Debates of Oct. 16th, 2001

Income Tax Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made Friday, October 5, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at second reading of Bill C-209 under private members' business.

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

[The Deputy Speaker]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.33 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-287, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically modified food), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Food and Drugs Act

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-287 in principle, and I will expand on that later on.

The hon. member for Davenport is a very strong environmentalist. He has brought forth an issue which the vast majority of Canadians are asking for. They are asking for public debate on the labelling of genetically modified food.

We know from a myriad of public opinion surveys, which we should not use exclusively, that the vast majority of Canadians are in support of mandatory labelling of genetically modified food. A recent poll in the Globe and Mail cited it at 95.2% and a recent Decima poll had it at 87%.

Although this private member's bill replicates the Progressive Conservative position with respect to mandatory labelling of genetically modified food, we said in our election platform last November that we would work toward a law that would require the mandatory labelling of genetically modified food. We think that is where Canadians are and that is what we have before us today.

Bill C-287 tabled by the hon. member for Davenport has some very serious flaws which we would like to bring forth. The Progressive Conservative Party and our coalition partners in the DRC are concerned about them.

One is that the bill states that in order for a food to be defined as genetically modified free it must have a threshold of less than 1% of GMO. Even the best infrastructure we could have in place today would make that extremely difficult to utilize. The Europeans are using a threshold of 5%.

Another aspect we are immensely concerned about is the very real fact that the physical infrastructure is simply not in place to be able to, for example in the case of grains and oilseeds, separate those that are genetically modified from those that are GMO free.

The position we would like to talk about is quite simple. Bill C-287 is not intended to add health or safety benefits to the products of biotech. It is about Canadians' right to know what they are eating.

Although there is some difference of opinion about what the right approach would be, the Progressive Conservative Party and our coalition partners believe we should work toward a law to have mandatory labelling.

We are supporting this legislation in order to have the debate the Government of Canada should be having. That is why we are supporting it in principle at second reading. However the bill in its current form would be more difficult to support at third reading.

Biotechnology depends for its future success upon an informed and supportive public. Measures are needed to build public trust and gain the public's confidence in the safety of the food made using genetically modified plants and animals.

We believe that the biotech industry is a safe industry. This is not about the safety of our food but the minimum we should be providing to Canadians is the public right to know.

In the platform I spoke about earlier we said quite clearly that we would work toward a law requiring the labelling of genetically modified foodstuffs. We support Bill C-287 in principle on the basis of studying the matter further at committee. We need to say yes to debate and yes to discussion. That is the position we wish to follow at this time.

Mandatory labelling can occur in the future only if it is done in a cost effective way in concert with food labelling policies of other major food producing and trading countries. We are in a situation where there is not an established process with respect to mandatory labelling. The Europeans will have that in place very soon. We need to build more confidence in biotech. Labelling and having the confidence to label is a step in that direction.

There are countries that question the food safety or the marketability of the product. Our farmers know that they have to respond to this. The wheat farmers in Canada have said on previous occasions that they would prefer that we just get away from genetically modified wheat, that they do not want to be held at a competitive disadvantage either. Right now genetically modified soy cannot be marketed to Japan. Canola cannot be sold to Europe if it is genetically modified.

I would like to touch on a couple of issues that other individuals may raise throughout the context of this debate. There has been a fair amount of misinformation with respect to the report that was recently tabled by the Royal Society, in which voluntary labelling was recommended. That should be considered. I do not think that is where we will ultimately go.

With respect to its study, the Royal Society of Canada said that the panel recognizes there are broader social, political and ethical considerations and debate about mandatory labelling of GM foods that lie outside the panel's specific mandate. The discussion was not intended to provide an answer to the issue of mandatory labelling. It simply said that it was not within its mandate.

We have an august direction to take if a range of Canadians from 95.2%, as the Globe and Mail said, to 87%, according to the Decima poll,say that mandatory labelling is something they want to proceed with. It would be very wrong and very ill advised to vote against Bill C-287 and not at least have that discussion in committee.

That is what private members' bills are about: to educate the public, perhaps to embarrass the government on occasion if it is not going in a certain direction so that we can advance public policy. I want to congratulate the member for Davenport for bringing the bill forward although it has some very identifiable flaws in that we do not have the infrastructure in place today. The percentage he utilized is wrong as well. However it would be prudent for us to at least have a discussion at committee.

