Debates of Feb. 24th, 2003

Supply

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what I am asking is whether the government will support moving the bill to committee. Third reading is coming up and this is a votable bill. It is crucial for this bill to go to committee. We have done everything in our power in the democratic process to move the issue forward. We need to have further debate during committee on this serious matter. Will the government support moving the bill to committee?

[Diane St-Jacques, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first let me thank and congratulate the hon. member for his contribution. He has been working for a long time on this, to promote an initiative that is one of the government's priorities.

We must remember that there was nothing previously to help families in such stressful circumstances. I want to tell the hon. member that I intend to reiterate my request that he support this initiative. I am also counting on the support of all the hon. members of this House in order to implement it as soon as possible.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to welcome all the young Canadians to the Acadie—Bathurst and Campbellton areas for the Canada Winter Games.

Mr. Speaker, on February 10, 2003, I asked a question in the House of Commons. The question was as follows:

Mr. Speaker, Human Resources Development Canada set up a pilot project to process applications for employment insurance benefits by telephone in Moncton, New Brunswick, called Teledec. Teledec was then transferred to Bathurst—in my riding—to serve claimants in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island—

But unfortunately, they forgot to transfer or hire employees to help do this.

My question to the minister asked if HRDC intended to hire additional staff to help out.

In Bathurst, there are 30 employees at the call centre. Currently, despite all this responsibility, there are still only 30 employees.

Now, the call centre is responsible for all of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It got to the point where the employees could no longer answer the phone. The wait was one, two or three hours long.

To cut the two or three hour wait, HRDC decided that, after five calls, clients would get a busy signal. Now, clients must wait up to two days before getting through to HRDC about employment insurance. Yet there is a $43 billion surplus in the Employment Insurance Fund.

We know that Groupaction does not wait that long. They got $22 million for one contract, $22 million for another one and then $1.5 million just for submitting the same report three times. Back home, Human Resources Development Canada is telling us that they will have to try and serve the people of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island only with the employees they currently have on staff.

I met with those employees. Only 16 of them were still at work, because all the others were burned out.

Following my question, the minister or the parliamentary secretary, who is from Shefford, took one, two and then three weeks to assess the situation. The minister said that she wanted to ensure that good service was a priority.

Will the federal government act on this problem and treat these people like human beings? It is not because we live in Bathurst, in New Brunswick, that we should not be served like the people in Ottawa.

I look forward to hearing what the parliamentary secretary, who is replacing the minister tonight, has to say on this issue.

[Diane St-Jacques, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to inform the member for Acadie—Bathurst that it is not because people live in his region that they have fewer services. The government's goal is always to provide the best possible services to clients at the offices of Human Resources Development Canada wherever they are, whatever their situation or level of literacy. We want to offer a uniform service that meets their expectations and provides them with a choice.

We process roughly 3 million requests a year. On average, we pay out $13 billion in benefits a year.

To meet these needs for services, we rely on a network of more than 8,000 employees, 320 human resources centres, four information technology centres, six insurance payment operations centres and 11 employment insurance call centres.

I should add that each year the workload fluctuates—as the member knows—generally in July and November, which has an affect on the speed with which we can process requests. Also, we notice changes in the method of service delivery that our clients want and this choice can have direct repercussions on our other service methods. Our call centres have to respond to a higher volume of requests each week. We have identified these repercussions and implemented plans to manage our clients' requests and follow their progress.

I can assure the House that Human Resources Development Canada is committed to continually improving the quality of services to Canadians. This is why, in order to determine the degree of satisfaction of those who use our main services, surveys were conducted in 2001. The results are as follows: 77% of the respondents were satisfied with the general quality of the service, and close to half were very satisfied; 86% of the clients who visited a Human Resources Development Canada office were satisfied with the quality of the service received in person, and more than half of these people said they were very satisfied; 82% of the clients were satisfied with the service received by telephone; and over 80% of the respondents told us that the explanations provided by the staff were easy to understand, that the information was accurate, that the service was excellent and that the answers were complete.

