House of Commons Hansard #151 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was police.

Topics

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 19, 2003, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, on October 21, I asked the Minister of Agriculture if he would turn down Monsanto's application to release genetically modified wheat in Canada given the growing opposition by farmers and agricultural groups.

The minister's reply was that another step in the process might be needed before any product is commercialized.

There are good reasons why Monsanto's application should be turned down.

First, three leading plant scientists at the University of Manitoba have concluded that the unconfined release of Monsanto's Roundup Ready wheat in western Canada poses a high level of environmental risk. I quote:

The unconfined release of Roundup Ready wheat will negatively affect the environment and limit farmers' ability to conserve natural resources on farms in western Canada.

The authors, Dr. Rene Van Acker, Dr. Anita Brûlé-Babel and Lyle Friesen, went on to say in their report, which I will quote:

Under current conditions, the release of Roundup Ready wheat in western Canada would be environmentally unsafe.

The three researchers are with the Department of Plant Science in the Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences at the University of Manitoba. They were asked by the Canadian Wheat Board to assess the impact of unconfined release. They concluded, and I quote:

The unconfined release of this product will threaten the sustainability of reduced tillage cropping systems in western Canada and as such it will pose a risk to the environment and natural resource conservation on managed ecosystems (farms) in western Canada.

The second reason is that the Canadian Wheat Board does not favour genetically modified wheat for fear of losing exports worth about $4 billion. Apparently, 82% of wheat board customers do not want genetically modified wheat.

Third, health and scientific authorities have identified possible health risks associated with genetically modified food. We are told these possible health risks might be exacerbated with the introduction of genetically modified wheat into the food supply since wheat is so widely consumed.

Therefore, as the least precaution, all genetically modified food should be labelled so that consumers can make a choice and, if they wish, avoid food produced with genetically modified ingredients.

This evening I would like to urge the parliamentary secretary, as I did his minister, to adopt a prudent course of action and turn down Monsanto's application. In doing so, the minister will protect the economic well-being of Canadian farmers, he will take care of the economic interests of the Canadian Wheat Board and he will maintain a healthy and viable ecosystem in the public interest.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Portneuf Québec

Liberal

Claude Duplain LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Davenport on October 21, regarding Monsanto's application to release genetically modified wheat.

This new wheat developed by Monsanto is called Roundup Ready. The hon. member's question is based on the premise that Roundup Ready is a threat to the economy and to the environment.

As the hon. member must know, the government is concerned primarily with the product's safety, which is determined by scientific assessment. Before any new plant material such as Roundup Ready can be marketed, it must obtain a whole series of separate approvals. It must obtain approval from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the CFIA, regarding its environmental safety and its safety as animal feed. Moreover, Health Canada must approve it with regard to safety for human consumption.

A new type of plant must pass through all these assessments before it is approved for general cultivation. For example, it cannot be cultivated solely for animal feed if it has not also been approved for human consumption and with regard to environmental safety.

I wish to inform the House that Monsanto Inc. asked that Roundup Ready wheat be evaluated by Health Canada in July 2002, followed by an application for unconfined release into the environment in December of the same year.

In response to the hon. member's specific concern about the environmental risk, I would point out to the House that the CFIA is examining the issue from all angles.

It will determine whether this wheat will become more invasive or weedy than other strains of wheat, whether it can be crossed with wild relatives, whether it will become a plant pest, whether it will have a negative impact on non-target organisms, and whether it will have a negative impact on biodiversity.

The assessment also covers other aspects such as sustainable farming practices and the impact the new strain of wheat could have on agronomic practices. A new plant that changes agronomic practices in a way that is not consistent with sustainable farming is not approved.

These are important issues in connection with the effects on the environment of Roundup Ready wheat. I can assure the hon. member that the CFIA will carry out an indepth assessment of this wheat, make use of the recognized expertise of the Plant Biosafety Office and call on outside expertise, where necessary. I can also assure the hon. member that it will be just as rigorously assessed by Health Canada.