I am concerned on one aspect. I received a letter from the Minister of Health dated October 11, just five days ago, wherein he stated that voluntary labelling was the only route to take. I refer to a letter he sent to a constituent of mine who is a strong advocate of mandatory labelling, Sister Angelina Martz of the Sisters of Charity of the Immaculate Conception of St. John. She writes to me quite often. She consistently advances public policy. I was pleased to at least support the perspective of that constituent.

Canadians have made it very clear that they want to take this direction. We may have some concerns in terms of the timing of this initiative because the very last thing we would want to do is take even a nickel away from the farmers at the farm gate.

We are heading in the direction of mandatory labelling at some point in time. It is only prudent for us to at least have the discussion before Canadians and talk about the pluses and minuses and about the right timing to go forward with it.

We would like to vote in principle for the bill at second reading, but if the bill comes back at third reading in the exact form it is in right now, it will be difficult to support it.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak this evening to Bill C-287, which in my view is necessary.

It is vital that we recognize the desire of Canadians, which is consistent across the country, to ensure that labelling of genetically modified foods is made mandatory. This is the primary purpose of this bill.

As for the principle, I believe that the vast majority of Canadians are in agreement and I also believe that it is our duty to carry out their wishes.

Does the bill require any amendments, corrections or adjustments? Perhaps. It is in committee that this work must be done. I therefore intend to support the bill at second reading so that the appropriate House of Commons committee can study it.

It should be pointed out that supporting this bill is not voting against genetically modified foods. Some people make this connection. They say that anyone supporting this bill is automatically against the existence of genetically modified foods and the fact that they are sold on the Canadian market. That is simply not true.

The concept of mandatory labelling is not ipso facto systematic opposition to genetically modified food. On the contrary, it is instead a proposal of choice, relating to the principle that consumers are entitled to know what they are eating. Our bottom line is merely a call for support of that principle, the consumer's right to know what he or she is consuming.

That right manifests itself in the labelling of the foods we buy in our grocery stores. That is what this bill seeks to do.

Nor is this a vote against our farmers. I say the opposite is true; it is vote in favour of our farmers. If Canadian consumers no longer have the right to know what they are consuming as far as GMOs are concerned, the next step will be a food boycott.

Moreover, the desire to protect the farmer, which appears to be the motivation of those opposed to this bill, is in danger of turning against the very people it is trying to help, that is, this country's farmers.

This is not a vote against the farmers, nor against genetically modified foods. It is vote in favour of the consumers' right to know what they are consuming.

I must admit that I was somewhat stymied by a little document sent to our offices today encouraging MPs to vote against this bill. It comes from the agrifood industry. A number of points are raised in it and I would like to address a few of them.

One of the first, in which they claim a vote in favour of the bill is a vote of censure, states as follows:

A vote in favour of Bill C-287 means a vote of censure against our world-class regulatory bodies.

This is not the case at all. This means that if a vote in the House amends or expands upon a legislative measure, or some regulatory measure. it represents censure of the body responsible. This is not the case.

What it is instead is a demonstration that our society is evolving, our knowledge is evolving, our ability to genetically modify foods, non-existent fifteen or so years ago, now does exist and needs to be reflected in our regulations, in our legislation. This is not censure. Saying that it is, in a way, is taking us for fools.

The second point that is raised, I will read in English.

Mandatory labels on ALL food products containing GM ingredients, estimated at 60-70% of products currently on store shelves, despite the fact that they have undergone a rigorous approval process.

If we vote against Bill C-287, that is what this means. I have a serious doubt about that.

My colleague who spoke before me referred to a very important document, entitled “Recommendation for Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada”, prepared by an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada. It is important to note what they recommended for security in our food system. Recommendations 8.1 and 8.2 state:

The Panel recommends the precautionary regulatory assumption that, in general, new technologies should not be presumed safe unless there is a reliable scientific basis for considering them safe. The Panel rejects the use of “substantial equivalence” as a decision threshold to exempt new GM products from rigorous safety assessments on the basis of superficial similarities because such a regulatory procedure is not a precautionary assignment of the burden of proof.

The Panel recommends that the primary burden of proof be upon those who would deploy food biotechnology products to carry out the full range of tests necessary to demonstrate reliably that they do not pose unacceptable risks.

It seems that in some circumstances we are relying on the concept of substantial equivalence to determine that. The Royal Society has determined that it is not appropriate.

