Debates of March 30th, 2004

The Budget

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not support for profit health service providers.

I am pleased my colleague acknowledged the importance of the urban aboriginal strategy. This is an issue that many of us have been working on and promoting for a very long period of time. It is very important that the three levels of government work together to bring congruency, to bring some coherence, to bring some policy initiatives that make sense to aboriginal people who move into the city and where the program dollars do not follow them.

I am pleased to see that she acknowledged that important initiative and I hope she will be willing to work on it with me.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to address the House on the budget. I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Lanark—Carleton.

I suppose I could talk a lot about what is missing in the budget and the problems that the government has with credibility and integrity on the sponsorship program and moneys that were inappropriately spent, but I have a much higher priority right now, and that is the issue of the avian flu in my riding.

The avian flu will cost individuals thousands and thousands of dollars and thousands of jobs will be lost. I just came from the agricultural committee where I had initiated a meeting on the avian flu. We have talked to a number of officials from the Canadian Farm Inspection Agency but I am still not satisfied that we have addressed the problem. Therefore, if I were to say that anything is missing out of the budget it would be attention to that particular issue and, since it is not there, we must find other ways to address the issue.

I want to give Canadians some facts on the impact of the avian flu. The poultry industry is in excess of a $1.5 billion industry in British Columbia. The current trade restrictions are costing the industry in excess of $15 million per week in lost revenue. Retailers, who have been traditional customers for the B.C. industry, are looking for alternate sources of supply which may require a long term commitment.

In addition, the B.C. poultry industry has now created the potential liability, in excess of $30 million by the end of March, as it has placed product in freezers on the lower mainland that cannot be shipped outside of the control area. In addition to the lost revenue, the B.C. industry is now facing incremental costs of over $10 million for the month of April. That is $2.6 million per week in costs associated with the culling of 600,000 to 800,000 healthy birds and hatching eggs per week. It is $400,000 per week in carrying costs associated with product now in freezers. With the pending reduction in production, in excess of 1,000 jobs will be lost in the processing industry commencing next week as production levels are scaled back to 50% of traditional levels.

Many farmers will face significant financial hardship as owners will be unable to service the debt on their farms and equipment. This, to say the least, is an extremely serious issue in my riding which depends a great deal on farm income, and it will be hit hard by this. The people involved certainly deserve some concrete answers and some hope that this issue will be dealt with rapidly.

I am very concerned about the amount of compensation that producers and processors will get. I know that CFIA talks about $33 a bird but that is really not the case. In most cases it is much less than that, likely $3 or so.

I therefore am asking the House of Commons to look at disaster relief for economic disasters and employment insurance relief for farmers, special measures. It would be ordinary to provide tax relief on the compensation dollars that farmers get. We could defer the tax on those dollars for some time, for years in fact. We can talk about the many ways for providing relief to these farmers. I am asking the House to do that.

I have spent a considerable amount of time talking to officials in British Columbia, the minister of agriculture, the provincial veterinarian, Ron Lewis, and the CFIA control centre. I have listened to producers and processors. I have had conference calls and we have initiated a parliamentary committee. However having the knowledge is one thing, but having the gift of Parliament to respond to these farmers well in advance of the situation hitting the hardest is paramount.

Rather than talk about the budget, I would like to place a request before the House of Commons for a concrete proposal to compensate those farmers, who have worked hard all their lives to make Canada a better place, for having to remove infected birds and for the downtime as a result of avian flu.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I will be speaking about the inadequacies in the budget with regard to agriculture.

About 60% or 65% of the farms in my Ontario constituency have some beef or dairy component, and many of them are primarily or exclusively beef or dairy. Among other things, this includes the production of organic beef. There is a wide variety of production. All of it, of course, has been affected by the shutting of the border on May 20 last year and the resulting collapse of our overseas markets.

Therefore I am very painfully aware, through the pain that my constituents are feeling, of the inadequacies of the budget with regard to beef and to beef producers.

I am reminded of a situation that occurred in my constituency about a year and a half ago. Members may recall the drought out west in the summer of 2002 and that farmers in this part of the country, who were enjoying a very good harvest of hay, wanted to send part of that crop out west. This became the hay west program, initiated entirely without government support, by farmers for farmers. One of the railheads at which hay was collected and sent west was in Smiths Falls in my constituency.