Another issue must be examined before GMOs may be introduced. As the hon. member indicated, this issue is the economic impact of the new strain. Will our trading partners close their borders to Canadian products for fear that they have been contaminated by GMOs that they have not approved?

That is an important issue; that is why we are looking into it with other stakeholders, such as our provincial and industry partners.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7:05 p.m.

Liberal

Charles Caccia Liberal Davenport, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer.

I really appreciate what he has told us this evening; naturally, the decision-making process must be respected. At the same time, I want to emphasize that consumers must at least be given the choice, when it comes to genetically modified products.

That is why I want to inform the House once again of the need to introduce mandatory labelling so that consumers can make informed decisions and identify products without genetically modified ingredients.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Claude Duplain Liberal Portneuf, QC

Mr. Speaker, in fact, since I did not have enough time to do so earlier, there is one thing I want to clarify: we have not yet made a decision to develop additional approval measures based on anticipated impact on the economy. However, I can assure the House that we are very aware of the concerns raised by the hon. member.

Canada has a strong biotechnology surveillance program. The Canadian biotechnology strategy includes a wide range of activities and initiatives, in particular, the identification of common issues, risk management and the implementation of measures to ensure public confidence in how Canada reacts to the challenges of biotechnology.

This approach to biotechnology has constantly evolved to respond to new scientific advances. Clearly, if a novel food ever presented a serious risk for our business practices, the appropriate action would be taken.

However, we are still just assessing the future impact. Until we know the outcome of discussions between Monsanto and stakeholders on the marketing of Roundup Ready wheat, there is no point in changing our current practices.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, this is the third time in a week that I have risen in this House to remind the government of the series of questions we asked in May 2003, calling upon the government to put in place an assistance plan for the softwood lumber industry.

We did get responses from the government, particularly through the Minister of Natural Resources. He explained what they were doing and stated, “If we need to do more, we have said right from day one that we will”. The minister was under the impression that the dispute was going to be settled within days.

Six months later, there is still no settlement. We are still waiting for the government to come up with phase two of the assistance plan to help the softwood lumber industry and help the regions concerned to diversify their economy.

The Minister of Natural Resources also invited opposition members with any constructive ideas to put them on the table for discussion. I have some constructive ideas to contribute. I am asking the parliamentary secretary whether he is prepared to recommend that his government extend the regional economic diversification program, which has had some results in terms of helping businesses out, but that it also create a phase two for the assistance plan in order to help the companies directly.

Why not provide guarantees to companies that have paid more than $1 billion to the U.S. in compensation for the 27% tariffs? Why could the government not guarantee these companies that these fees will be reimbursed, if the U.S. does not reimburse them?

That would be an acceptable form of aide that would help them a great deal and allow them to borrow money from their creditors for other projects such as development projects or purchasing machinery in order to increase their productivity. At present, companies can no longer replace their equipment, because of the situation they are in.

Can we rely on this government, knowing that things will not be resolved tomorrow and that we will probably have to wait another year, to truly implement phase two of the assistance plan for the softwood lumber industry, for the sake of the industry and the workers and to diversify the regional economy?

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7:10 p.m.

Nunavut Nunavut

Liberal

Nancy Karetak-Lindell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the member that finding a permanent solution to this trade dispute remains without question a priority of the federal government.

There has been progress made on the legal challenges to the duties on Canadian softwood lumber imposed by the United States. The recently released final report by the WTO on the countervailing duty order found that the U.S. violated international trade rules in its determination that Canadian lumber producers are subsidized. In addition, on September 5, 2003 a NAFTA panel decision found that the United States failed to substantiate its claims that Canadian softwood lumber threatens to injure U.S. producers. If the U.S. cannot sustain its determination, there will be no basis for the imposition of duties against Canada's softwood lumber exports. This decision upholding Canada's position will help us find a long term durable solution to the dispute, one that is in Canada's interest.