The third point made is as follows:

If the bill is passed, producers will be forced to reformulate their food products with ingredients that do not contain GMOs, as they have had to do in other countries.

This raises the following question: If it is what consumers want, then is it not up to vendors to ensure that they get it, especially when it is feasible? Who is deciding here? Consumers or vendors? Are we being asked to reverse the law of supply and demand? It is completely absurd. We could not, because we would have to change what we are offering consumers, and give them what they want. It is completely backwards.

We are told that if we support the bill there will be a drop in investment in biotechnology which will lead to the loss of beneficial genetic technologies and life sciences programs in Canada.

I would assert that the opposite is true. If this technology poses no risks, then why not be up front? The best way to do this is through mandatory labelling on genetically modified food products.

Over the years, consumers will become aware of what they are eating, which will have the opposite effect: a greater acceptance of the technology and therefore more private sector investment in order to offer more products. However, the opposite of what they claim is also true. If in fact the country does not require mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods, there may be a backlash. Consumers may well say “If you will not give us want we want in terms of information, we will obtain it some other way. We will insist on it”.

Some companies have already decided not to stock genetically modified products in their stores. The consequences for our farmers, agricultural industries and the agrifood sector are serious. We would be wise to think carefully before voting blindly.

Finally, they say a vote against Bill C-287 would ensure that food companies would continue their ongoing dialogue with consumers about manufacturing processes, including the use of GM ingredients, the toll free number and websites.

They have just given us the solution for mandatory labelling. It is very simple. We can design a symbol and that symbol could be affixed on food products, be they packaged or not. When people buy fresh food products, be they vegetables or fruits, they will find a sticker with numbers on them, including where they have been grown.

That symbol of genetically modified food products could become universal, as other symbols have become, and could be affixed on all food products, packaged or otherwise, with a website address or a 1-800 number for Canadians to call and get the information they want.

No one is asking that we put a label on each apple. However, a person could easily find out how a particular food product has been modified genetically through a website address or a 1-800 number, thereby giving the consumer what he or she deserves, that is, the information they want in order to determine what they eat.

That is what is at stake here. It is not a vote against genetically modified foods. It is not a vote against our farming community. It is a vote in favour of consumers.

Canada has a symbiotic relationship between the farming community and the urban community. Whenever our farming community needs help, quite often the urban community comes through, perhaps in some cases not enough and I recognize that, but it has come through by way of tax grants and programs.

The reverse is also true. Not only the urban community, where the bulk of consumers is located, but Canadians everywhere are demanding to know, via mandatory labelling, whether they are consuming genetically modified foods. That is to the advantage of our farming community as well.

When we vote on this tomorrow, I invite all my colleagues to vote in favour of sending this bill to committee so we can seize the government of this important matter.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the public who is watching this debate may know, the issue is a private member's bill which would mandate that there be a label placed on all foods that are genetically modified. It would say either “This food is genetically modified” or “This food contains an ingredient that is genetically modified”. The fact is that there are pros and cons to this move, as there are to most moves.

First I would like to tell the public what this bill means by genetically modified. It states:

“Genetically modified food” means a food that is derived from a plant, animal, microorganism or other biological entity capable of transferring or replicating genetic material including sterile organisms, viruses and viroids when such entity possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology.

It is biotechnology producing a novel trait in a particular food or food product.

I would like to also quote to the public from an article by Peter McCourt who is a professor in the botany department at the University of Toronto and holds an NSERC chair in plant genetics. He is an expert.The reason I am quoting Mr. McCourt is to shed a bit more light for the public on the whole matter of genetic modification of foods and crops.

He states:

The argument is that the insertion of genes often combined with novel DNA sequences that regulate their expression in the plant could result in unpredictable effects. Although this could be true, it is just as likely to occur in nature or by any other traditional breeding process. The food we eat has been continuously genetically engineered by natural phenomena in ways that do not differ from the way we carry out GM technology now. For example, up to 20 percent of some plant genomes contain genetic elements that destabilize genes and genomes, move the genes around, mutate and rearrange themselves randomly. Furthermore, the hybridization of genomes of various species that occurs in traditional breeding programs also leads to new and untested combinations of genes. The mistakable safety argument is that the problem is the process of crop production. The concern should be on the product--not how it was made. No food product, whether traditional or modified by recombinant DNA, is without risk; this is why government agencies test these products.