After the crisis had gone on for some length of time, the prime minister of the day, Jean Chrétien, came out to Smiths Falls. I received an invitation with about 12 hours notice from the then House leader for the government to come and join the Prime Minister while he made an announcement of some funds to help with the hay west program, a very small amount of funding I might add, perhaps $2 million or $3 million. The exact number escapes me at the moment. Frankly, I turned down the invitation because I felt that it was simply an exercise in grandstanding, that the prime minister would stand on a hay bale beside a train and announce what a good boy he was, and that is exactly what happened.

I realized what the purpose of that announcement had been when I was watching the weather channel, of all things, the next day. The little banner that runs at the bottom of the weather channel, which tells us what else is going on in the news other than the weather, included a reference to the fact that the federal government had tossed in a couple of million dollars.

The real point of that exercise had been so that the people who were not farmers and who would not see the hollowness of the gesture, would say that they were good guys for throwing in a bit of money. It was to satisfy the urban vote that rural Canadians and farmers were being taken care of. It was not for the purpose of actually providing any meaningful aid to farmers.

I suggest that the current Prime Minister's announcement in Picture Butte a few days ago of aid for farmers who are suffering as a result of the BSE crisis is very much of the same nature.

When the Prime Minister went to Picture Butte in the riding of Lethbridge, Alberta, my colleague, the MP for Lethbridge, was not even informed of it. The Prime Minister was surrounded by Liberal candidates as he announced the money. This was simply a way of promoting the Liberal Party and of satisfying people out in TV land that the government cares about farmers.

However farmers themselves know how inadequate and how late this aid is. The point has not been lost on them that the border closed May 20, 2003 and this package arrives in March of this year, shortly before the announcement of an election. I think the math can be worked out in the heads of most farmers.

The announcement was meant for the edification of urban television audiences. It was not meant to seriously deal with the needs of farmers. If there had been a real desire to do this, it would have been done much earlier. It would have been based on herd sizes as of May 20. After all, prices collapsed after May 20. They did not collapse December 31. If farmers had the misfortune of having been forced to sell all or part of their herd at some point prior to December 31, this aid package does not do a whole heck of a lot for them.

If the government had really cared about this issue and the impact it has had on other ruminants, it would not have fallen upon me personally to be the first person, two months after the crisis started, to raise the issue of other ruminants, of sheep, in the House of Commons. The fact is that the Minister of Agriculture never bothered to talk about other ruminants until I raised the issue.

This is typical of the attitude this government has had toward agriculture in general and toward farmers suffering from the BSE crisis in particular.

There is an endemic problem I want to draw the government's attention to as well, which I think may affect this particular aid package. One hopes it will not, but it has been the pattern, that is, federal aid to farmers is notoriously slow in coming. It is quick to be promised. It is slow to actually arrive.

We know this by comparing the aid that my provincial government here in Ontario provides and the speed with which it arrives compared to federal aid. Last year the government promised $3.1 billion of transfers to farmers. As of March 1, only $1.3 billion of that had arrived. That is typical.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It is 5:15 p.m. and, pursuant to order made earlier today, the question on ways and means motion no. 1 is deemed to have been put and a recorded division deemed demanded and deferred until Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 3 p.m.

Shall I call it 5:30 p.m. and proceed to private members' business?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from February 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-398, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (food labelling), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Food and Drugs Act

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-398. This is a bill that we have extreme concerns about. Although what the member has put forward is that he wants mandatory labelling for restaurants, we believe that the bill is impractical. We do not believe it is going to help his cause in any way, shape or form.

We have a number of concerns. Let me outline them. Obviously obesity and inactivity are on the rise and there are concerns. That is what they are talking about when we hear all these studies about our children being at risk. Of course at the same time we are seeing Canadians take more responsibility for their health. They are paying particular attention to the foods they eat. It is widely recognized that there are strategic efforts in health promotion and disease prevention. That is obviously going to pay dividends. I fully support those initiatives.

That being said, I believe that Bill C-398 in many respects is impractical and unnecessary. The bill would require large chain restaurants to post the number of calories of menu items beside the corresponding price on menu boards. Where menus are used, the amounts of saturated trans fats and sodium per serving would be required. We can imagine going into a restaurant and getting a very thin menu and a binder full of information. Every time they changed a menu and every time they had specials, restaurateurs would be required to provide all that information.

I think the restaurant industry has been doing a very noble and responsible job. Even the fast food chains are offering many low calorie alternatives. They are offering healthy choices. I have letters here from some of them. The general manager from Burger King sent me a letter. He says that on a voluntary basis they offer seven different meal packages with under seven grams of fat.

