler tax. Many Canadians think that a flat tax would be a simpler tax, but it would not be. When we put questions to members opposite as to whether there would be exemptions for health care, medical expenses over a certain amount, child care expenses, et cetera, they say yes to all of that. Yes, we would have a flat tax of 17%, but Canadians would still have to fill in the same forms. And, by the way, if those deductions were allowed, it would not be affordable in any case.

The hon. member for Medicine Hat talked about poor citizens being trampled upon by Revenue Canada, or the new revenue agency. I would point out that these measures are meant to allow the revenue agency to take action after having been to a court. A judge has to determine whether there is enough evidence presented by the revenue agency to allow it to collect the taxes. It is not the revenue agency acting on its own volition; it is getting a court order to do that. It is done only in exceptional cases, those very rare cases. Most taxpayers are honest, taxpaying citizens. To stand in the House and try to protect those people who are evading taxes is increasing the tax burden on all Canadians.

We have cases where people are collecting the GST and, because there is a delay in the remittance period, they are taking advantage of that. They have no intention of remitting the GST. What does that mean? That means that every one of us pays more tax.

The fact that this member and the member from the Progressive Conservative Party would stand and try to protect tax evaders I find scandalous. They know full well that people have the protection of the courts.

I would like to talk to the specifics of these particular measures. The hon. member opposite said that he understands these measures bring GST and HST collection into line with the Income Tax Act, but he says we should be moving the other way. We should be moving the measures under the GST and the HST the other way. In other words, we should be removing these provisions from the Income Tax Act.

Most Canadians do not try to evade taxes. They expect to pay their fair share of taxes. If taxes are not being remitted, I think that Canadians look upon the government to collect those taxes. The motions proposed by the hon. member for Medicine Hat do not take into account the fact that the government has that right.

The GST and the HST are collected by businesses and are held in trust on behalf of the people who paid that tax in good faith in the expectation that it will be remitted to the government. There are cases in which these taxes are not remitted. These people have no intention of remitting that money, and the hands of the revenue agency are tied under the current provisions.

The provisions under this bill would allow the revenue agency to go to a judge, demonstrate that there is a good case and collect the taxes that are owing on behalf of all Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The parliamentary secretary will have five minutes when the bill next comes before the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-12, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part II) in respect of occupational health and safety, to make technical amendments to the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed.

Canada Labour Code

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-12.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 1332

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from May 19 consideration of the motion and the amendment.

International Organizations

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Monday 29, 2000, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to Motion No. 30 under Private Members' Business. We will now vote on the amendment to the motion.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 1333

[The Speaker]

I declare the amendment carried.

The next question is on the main motion, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, as amended?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion, as amended, agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

May 31, 2000

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable John Major, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 31st day of May, 2000 at 6.15 p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,

Message From The Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

It being 6.15 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Genetically Modified Foods

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate steps to implement a labelling process that will make consumers aware of all genetically modified produce and components in processed foods.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to present a motion to the House on a matter of great significance, a public policy area that has serious ramifications for all society.

I do not have to tell any member of the House how seriously Canadians regard the issue of food safety and genetically modified produce. The matter weighs heavily upon the minds of Canadians and has certainly become a matter of intense debate, discussion and organizing right across the country.

The hour allocated for debate on this motion will hardly permit an indepth review of this issue. However, I am grateful that we have this hour because it will give us an opportunity to air some issues that are of grave concern to Canadians.

I am mindful of the fact that this is not the only opportunity we have had to debate this issue. As a result of work by other opposition members in the House, we have had recent opportunities to debate this very important issue.

A few weeks ago, on May 2 in the House, an entire day was devoted to discussing genetically modified foods and the need for a labelling process.

At this point, I would like to sincerely thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, who worked on this issue for over a year. She moved an opposition motion in the House on May 2. She also moved a motion under Private Members' Business. I want to apologize for my French, but I want to speak it for a moment to recognize the work of the Bloc Quebecois member.

The fact that there are two motions on the same issue at the same time before the House clearly indicates the importance of this issue for all members of parliament and for Canadians across the country.

What is so apparent from the proceedings in the House is that the initiative to have this critical matter of food safety and genetically modified produce discussed publicly and openly has come from the opposition parties in the House. It has come from individual, non-Liberal members. This is truly an effort on our part as well as on the part of members of the Bloc to fulfill an obligation that we hold as elected representatives to ensure open, democratic debate, public consultation and open, transparent government on something as important and fundamental as food safety.