What I understand Mr. McCourt to say is that the genetic modification of food can and does occur naturally as well as by design, and that the issue is not how the genetic modification occurs but whether the food is safe.

The questions for the public are these. First, is genetically modified food safe for me? Second, if I am in doubt about that, should I have a label on the food that at least lets me know that what I am eating may have been or was genetically modified, bearing in mind that genetic modification can be by design and also can occur naturally, according to a genetics expert?

I would like to place before the public and before the House some of the pros and cons that I have gathered in discussing and reading about this issue. I would like to thank my colleagues who have been very helpful to me in understanding this, the member for Selkirk--Interlake and my colleague from Nanaimo--Alberni, who is also with me as health critic.

I will list the pros of labelling food as genetically modified. This is not an exhaustive list but it is the best I have been able to compile.

First, there is inadequate scientific testing at the present time to ensure that genetically modified foods are safe. There is just not enough science, many argue, to prove there is safety in this kind of food.

Second, warning bells have been sounded in the case of some genetically modified foods.

Third, there may be unknown health risks.

Fourth, safety should be the first and foremost consideration.

Fifth, even existing science on the subject has been influenced by the industry that depends on foods and food processing for jobs and income.

Sixth, labelling gives people a choice because if they know a food is genetically modified and they are concerned, they can eat something else.

Seventh, the Royal Society of Canada's expert panel says that there is currently no systematic scientific evaluation process to establish the safety of GM foods for human consumption.

Those are some of the main reasons I have heard to support mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods. However, I can also provide an equal number of arguments against it.

First, the European Union recently released a study which found no significant problems with genetically modified foods.

Second, we should not make public policy on maybes. If there is no scientific evidence, then we should not legislate.

Third, there is already mandatory labelling when particular foods or products have been demonstrated to be a health risk or concern. For example, foods containing genetically modified products that lead to the same result as maybe peanuts or other nuts, to which some people are allergic, are already labelled.

Fourth, there would be massive costs to mandating a label for all foods that are genetically modified or contain genetically modified elements. This massive cost would really hurt the agriculture and food processing industries.

Fifth, the science to date shows no unacceptable risk.

Sixth, labelling would suggest there is a problem. In other words, people would ask why the government is putting a label on something if there is no good reason to do so. They could conclude that there must be a problem if there is a label. That would cause concerns where there ought not be any or where there is no evidence that there are any real concerns.

The last argument is that our largest trading partner, the U.S., with which we conduct 80% of trade, would likely refuse to send us food if it had to label it because that would be a huge cost, especially when there are no food safety risks yet shown.

Like anything else, there are arguments for and against mandatory labelling. I think my colleagues in the House who have suggested that this matter is serious enough and uncertain enough that it needs further study are correct.

I would support a vote in the House to send the bill to the committee so that these pros and cons could be further explored and weighed by members and we could come to a proper conclusion.

We have a duty to Canadians. We want to do our best for them. We want to make sure that we protect their safety to the greatest reasonable degree and I think only further study by members of the House in committee will allow us to do this.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to remind the House and Canadians that October 16 is World Food Day. Today is the day when we commemorate the founding of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. It was founded here in Canada, in Quebec City, on October 16, 1945. The theme this year is to fight hunger to reduce poverty. It underscores the need to alleviate hunger in order to eradicate poverty around the world.

I would like to first congratulate the member for Davenport for his work on this issue and particularly for his work on the environment. In saying that, though, I would have to say that I disagree with his approach on this issue.

I recognize that the labelling of genetically modified foods has become an important issue for consumers. However, I do not believe that Bill C-287 is the best way to achieve this goal. Clearly a public discussion involving parliamentarians needs to take place. I am glad that the government has done that and has asked the committee on health to look into this very important issue.

Let me turn to a few specifics for a quick overview of exactly what we do first here in Canada with regard to genetically modified foods.

Health Canada and, in particular, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, share accountability for food labelling policies under the Food and Drugs Act. Health Canada's responsibilities derive from its mandate for health and safety issues. I might say to all members of parliament and Canadians that we have the safest food standards in the world. We can be assured that Canadian food is safe because we have the people in place in the CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and in Health Canada who take the time to look at these issues and to look at these foods before they are put on our plates.

I recognize that the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology has become an important issue for consumers. I am glad that the government continues to discuss these issues with groups within Canada and in international organizations.