My little guys love going to McDonald's, which now offers a number of salads and healthy alternatives. It offers veggie burgers. A number of voluntary initiatives are being taken by the restaurants. Most of the restaurants I go to offer alternatives that have a heart beside the healthy choice menu item. Restaurants are doing this on a voluntary basis.

I just do not think it is practical to start regulating and creating another level of bureaucracy, and that is aside from the astronomical cost and the regulation of all of this. It would force a lot of owner-operator restaurants right out of business, of course, because they change the menus all the time. It would mean a redesigning of all the menu boards. Again, there are just so many ways in which this is just not going to be possible.

Not only is it impractical, but there is an absolute economical cost to this as well. Of course the implementation of this would mean that every time there was a menu change the new food would have to be sent off to a laboratory for analysis. It can cost up to $150 just to have one single food sample analyzed. Of course as they make new menu items this would all have to be done to be in compliance with the legislation.

In regard to putting on labelling requirements for these restaurants, although the member may have some noble efforts here, I have spoken to hundreds of people from across the country, and I have spoken to members from all five political parties of the House who have raised concerns to me, and I just do not think that this would be a healthy option at this time for the industry. I do not think it is going to address the problems that the member is trying to address. It is not going to address the health conscious. It is not going to address the obesity issues at all.

Therefore, I would urge all government members to vote against this. I have been told that during this debate in this hour there is going to be a motion coming forward for the member to withdraw the bill. In response, he is going to send it off to committee for further study.

I even have issues of concern about sending this off to committee for further study, not to mention that since I have been a member of Parliament we have spent a quarter of a billion dollars on various health care studies. I just do not see any need in this case.

The Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association, which represents restaurants across the country by the thousands, has done an enormous job in researching the bill. It did an objective analysis that showed all sides of the debate and has presented that to all members of Parliament. It has done an absolutely outstanding job on the bill.

The short answer is that the bill is ineffective. Absolutely no research has been done to show the impact of the bill. No research has been done to show if labelling would even have any effect on consumer eating habits. This really is unworkable with the complexity of the bill, because every time there would be a menu change or restaurants would have specials of the day, restaurants would be required to send the food out for analysis, of course because it is composed of many different ingredients. There would have to be labelling and all of that.

I think the industry needs to be commended for its voluntary efforts to promote healthy alternatives. I go to the dining room in the Parliament Buildings. There are designated symbols for healthy alternatives on the menu. I can name restaurants in my riding, like the Fireside Grill and other local restaurants. There are all kinds of restaurants in my riding that show healthy alternatives symbols on the menu. People who have concerns about what they are eating usually raise those concerns with the waiter or waitress who is serving them, and they are dealt with in a professional manner.

As for creating another bureaucracy to deal with this and to try to regulate this, I believe we have far too much regulation. The restaurant industry itself has been doing an outstanding job in dealing with this on a voluntary basis. Regulation is absolutely not necessary at this time.

To be perfectly honest, I do not see it at any time and this is an issue that I have looked at extremely closely. Because the bill came forward, I took it upon myself to get actively involved and talk to the restaurateurs about what impacts this would have on them. I was not aware of the efforts they do go through to offer healthy alternatives, from Burger King to McDonald's to A&W and all those fast food chains, which are probably at the top of the hit list for being criticized for unhealthy choices. They have very healthy choices. As I said earlier, Burger King alone offers a number of menu items with a very low calorie content.

I would encourage all members to oppose the bill. I look forward to listening to the comments of members from other parties. The owner-operators, the small businesses and the restaurateurs, these people employ hundreds of thousands of people across the country. We can argue that they are the backbone of the small business economy. There is no question about it; they do contribute so much to the economy. Tying their hands in this way is completely unnecessary. We have to recognize that this industry itself has been a leader. It has been out in front of Parliament on this issue on a voluntary basis and it has done an outstanding job. For us now to try to regulate that would be ill advised. I would strongly urge all members of the House to vote against the bill.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because it is not so much a matter of discussing the bill as referring it to the Standing Committee on Health for further study. This is a motion the Bloc Quebecois agrees with and it will have our support.

I do, however, have a few comments to make. Of course we subscribe to the objective of better informing the consumer of calorie content, and particularly saturated fat content, and anything that can provide information to help Quebeckers and Canadians improve their diets is a good thing.

When we discussed this bill in caucus, however, the colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois were uncomfortable with the idea of supporting the bill in its present form, because we were not convinced it was workable.

Some of my colleague have used the example of Subway or other major chains, where there are multiple choices because of the number of foods and ingredients available. We wondered how it could be workable for owners of franchises or restaurant chains to provide the specific information listed in this bill.