This is really an attempt—and I know it is grating some of the Liberal members present today but it has to be said—to fill a vacuum left by the Liberal government, which has a well established pattern of secretive, less than democratic decision making around this important issue and on many of the important issues facing health protection and health safety systems in the country today.

The work of private members is very important in that regard. At least we can provide a venue for public debate on this important issue. At least we can be a conduit for the concerns our constituents are bringing to our attention, not having been able to penetrate the walls of the Liberal government.

It is important for us to have this time and opportunity, and hopefully out of it will come some pressure on the Liberal government to rethink its current position of inaction and passive response to something as important as food safety, particularly when it comes to genetically modified produce.

The work of a private member is no substitute for government action. The government has initiated no parliamentary debate, no public consultations and no democratic process for resolving a controversial and far-reaching public policy. There has been no leadership at the community level where, as members of the House know, the voices of Canadians have been heard loud and clear.

All of us have received hundreds of calls and letters on this issue. We have all presented a number of petitions to the House. We all know the number of times this issue has been raised either in Oral Question Period or in debate. Yet, there has been no proactive movement on the part of the government to address this issue.

Time and time again it was suggested in the health committee that this should be a topic of research and study. The matter of a joint study between the agriculture committee and the health committee was never even brought to the health committee. Motions and recommendations that individuals brought to the health committee to have this item placed on our agenda were dismissed, disregarded and ignored.

Anyone who has seen the recent coverage on the developments at the health committee will probably have a good understanding of why this has happened. On every major issue facing Canadians today when it comes to health care, our health committee has had its hands tied. Our committee has become almost dysfunctional because of our inability to crack through the wall of control that the Liberal government has placed around our committee.

We as a committee have not been requested or challenged to investigate the crisis in our public health care system. We have not been given the opportunity to discuss the crisis in our health protection system. All the while, developments are taking place, decisions are being made behind the scenes and policies are being initiated without any kind of parliamentary scrutiny, public consultation or sensitivity to the impact those policies will have on Canadians' health and safety.

There is no question, I believe, on the part of everyone in the House that the issue of genetically modified foods is a high priority for Canadians. I do not think there is any doubt about where that concern comes from.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. When we resume the hon. member will have six minutes remaining for her remarks.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act—Chapter No. 8.

Bill C-2, an act respecting the election of members to the House of Commons, repealing other Acts relating to elections and making consequential amendments to other Acts—Chapter No. 9.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the concern of Canadians when it comes to genetically modified foods is legitimate and must be taken seriously.

There has been a flood of genetically engineered products on the market in the last number of years. Some 30 to 40 products are now available on the grocery shelf. Some 60% of processed foods contain genetically modified foods. Large numbers of acreage are taken up with genetically modified crops.

This is a very significant development in the history of this country and it certainly causes Canadians legitimate concern. This has all happened without much knowledge on the part of Canadians. These decisions were made by governments some years back. There was no public consultation process. There is no policy framework in place to deal with the long term effects of this kind of development in our society today.

We are told time and time again not to worry. We are told that genetically modified foods are substantially equivalent to non-genetically modified foods. We are told there is no need to worry. Don't worry, be happy as my colleague for Palliser has said. That is the message from the government. We are here today to try to change that.

It is not good enough to tell Canadians not to worry and that the government will take care of their interests. Canadians have been faced with too many examples in the past where governments have taken shortcuts and Canadians have paid the price.

If we have learned anything from the Walkerton water tragedy, it should be that there can be no shortcuts when it comes to the safety of the food we eat, the water we drink, the blood transfusions we may require, or the drugs that are necessary for our medical conditions. To do anything less is to put people at the whim of the marketplace without any guarantee of safety. As someone once said to me, it is playing Russian roulette with the lives of Canadians.

We in the NDP are saying the precautionary principle should be that products should only go on the market when they have been proven to be safe. That is what should guide us through all of the developments in biotechnology. We are saying that if the science is unavailable or has not been completed, then surely we should not allow things on the market unless we know they are safe.

It is time for the government to hear the message. It has a responsibility to prove safety and ensure that the companies prove safety as opposed to the individual Canadian consumer proving harm. What creates the possibility of serious problems and disastrous consequences is when precautionary steps have not been taken. That is what we are asking to be done when it comes to genetically engineered food.

I cannot stand here and say that genetically engineered food is unsafe. However, I can say with absolute certainty and authority based on everything I have read that no one can say that there will never be any deleterious effects from genetically engineered food.

We cannot say at this point that there will be no long term effects on human health, on soil conditions or on the state of our environment. We do not have the ability to say that because we do not have the science. In fact, we have all kinds of science which suggests otherwise.