We know that we can always improve on these results, and this is what we are trying to do.

As regards employment insurance, the modernization initiative will help us improve the technological tools that we already provide to our clients.

These tools are Appliweb, which allows claimants to submit their claims on line, thus accelerating the process, and Teledec, which allows claimants to submit their reports by telephone, instead of by mail. There is also the direct deposit, whereby payments made to claimants are deposited directly in their bank account.

We are working on improvements that will reduce the burden of call centres. For example, our clients will have the option of submitting biweekly reports on line. This will reduce the number of calls received by our offices.

I would like to reiterate to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst that service to Canadians is our priority. Throughout the initiative to modernize our service to Canadians, we will continue to improve the way services are provided.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, on February 10, the minister herself told me this, “I would be glad to look into this particular incident and talk to the member about it”. She has not talked to me about it yet.

What am I asking the minister? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development is telling me about all the services and about the thousands of people who work for that department, but that is not the issue.

A new service is being offered to the people of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, but there are not enough employees to provide the service. Fourteen people are now on sick leave because they are suffering from burnout. That is what I am saying.

I do not want to hear about what the government did right. I want to talk about what the government did not do with a $40 billion surplus. Clients have to wait up to two days to obtain services from the Department of Human Resources Development. That is my question.

Will a study or something be done in the Bathurst office, in northeastern New Brunswick?

[Diane St-Jacques, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said to the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the government never stops trying to improve its services. Given the increasing popularity of these services, they can be overloaded, but the minister is doing her utmost to improve service.

I would like to list for him the things we are trying to do at the present time. We plan to improve services so that clients may obtain the help they need directly, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week; to improve the way calls are handled; to change the deadlines for reports so as to reduce busy periods; to train our employees so that they can help clients take advantage of all possibilities open to them; to ensure that clients have access to staff trained to meet their needs; and of course to encourage use of the Internet.

As I have said, serving Canadians is one of this government's priorities. The department will continue to seek ways to improve the quality of our services.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to follow up on a question I raised with the government on November 25, 2002. That was the day that Health Canada announced it was proceeding with plans to permit the irradiation of ground beef, poultry, shrimp and mangoes, and all of this despite serious safety concerns led by independent scientific researchers.

Naturally, the announcement shocked many Canadians who were initially open to the idea of food irradiation, but who had become rightfully concerned after learning about safety concerns raised by the scientific community. Irradiation had been presented by supporters of this new process, and by Health Canada, as a sort of magic bullet that would provide Canadians with guaranteed safe food. It was no surprise that many Canadians, tired of reading about the government's failure to stem the growing list of food contamination incidents and product withdrawals, were eager to believe the sales pitch for irradiated food.

However, scientists, and I emphasize independent scientists, found that irradiation could actually create chemicals called cyclobutanones not normally found in food that could pose a danger to human health. When tested, these chemicals have been linked to genetic and cellular damage. We know there is no information on the long term effects of these chemicals.

The question for us and all Canadians is, why would Health Canada want to proceed with a process of questionable safety at this time? We know there is pressure from food processors who stand to cut costs by relaxing their normal safety standards once irradiation has been approved. We know there is pressure coming from exporters from the United States, a country which has approved irradiation despite protests there. These are powerful interests and we know that. Health Canada seems to be all too willing to accept and accommodate their wishes, and does so on the basis of limited studies that it itself provides.

Health Canada is being true to its tradition of siding with the fox instead of the chicken. Canadians were at least hopeful that the government would have a public consultation process that would be meaningful and would allow for all sides to be heard. Those so-called consultations blew through Winnipeg last month. The public had two business days between the newspaper announcement and the hearings to prepare their presentations and apply to be heard. If they were successful in engineering this feat, they were given two minutes to make their presentations. Not only is two minutes short, let us contrast it with the 15 minutes each given to three Health Canada officials to rationalize irradiation.