Recognizing that there is a need for a public discussion involving parliamentarians, as I said, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Industry and the Minister for International Trade contacted and wrote to the members of the health committee asking them to look at this very important issue. There are a number of concerns, particularly in rural Canada, as was mentioned earlier, as to how this sort of labelling would take place and the onus it would put on Canadian farmers today to bear the cost of this labelling.

In addition, one of the initiatives underway in Canada is the development of a Canadian standard for voluntary labelling of foods derived from biotechnology in a project led by the Canadian Grocery Council of Distributors and the Canadian General Standards Board, which are two groups of individuals who have taken the time to consult with Canadians across the country on this very important issue.

The draft labelling standard was put forward in July 2001 and is currently now open for comment from across the country. I would like to say that this group is accepting comments from Canadians who want to be involved and want to have a say on this issue until mid-October, with the final publication of the final standards hopefully by March 2002.

Another initiative underway is that of the Canadian biotechnology advisory committee, which is currently preparing advice for government on the regulation of GMO foods, including information provisions to support informed choice with labelling. I guess that is one of the concerns that a number of us had: that the choice of Canadians would be an informed choice. As the hon. member knows, being involved with the European parliamentary association, I do not think they have had the informed choice over there. We want to make sure that Canadians do in fact have that informed choice.

In its interim report released in August, the committee recommended that the government should support the development of an approach to labelling genetically modified foods. It suggested the implementation of a voluntary standard, such as what was being developed by the Canadian General Standards Board, at least initially, in order to test its adequacy and effectiveness and recognize the need for a reliable verification system to support labelling, whether it is a voluntary one or a mandatory one.

It also recognized that the government must continue to work with other countries to develop a harmonized international approach for labelling genetically modified foods. It is critical to have set standards for international trade and for our Canadian products to continue to go into places such as Europe.

The committee is seeking input on its final draft recommendations and we look forward to learning how Canadians respond to this interim report.

I want to talk a bit about what has been said in a few statements by these two groups. The first one is the Royal Society. The Royal Society is a group of Canadians consisting of scientists, researchers and people who are in the know about these sorts of issues. The government has called upon and relied on them to look at this very complex issue and to make some determinations. The Royal Society report stated:

In the end, however, the Panel concluded that there was not at this time sufficient scientific justification for a general mandatory labelling requirement. However, the Panel concluded that many of the concerns identified in this Report do call for a strongly supported voluntary labelling system for GM foods.

The report went on to state:

Many of the concerns voiced in favour of mandatory labelling can be addressed, at least in part, by voluntary labels. This is true, not only of the social, ethical and political concerns, but also of some of the risk-related concerns, especially those related to uncertainties and even fears about unsubstantiated risks associated with GM foods.

The panel believes that strong government support for voluntary labels is an effective way of providing consumer input into these issues, and encourages the Canadian regulatory agencies responsible to establish guidelines for the regulation of reliable, informative, voluntary labels.

The Canadian biotechnology advisory committee made the following recommendations. It said that Canada should develop a set of clear labelling criteria regarding the GM content in food and that further effort could be placed on the ongoing labelling initiative of the Canadian General Standards Board and the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors.

It also recommended we implement the labelling standard voluntarily, at least initially, in order to test its adequacy and effectiveness and widely promote its use so that people have real opportunities to make informed choices.

That is certainly the direction in which I think the government should go and it is a direction in which I think we as parliamentarians should go to make sure Canadians across the country have informed choice.

Bill C-287 raises a number of feasibility issues which I believe can be addressed and studied at the Standing Committee on Health. I would like to outline a few of the problems I see.

Amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, as proposed in the bill, would, I believe, create a two tiered system for genetically modified foods. Depending on the method used and the development of the specific foods, foods falling under the new definition would be required to be labelled to indicate the method of production while others derived from more traditional modification would be subject to voluntary labelling schemes. I think these sorts of issues need to be addressed at the committee.

What concerns me more is the fact that with the actual implementation of the bill mandatory labelling would require segregation in handling, transportation and processing systems and the cost would be borne by our farmers. The cost of changing the farms and the way they operate would put an undue hardship on farmers. I think that is why farm organizations across the country have looked at the bill and decided that there should be other ways to approach it. I am sure that they, along with consumer groups and other groups, would be more than happy to sit down and discuss the bill when the Standing Committee on Health takes a look at the issue.