All kinds of studies say there could be lethal effects from genetically modified seeds on insects such as the monarch butterfly. We know that Roundup resistant crops may result in increased residue to the consumer, possibly causing non-Hodgkins lymphoma. We know that genetically modified seeds could render antibiotics useless. We know from news as recently as today that genes used to modify crops can jump the species barrier and cause bacteria to mutate. We know from the recent example of the company Advanta based in Winnipeg that problems occur when seeds spread from one crop to another. That is causing all kinds of ramifications in the European market. It is having a major impact on farmers in this country today.

We are here today to say that when we do not know all the answers and we do not have the science then we have to do something. We have to take steps. There are some things we can do. One is suggested in the motion today. It has been suggested as well by the member for Louis-Hébert that we could at least begin with a labelling process. We could at least guarantee that consumers have the knowledge they need to decide whether or not to consume genetically engineered food.

In the best of all worlds if we had taken all the precautionary steps, had the science in place and made sure that we knew what we were dealing with, maybe that would not have been necessary. At least at this point in time when the horse is out of the barn, we should be doing that which consumers are expecting us to do and that which is absolutely essential given the changing nature of the field. We should give consumers the information they need to make a decision, give them the right to know and the right to make an informed choice.

That is certainly something that is elemental. It is basic and something the government should be doing immediately. It should not set up one more biotechnology committee, not create an illusion of consulting while it spends $25 million on fancy booklets trying to tell Canadians that everything is safe and fine.

Canadians want open consultation. They want to be involved in the decision making process. All of parliament wants to be part of this process because what is fundamentally at stake here is human health, environmental health and the future of our society.

Without exaggerating the point, let us simply say that in the absence of sufficient knowledge to answer all of those questions, let us not take any chances. Let us put human health first. Let us put public safety ahead of the needs of the industry. Let us ensure that with every step forward we provide consumers with the right to know and with the information they need in order to make informed decisions. Let us also ensure that from this day forward all of our decisions are based on independent scientific expertise.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The motion calls for the compulsory labelling of genetically modified food.

At the outset I want to make one thing very clear. When it comes to biotechnology issues, including genetically modified foods, the Government of Canada's number one priority is to act as a responsible steward for the health and safety of Canadians and the environment. I would like to quote from a recent speech by the premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon. Roy Romanow:

Food created from genetically altered crops grown on the Canadian prairies didn't originate from some madman's spiderwebbed laboratory; it passed through one of the best government regulatory systems in the world. The products that make it through the Canadian biotechnology regulatory system have met demanding protocols that require conclusive research into the products' impact on human health and the environment. Almost universally, peer review of research data by scientists with extensive knowledge in the biotechnology field has supported the safety of products before they are allowed into the marketplace.

The Province of Saskatchewan has long been a supporter of carefully regulated biotechnology.

The previous premier of Saskatchewan, the hon. Allan Blakeney, was responsible for beginning the biotechnology centre at the University of Saskatchewan. Maybe the province of Manitoba should catch up with the province of Saskatchewan when it comes to its support for biotechnology research in food.

Let me emphasize that the Government of Canada's commitment is always to safety first: safety for the protection of Canadians, safety for animals and safety of our environment. That is what Canadians expect of their government. It is a mission that the government takes very seriously.

I remind the House that the government undertakes very strict scientific evaluations of all food products including those derived from biotechnology. Before any new agricultural biotech product can be produced and marketed in Canada, it is subjected to comprehensive safety assessments to ensure that humans, animals and the environment will not be adversely affected by it.

Health Canada maintains responsibility for establishing policies and standards related to the safety of food sold in Canada. This department sets the data requirements for the safety assessments of all foods and undertakes comprehensive pre-market reviews of all foods.

In terms of labelling, Health Canada sets the specifics for labelling of all foods. Current labelling regulations in Canada require that all food products, including those developed through biotechnology, be labelled when the potential human health or safety issue has been identified or if foods have been changed in composition or nutrition. Therefore Health Canada determines if and when labelling is required based on scientific food safety evaluations.

The role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, is to carry out inspection and enforcement activities relative to the food safety standards set by Health Canada.

The government recognizes that Canadians want to be heard on the issue of labelling. We are actively engaged and consulting with Canadians to explore how labelling can best serve the public. There is need for informed discussion on the issue of labelling genetically modified products.

The government is responding to the public's interest in the area and has carefully encouraged the establishment of a Canadian standard for the labelling of foods derived through biotechnology. The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors has been working with the Canadian General Standards Board to develop this labelling standard.