We have many questions and concerns. We want to again ask the government if it is prepared to put on hold approval of the food irradiation process until it is satisfied that the do no harm principle has been adhered to and that full consultations have been held with independent data brought to bear on those discussions and decisions.

[Diane St-Jacques, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has raised certain concerns about recent Health Canada proposals to regulate food irradiation.

In response to a number of industry submissions, and in compliance with the Food and Drug Regulations, Health Canada has examined submissions concerning the irradiation of ground beef, poultry, shrimp and mangoes.

The study included an examination of the effects of irradiation, its impact on the nutritional content of the food and the micro-organisms present.

Over and above an assessment of the data presented, we also took into consideration a number of major studies carried out around the world on the effects of radiation.

Three conclusions arise out of the studies by Health Canada's scientists: the consumption of ground meat, poultry, shrimp and prawns, and mangoes would not result in any identifiable risk to the health of the consumer; the irradiation of these foods would not result in any health concerns for consumers; and the proposed uses of food irradiation could be beneficial through improved safety and quality of these food products resulting from enhanced control of pathogens such as E. coli and salmonella.

Food irradiation is a method that uses radiation energy to improve food safety by destroying pathogenic bacteria, by extending the shelf life of food, and by controlling insect infestation.

It is one of many techniques that can be used by food producers to protect the quality of food items before they reach retailers.

The other techniques include cooking or heating, canning and steam pasteurization. Irradiated foods can also be used with these techniques to improve safety.

Food irradiation is regulated by the Food and Drugs Act, and only the items listed in a table of the regulations can be irradiated.

Division 26 of the regulations provides that industry stakeholders must submit a request to be allowed to irradiate a given product.

Based on the representations and on the best available scientific research, a multidisciplinary team of pharmacists, toxicologists, microbiologists and nutritionists determines the safety of the food and the effectiveness of food irradiation. No changes are made to the regulations on food irradiation until all the issues relating to food safety have been dealt with and the proposed objective is justified.

Concerning the hon. member's specific concern about the safety of any chemicals produced by the irradiation process, Health Canada has taken this into account as a significant factor in its evolution.

The hon. member is no doubt aware that the studies that detected the presence of the chemicals of particular concern to the hon. member were conducted using irradiation doses 100,000 times stronger than those allowed in Health Canada's proposed regulations.

At the levels of irradiation authorized under the proposed regulations, such chemicals are produced only in very small amounts. In addition, each food product has undergone toxicology testing that has shown that, at such levels, there is no risk to human health.

I point out that the new chemicals produced in irradiated food have been studied by many researchers and assessed by many organizations, such as the World Health Organization, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the European Economic Community's science committee on food.

In each case, these studies have confirmed Health Canada's assessment and concluded that, from a toxicological point of view, these small amounts of chemicals would not have any adverse effect on human health.

I will conclude by saying that given the nature of the proposal, products and process involved, many Canadians will be interested in this issue. This is why Health Canada has held public information meetings in Vancouver, Edmonton—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but she had four minutes, and no more. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the response made by the parliamentary secretary. However I must indicate my disappointment that little has changed in the mind of the government with respect to the safety of irradiated food.

The concern of Canadians is a legitimate one. This food is being moved forward and the process for integration into our markets is rapidly at hand. Yet there is no indication that the government is prepared to carry out independent scientific studies of its own to assess the risk identified by scientists in recent times.

This is not an issue that can be dismissed easily. It is not one that can be left to international studies. It is one that the government must come to grips with. In fact it must be proactive and convince Canadians that it has taken every step necessary to ensure that the food we eat is safe beyond a reasonable doubt.

The government can do no less than make those assurances.

[Diane St-Jacques, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has recognized that this is a very sensitive issue for all Canadians. This is why we have held consultations over a period of more than 90 days, which is 30 days more than usual.

I would just like to reassure the hon. member that the priority of this government and this department is food safety and public health, of course, and that the minister will make a decision based on these two priorities.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:56 p.m.)