As we wait for the United States to rescind its trade actions, the Government of Canada will continue to defend in every way possible Canadian industry, Canadian workers and Canadian communities.

We on this side have responded. To mitigate the various effects of this trade dispute on the entire industry and on workers who depend on the Canadian lumber industry, the Government of Canada announced in 2002 measures representing more than $355 million. Funds were targeted toward assisting workers through training and job sharing programs, investing in research to promote the long term competitiveness of the forest sector, opening new markets for Canadian wood products and helping to address the mountain pine beetle epidemic in British Columbia, to name a few.

I have already stated to the member examples of some very positive results that have been achieved in support of the wood products industry but I will state them again. Through our market development efforts a new wood frame construction code will soon be approved in China. This will enable Canadian wood products and technology to be used in residential housing construction in China. The impact of this is already being felt. Our latest statistics show an increase of approximately 60% from 2001 to 2002 in our wood exports to China. As well our work in Japan has influenced fire regulations to be amended allowing for increased use of wood in residential housing.

These are positive developments for our lumber industry as a result of the programs we announced last year. We continue to monitor the effectiveness of the other announced programs and will make modifications as necessary. We are following this file very closely and responding appropriately and we will continue to do that.

The forest industry has made a great contribution to the Canadian economy for more than a century. We value it. We will not abandon it. Working with the provinces, associations and industry, we will continue to assess the impact of tariff rates on the Canadian industry and on communities across the country.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am saying to my colleague that we agree that a permanent solution is needed. However, again this week, the U.S. made a proposal that was turned down flat by the Canadian softwood lumber industry. It is clear that we have another year of this ahead of us. It is also clear that we must seek out new markets. At present, industries such as the small sawmills are barely staying afloat.They will not be able to survive the next year.

Is there going to be a second phase of the assistance plan for the softwood lumber industry? The Minister of Natural Resources had promised one; so did the Minister of International Trade. What is the government waiting for to implement this second phase, extend the economic diversification program, help companies by providing loan guarantees and help workers who are going to see their period of unemployment extend into the winter without any income?

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources has stated time and time again in the House that we are taking measures to help those people in need. Through the $355 million targeted for the communities, we feel we have been responsive. We said we would work with the communities and I feel we are doing that. We are working on this side through more than one department trying to address the serious conditions that the communities are in and we will continue to do so.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant Canadian Alliance Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, on October 23 I asked the Minister of Industry about the government's decision to give $15 million for neutron research to a foreign country. It is absolutely incredible to believe that the minister knew nothing about this decision in his response to my question, when on October 17 with much fanfare, he directed the member for Hamilton West to make the funding announcement on his behalf. In the press release the government issued on this announcement, the Minister of Industry's name was all over it, so for the minister to feign ignorance during question period about his government's decision to give Canadian money away is not credible.

Despite the government's decision not to provide funding for the cabinet decision supporting a Canadian neutron facility, Canada's neutron scattering scientific community continues to provide leadership and innovation in this key technology for materials research, building on the pioneering efforts of our Nobel laureate, Dr. Bertram Brockhouse.

Without a national neutron beam laboratory, the community of Canadian researchers will leave, as has been the experience in small European nations that eliminated their neutron laboratories on the grounds that they had access to big international centres, such as the Institut Laue-Langevin in Grenoble, France and the ISIS spallation source in the U.K.

In fact, shortly after I asked my question to the minister, I received this letter, which I will now read into the record:

Dear Member of Parliament,

I was pleased to see you were still tackling the government over a neutron source for Canada.

I moved to Deep River in 1999 hoping for a bright future in Canadian neutron research.

In my four years at the laboratory, no one can argue with my performance, publishing more papers in the scientific literature than most and the group went from strength to strength.

This growth brought in both Canadian and foreign researchers.

Sadly, I decided there was no future for a scientist in Canada and left the neutron group almost a year ago.

I now have a position in two U.S. national laboratories, working for the physics department at Brookhaven on Long Island, New York and the National Institute for Standards and Technology in Maryland.