A committee composed of representatives and individuals from a broad range of Canadian interests has been established. This committee has already met for three intensive working sessions since it inception in November of last year. A number of working groups have been established to examine various components of the standard. These groups are focusing on the scope of foods to be covered under the standard, label statements and mechanisms to verify the truthfulness of these statements. A completed standard is expected within the next six to twelve months.

Canada is fully immersed in developing its own national standard in full consultation with the shareholders and in a way that is open and transparent to all Canadians. Because of the leadership of the government, we are the first country in the world to actively engage such a broad range of stakeholders in this issue. Earlier this month the U.S. food and drug administration announced similar plans to prepare labelling guidelines that will ensure that labelling is truthful and informative.

The development of a comprehensive Canadian standard for the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology allows consumers, health care professionals, other levels of government, processors, distributors and producers to work together in establishing a single national standard. I believe the government has done the right thing by taking this approach. As consumers, we have the right to clear, concise and understandable information that allows us to make knowledgeable choices about the foods we eat.

Moreover, Canada is assuming a leadership role in the search for international standards that would govern how and when genetically modified foods are labelled. In fact, Canada's food regulatory system is held in such high esteem internationally that the Codex Alimentarius committee on food labelling asked us to chair the working committee to revise the proposed draft of the Codex standard for the labelling of food biotechnology products.

I also remind the House that last year the ministers of health, the environment, and agriculture and agri-food asked the Royal Society of Canada to appoint an expert panel on the future of food biotechnology. This past February the Royal Society named its expert panel, which consists of scientists who have widely recognized expertise in specific areas of knowledge. This panel is carefully balanced with respect to the various points of view on biotechnology issues.

This proactive, forward thinking body will advise Health Canada, the CFIA and Environment Canada on the science capacity that the federal government will need to maintain and enhance the safety of new foods being derived through biotechnology in the 21st century.

Once again we can see that the Government of Canada is committed to maintaining the highest scientific standards. We strive to ensure that scientific advice is broadly based and that Canada's regulatory assessments keep pace with the latest scientific innovations and discoveries. This type of proactive thinking underlies our efforts to make sound policy decisions that will continue to protect Canadian consumers.

The government also recognizes there are a number of challenges and opportunities associated with biotechnology that require detailed consideration and public discussion. Food biotechnology presents Canadians with unprecedented challenges but also unprecedented opportunities.

The recently formed Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, CBAC, will bring stakeholders and interested parties together to advise the government, to raise public awareness, and to engage Canadians in an open and transparent dialogue on biotechnology issues.

CBAC will deal with tasks such as the issues surrounding regulation and stewardship of emerging applications of biotechnology, with public education about biotechnology, and with the social, economic, environmental, legal and ethical issues relating to food biotechnology. CBAC will monitor scientific developments that underpin new developments in the field of biotechnology and the application of those new developments.

Another important initiative is that of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. This committee raised labelling as a key issue in the 1998 report entitled “Capturing the Advantage: Agriculture Biotechnology in the New Millennium”. This report recommended that parliament consult with stakeholders to review labelling policy.

I recommend that report to the hon. member. She thinks that opposition members are the ones who are filling the void. She is missing the two years of activities of this government, in conjunction with six other departments besides the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, to put together the Canadian biotechnology strategy. I recommend that she pick up that strategy and read it. The present standing committee has already begun a series of hearings on the labelling of genetically modified foods.

I remind the House that during the debate on the same issue earlier this month my hon. colleagues from the Canadian Alliance called for a joint study by the health and agriculture committees of the issue of labelling. Such a review would add considerable information and raise the level of dialogue on the issue.

The House owes it to the people who are working so hard to study the issue of food biotechnology to wait until we hear what they have to say. The message we are sending to Canadians is this: our priority is health, safety and the environment. We have incorporated these values into a regulatory system and will continue to ensure that we have a regulatory system in place that is rigorous, thorough and scientific.

The Government of Canada considers the issue of labelling of genetically modified foods to be very important. We want to hear what Canadians have to say. We want to hear what the experts have to say. We remain committed to the exchange of ideas on the issues surrounding biotechnology.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is a pleasure to speak to this private member's bill. I congratulate the member for bringing it to the House. We get very frustrated, as she pointed out, in the health committee where we really cannot deal with any of the issues with which Canadians want to deal. We are forced instead to toe the line and simply go along with one little aspect of the health issue.

This is an issue for Canadians. It is one that they care about. It is one on which they want information. The government would be wise to learn that if information is provided an awful lot of the hearsay and scary stuff will be eliminated.