Bill C-287 is intended to respond to consumer demand for choice. However the better approach to take is the approach being put forward by me, by rural Canadians, and by a group of other interested Canadians who want to talk about this issue and want to appear before the Standing Committee on Health.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Before the hon. member for Champlain begins his speech, I must inform the House that four minutes of debate remain before we proceed to consideration of private members' business.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, four minutes go by pretty quickly. Perhaps it is my fault, but I wish the Chair had recognized me a little sooner. Regardless, I will try to get my message across in four minutes.

First, the Bloc Quebecois and I agree with the bill on GMO labelling. I think it serves more than getting a debate going, as some have said. Consumers must have a choice. It is time to stop thinking for them.

I have information from the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale du Québec, the AFEAS. I recall working with a number of ministers in Quebec's national assembly. One minister said to me “When the AFEAS puts its mind to a problem or an issue, it gives considerable thought to it and its comments are real”.

I can say that the AFEAS in Quebec, and especially the one from the St. Maurice region, have expressed their concerns to me about the fact that people are almost obliged to eat genetically modified products. I agree with my Liberal colleague, who said earlier that they have yet to be proven dangerous. True enough, but the opposite has not been proven either.

I think this debate is important and it should be broad. We have to find out where we are going with GMOs. I remind those watching that I have spent my life in the field of agriculture. I need not tell them that in the past when people wanted to transform an animal and change it genetically they took their time. I am not saying there is anything wrong with going a little faster today, except that I see mistakes being made in genetic improvements. We did not always end up with the animal we thought we would. This applies to plants and to the food we eat as well.

As for the genetically modified foods we eat today, there is no evidence that we will not come to regret it, even from a human health standpoint. I agree with the 87% of Canadians and the 89% of Quebecers who, in response to a Léger Marketing poll last July, said that they wanted the government to make labelling of foods which have been genetically modified or which contain genetically modified material mandatory, not voluntary.

I think that this is a start. Even if all that results is that a parliamentary committee has to try to take it further and get to the truth about genetically modified foods, I would be in favour of this bill, but in my opinion we must go further still. The bill must be passed and put into force and stiff fines levied for failure to comply with its provisions.

Apparently, provision would be made for identifying content of over 1% of genetically modified material. The 1% is not an objective; it is there in case of error. Consumers have the right to know what they are eating.

In conclusion, I would recall the advertising campaign by a certain company that the consumer was king in its establishment. In Canada and in Quebec, the consumer must continue to be king. He has the right to know what he is eating.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to raise the fact that it is private member's hour where we have a long established tradition of private members' representing all the different political parties in the House having an opportunity to speak. It has always been the intention of this party to participate in this debate.

I stood in my place on numerous occasions to indicate my intention to speak. In the preceding three-quarters of an hour Your Honour has chosen to recognize two private members who happen to be Liberals. There may be some particular difficulties on that side of the House requiring the two opposing views to be presented to the House this evening, but in all fairness there needs to be some recognition of the five parties in this place and some recognition of members of each of those parties to speak.

I wanted to speak tonight and join in commending the member for Davenport on the bill. I wanted to give our support for his efforts and to make some recommendations. Given the traditions of the House, I would ask if you would seek unanimous consent to allow me to have 10 minutes to speak to Bill C-287.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I would like to explain to the hon. member that many members wanted to speak this evening and that there was a real squeeze given that it was the last hour of debate before the vote on the bill tomorrow.

At some point in time the Chair had to make a decision to balance those who were for and those who were against the bill. I wanted to ensure a better understanding for the public and for our colleagues in the House to help members make up their minds before voting tomorrow afternoon. That was the reasoning behind it. There was no offence intended. I was trying to accommodate as many members as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I appreciate your explanation, but I still maintain that a time honoured tradition is at stake here. It is questionable how one would be able to determine positions on this issue until individuals have spoken.

In the interests of private members' business we have at least allowed a member from every party to speak and express a viewpoint. I would ask again that if 10 minutes is too much, you would seek unanimous consent to allow 5 minutes for my speech.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to support the member opposite. However there was some suggestion that the Liberals were divided on this issue and that you decided to have a pro and a con.

I have been on the list since last spring to speak in this debate. I support the member for Davenport and I want the record to show that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member's point is taken.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would be in agreement, provided that the NDP member may speak for a length of time equivalent to that allowed my Bloc Quebecois colleague for his speech, which was four minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent to allow the member for Winnipeg North Centre to speak for four minutes, which would be equivalent to the time given to the Bloc Quebecois member?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.