The group was publishing a respectable 50-odd papers a year, but with this unclear future, several young, active scientists have left, me included.

Canada has a great history in neutron research with the 1994 Nobel prize winner in physics, the recently deceased Professor Brockhouse, doing all of his research in Chalk River.

Many foreigners trained in Canada have scattered around the world and as many Canadians have left for places like the U.S.A., including Thom Mason, the head of the $1.4 billion facility in Tennessee, where they can plan for a career in this field of science.

I hope your fight can prove me wrong and Canada gets a new source soon.

I look forward to the day when I read all about the government funding for a world class facility. I might even come back.

That letter, more than anything I could read into the record, demonstrates the misguided policies of the government when it comes to research and development and the brain drain that we all know exists. This is the proof that the brain drain is real and will continue to happen unless changes are made.

The facility run by Thom Mason that is referred to in that letter is the one to which the government just gave $15 million.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry has four minutes to reply.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Beauharnois—Salaberry Québec

Liberal

Serge Marcil LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, first, the Government of Canada continues to support research on optical materials and advanced materials. It is committed to maintaining Canada's status as a leader in advanced materials research for many applications, particularly the physics of solids, energy technologies and medicine.

In her question, the hon. member referred to the recently announced $15 million international access fund of the Canada Foundation for Innovation. It was awarded to McMaster University for the construction and maintenance of a neutron beamline to be housed at the Spallation Neutron Source, scheduled to open in Oak Ridge, Tennessee in 2006.

As the members are aware, the Canada Foundation for Innovation is an independent agency that offers awards for infrastructure research based on peer reviews of proposals from universities on behalf of their researchers.

The $15 million approved by the foundation was proposed by McMaster University, on behalf of university researchers. It will give Canadian researchers full access to Canada's neutron beam and potential access to the 23 beams that will be built or maintained by other partners. This activity is an excellent complement to the types of research that can be conducted in Chalk River.

A Canadian, Professor Bruce Gaulin, of McMaster University, is leading this team of researchers. Professor Gaulin and other contributors to university research are and will continue to be key players in the field of neutron scattering in Canada. Their research is concentrated at the national neutron scattering facility located at the Chalk River laboratories and operated by the National Research Council.

This $15 million is a substantial investment. However, we want our Canadian researchers to have access to even more sophisticated laboratories.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Cheryl Gallant Canadian Alliance Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, a Canadian neutron facility would be a national centre where Canadians would build links between researchers and various disciplines to lay the ground for novel ideas and discovery. It would be a centre where new Canadian researchers would be educated in the practice of neutron scattering. Canadians could attempt truly novel experiments that are difficult to do at a production user facility. It would be a centre where neutron beam technology could be applied to meet the strategic needs of Canada with access policies and a mission outlook aligned with Canadian values.

It is totally unacceptable that the government should be proud that we are spending Canadian dollars to construct a neutron source in another country. It is time the federal government showed the vision and commitment necessary to build a neutron source for Canada, one with the power and the flexibility to meet the needs of Canadian science and engineering for the next 40 years, updating our capability to exploit cold neutron methods for research on the materials of the 21st century, such as polymers, membranes and proteins, electronic devices, nanotechnologies, foods and drugs--

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member while she is on a roll, but the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry has the last minute to respond.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Serge Marcil Liberal Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, in 1999, a funding proposal for a new Canadian neutron facility was submitted by Atomic Energy of Canada, in partnership with the National Research Council. This proposal was considered by the government. However, Atomic Energy of Canada withdrew its project.

It must be understood clearly that, for this type of research, it is essential that our Canadian researchers have access to high performance centres. Canada must therefore participate in space related activities here, together with other countries. Americans and Russians come to Canada to work.

It is somewhat along the same lines. We will continue to provide support to these research centres, and particularly to our universities and our Canadian researchers.

Criminal CodeAdjournment Proceedings

7:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:27 p.m.)