The age that we came from was much simpler when it came to biology. I cannot help but think back to my days in biology classes at the University of Saskatchewan when our professors would talk about what the future might be when it came to genetics, eugenics and all those sorts of issues. I cannot help but remember back to their talking about issues like Dolly and that sort of science ultimately being applied much further.

The problem with the failure of the government to provide information is that it is left open to emotion. It is left open to using non-scientific information that can frighten people including farmers, consumers and those who care about their health and the health of their families. It can scare them in terms of the new technology which they do not understand. By having that information in place and talking about it in detail we prevent the scary stuff from entering into the discussion.

I have seen what can happen when we deal with non-science, when we deal with what people think might happen. I encourage the government and the House to force the issue of GMOs in the whole area of biotechnology. We should force it to be transparent. We should involve the participation of as many groups including citizen groups as we can. We should go an extra distance with the consultation process and base all our decisions on scientific evidence, not hearsay evidence and the fear some might have.

The safety assessment of biotechnology is critical. We must look at it in our foods. We must ask what it does. We must know that using this technology is for the benefit of humanity, as opposed to a danger to humanity. We should not jump into what we will do. Information is key. The information available to our citizens is what we should be concerned about in the House.

We in the Canadian Alliance have developed a position which we have discussed at some length with our agriculture critic, our health critic, and our membership in general. We came up with a position I certainly want to read into the record. It is much more reasonable than what we have heard from the government side.

The alliance supports using scientific information to determine if an agricultural or food biotechnology product meets Canadian health and safety requirements. If it does, the acceptability of the product in the marketplace should be determined by consumer choice and not by political interference. The alliance supports increased consumer awareness and choice in the voluntary labelling of these products. The alliance also supports labelling of foods that are not genetically modified. This should be on a voluntary consumer driven basis, which would go a long way toward solving some of the problems of today.

While we come out somewhat in between where the hon. member stands in terms of genetically modified foods and where the government is at, the ends we would go to would be much the same and would accomplish the same for Canadians. That is what should be important when it comes to an issue like this one.

There are reasons to label everything. We can look at them, but we must ask some questions. Why would we do that? The obvious answer is for people with allergies and different genetic make-ups. There could be a peanut in something that they would not expect it to be in. That is an obvious reason. That is science and a reason for labelling. People are developing increased resistances and increased allergies. All kinds of medical issues should be dealt with, which we need a lot more information on.

We could simply respond to our trading partners. I particularly point to the European Union. In many respects, from the little bit I know about what the European Union has done, it seems that it has been stampeded into opposing genetically modified foods without the science that is there. We could point fingers at why that happened but we can understand the politics involved. Some of it would be justified and some would not. We should have learned from that however that we had better not get in that same category of being stampeded into labelling or not labelling just based on scientific fearmongering.

The obvious disadvantages we have think about when we talk about labelling, and the one that would be most significant to me, would be the cost to our agricultural community which is already under severe strain.

Over the past week I was in my riding talking to farmers at farmers' markets and at town hall meetings. One morning I met with a group of farmers and they told me that they were growing canola that was roundup resistant and that they were worried about what would happen if we started to overregulate. They said that it would hurt an industry that is already hurting. We must consider that and look at the consumers and the food manufacturers. We must tell the farmers that we will not get on the bandwagon of anti-GMO just because someone else is pushing us. We must make sure that we consider the farmers and all the others who are affected.

How would we enforce the labelling of genetically modified foods? I read an article once that said “If a chicken eats genetically modified grain does that mean you are going to label the chicken as being genetically modified?” My biology says that we have been eating chromosomes and genes for an awfully long time and that I will not become what I eat in terms of genetics. I am not likely to have canola growing out of my ears or a cob of corn under my neck or whatever. That is not science. It will not what happen.

I cannot help but think of some of the bills we have passed in this House. I cannot for the life of me imagine how we will enforce Bill C-23, which might be the most recent example. We will have sex police checking out couples. We will spend $4.5 million on health police to make sure Alberta follows the law. If someone in Alberta is extra billed or jumps the queue it will be on the front page of every newspaper in that province. We do not need police to do that. We also have the gun police for Bill C-68. I guess we will now have GMO police checking out what chickens are eating. I am not sure where all this stops.

The main point, as my time is running short, is that we should base things on science. We should have voluntary labelling based on consumer demand and we should let the consumers decide. We should base everything we do on science. We should also ensure that consumers are informed. The government must take a lead role in making sure that this information gets out to all Canadians who are concerned about this issue.