Mr. Speaker, Bill C-287, which deals with mandatory labelling, as put forward by the member for Davenport, represents a personal interest of his. I sat on the environment committee that he chaired.
The member is speaking on behalf of farmers and farm organizations. The member should look at what the letters which received from the farm organizations actually state. They do not support mandatory labelling.
For quick reference, I will refer to a letter from the National Dairy Council of Canada addressed to the member for Davenport, which is also supported by corn and grain growers and other farm groups. The essence of their letter was that:
We find it difficult to appreciate the need for mandatory labelling legislation at this time. It is certainly not a food safety issue, as CFIA and Health Canada are reviewing stringently the safety of those products. We doubt it can be a nutritional or allergy issue, either.
Those are also dealt with by the people who regulate our food safety in this country.
Not only do we have to look at the arguments put forward by the member for Davenport, we also look at the arguments of other players in this issue, including the many millions of Canadians who do not want mandatory labelling. They want a voluntary labelling system that responds to their consumer demands.
I note that Bill C-287 acknowledges there is no safety risk to our food supplies. Clause 7.1(1) states:
No person shall sell or offer for sale a food that contains more than one per cent of a genetically modified food.
If we are going to allow 1%, then we are consuming it. The bill itself states that the food is safe. The argument then gets down to why would we have mandatory labelling? It is due to a response that the member feels a significant number of consumers want it. There are a significant number of consumers, people in agriculture in particular, who say that mandatory labelling is not required and let consumer demand, through the retailer and the wholesaler, make the case. The consumers of course is spending the dollar, so if the demand is there the dollar will be spent on what the consumers wants. If they are demanding mandatory labelling, they will say that they will not buy unlabelled food. That is clearly not the case.
I will not be supporting Bill C-287 because it will implement the mandatory labelling, which is not the right approach for Canada. The majority of farm organizations that I met with were not in favour of this.
I would also point out that the Royal Society of Canada expert panel concluded in its report:
The panel believes that strong government support for voluntary labels is an effective way of providing consumer input into these issues, and (the panel) encourages the Canadian regulatory agencies responsible to establish guidelines for the regulation of reliable, informative voluntary labels.
That is the essence of the argument. There is no safety issue. The response to the consumer is the important thing. I am a farmer; a cattle rancher. I respond to the consumers and give them the products they want and for which they are willing to pay. That is the same with this labelling issue. There is no reason to have mandatory labelling. It should be left up to the consumer. The Canadian Alliance policy refers to the fact that we support voluntary labelling.
Those are the comments I would like to make in this debate.