No doubt some mid-way solution would have to be found. I understand that the restaurant chains have themselves indicated some degree of openness toward sharing this information and, in a number of the major chains, it is already available to consumers.

At the same time, we realize that every time it is a matter of providing the consumer with information there is a cost associated with it, and what is more arguments based on cost cannot be definitive.

When this House discussed tobacco labelling, and the possibility of having, not content information, but rather notices or information concerning the harmful effects of tobacco on packaging, I remember the major manufacturers and tobacco companies coming before the Standing Health Committee to tell us this was absolutely impossible. Yet, three years after regulation, we can see this was in fact totally feasible.

So the Bloc Quebecois attitude is that we want to see this motion go to committee. We feel it is important for the Standing Committee on Health to seek a workable solution that will make it possible to provide consumers with information. This is why we are going to support the proposal by the member for Scarborough Southwest to refer this to committee.

I know that there has been considerable support for the objective of this bill. I am thinking in particular of the National Pensioners' and Senior Citizens' Federation; the Association des diététistes du Québec, and the Ontario Society of Nutrition Professionals in Public Health. Several dozen groups in all supported the bill. The challenge for parliamentarians is to ensure, within an appropriate framework such as the Standing Committee on Health, that we seek a workable way to achieve that objective.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to speak to Bill C-398, but first, I would like to speak of the original mover of the bill. I would begin by presenting the truth of his determined resolve. I would like to commend the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest who has shown that he is truly committed to a project and to a cause that he has championed for quite some time, and has shown considerable success.

He has shown a determined resolve to require the nutritional value of food to be clearly stated on packaged foods, and I applaud his efforts to help to ensure that Canadians have the information they need to combat the epidemic of obesity.

I am sure that I am joined by all members of Parliament in applauding the hon. member's desire to work to ensure that a discussion around these important issues take place. It is in this vein that I would now like to offer a consideration of a further opportunity for parliamentarians to participate with the member for Scarborough Southwest in further debate and dialogue on the issue.

I would like to point out that it was indeed the member for Scarborough Southwest's efforts, by the way, that contributed to the new regulations that were published on January 1, 2003, regarding this subject, and I truly congratulate him on that objective and achievement.

I want the House to know that the government shares the hon. member's concern about fair and informative labelling of foods. To ensure that the important issue raised within the bill, including but not limited to the information consumers should receive about food they are eating outside the home, I move, with the full support of the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest, that:

That Bill C-398 be amended by replacing all the words after the word “That” and be substituted with the following:

That Bill C-398, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (food labelling), be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter of the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Health to report back to the House on or before September 30, 2004.

I ask for the support of the House, with the support of the member for Scarborough Southwest.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe that you would find consent for the following order: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of this House, that no later than 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 31, 2004, the motion for third reading of Bill C-3 be deemed put and adopted on division.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The amendment to Bill C-398 moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health is receivable.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the amendment is in order without the last part that you referenced in terms of reporting back by September 30. I do not think it is up to the House to make a determination as to when the committee will report back. That amendment would be supported by this side of the House if it were to exclude any precondition about what the committee might or might not do with that report.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I will take the hon. member's intervention under advisement and further check upon the amendment given the circumstances. The Speaker will get back to the House shortly.

[Gary Lunn, Canadian Alliance, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member asked for unanimous consent on a motion with respect to Bill C-3. I was not advised, and I had opposed that. I would be prepared to give unanimous consent now if he were so inclined to move the motion again.

Business of the House

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of this House, that no later than 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 31, 2004, the motion for third reading of Bill C-3 be deemed put and adopted on division.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Does the member have consent to move the motion.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-398, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (food labelling), be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Food and Drugs Act

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to rise on a point of order, but since you said that you would determine the point of order that was made on the other side, I would like to add a couple of points for your consideration before you make your ruling.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the rules of the House require that a private member's bill that is sent to committee must be dealt with by the House, at least by the committee and reported back by a certain time or it is deemed to be reported back.

My only reason for mentioning this is because clearly the House has already set in place a procedure whereby the House has told the committee what it must do with respect to private members' business. To have a motion of the House, as moved by the hon. member from Newfoundland, which asks that a committee return its report by a particular day is nothing unusual.

I find it somewhat odd that a member from the Conservative Party of Canada, which championed the rights of private members and championed removing those aspects of rules which would prevent committees from reporting back on private members' business, would raise such an objection.

I ask that you consider this, Mr. Speaker, as you consider your ruling.