Reed Elley

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very interesting suggestion. I am just wondering if the government has ever taken it under consideration. I think we need to have all of the good wisdom and suggestions from members on both sides of the House. We should pool our resources to come up with the very best, and this may be one of the solutions.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear, as my hon. colleague has pointed out, that there are many illegal immigrants who come into this country through airports, certainly far more than come in through the boat route. There were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25,000 illegal immigrants who came to the country last year. Probably 98% of them came in through airports.

How do they get in? How do they maintain that they are legal immigrants when they do not declare their intentions in the country of origin?

What happens, I am sure, even though I have never been on a plane to see this happen, is that they simply take their identity cards and flush them down the toilet. By the time they get here they can say that they have no record of who they are, that they are displaced people who want to claim refugee status.

When those people come to these shores we should have something in place immediately to determine very quickly whether they are legal immigrants. If they are not, then they should simply be sent back to the country of origin and from there go through the proper procedures to make sure they enter this country in the right way.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government's answer to an allegation like that was to send the minister and a couple of Liberal members to China to negotiate with the government. You and I were not privy to that negotiation. We do not know what went on, but the government would have us believe, of course, that it has it all under control. We will see.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, having lived on the coast last summer I experienced firsthand what happened and the way it was handled by the government, or the inability of the government to handle the situation.

There is no question that the snake heads and others who are getting rich on this kind of activity would see Canada as an easy target. They see that people get in and are helped by our government. They become dependent upon our social welfare system and our health system. They are taken care of from that standpoint and not simply turned away and sent back. Because of this they will, of course, get more business. It gives them the opportunity to say to people in China and other places “This works. Line up. We will take your money and we will be glad to get you to Canada because when you get there they will take care of you really well”.

I do not think we have a problem with taking care of people, but this encourages this kind of thing and allows us to be seen in the sort of underworld international community as an easy mark. It is no wonder the price has gone up and the snake heads make more money.

The other point the member mentioned was a very famous quote that was attributed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration during the time the boats were coming over. It seemed to be a very simplistic answer to the whole situation: “Pretty soon we will have the storm season upon us, winter will be upon us and that will take care of the waves of boats that are coming over”. If that is the way the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, who is supposed to be a very responsible person in the Government of Canada, views the situation and if that is the kind of answer she has to deal with it, then it is no wonder we are in serious trouble.

The storms are getting less frequent on the coast. There is good weather coming to Vancouver Island and I suspect that this will be repeated again, and it will probably be even greater than it was last year. I do not think this legislation will prepare us for that and it will be even worse. We will have to see what happens.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-31, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger. In addressing the bill it is pertinent that we be aware of the immigration status of all of us.

Let us remember that the vast majority of all our families came from somewhere else, be it recently or many generations ago. Whether through persecution in a foreign country, economic deprivation, the fleeing of a wartorn nation or the search for a better life, most if not all families represented here can point to a time when they were not Canadian.

My Canadian Alliance colleagues and I agree that immigrants arriving in Canada today have come for the same reasons that our ancestors did in the past. They aspire to a better life for their families and for themselves. They seek a peaceful way of life that will allow them to practise their faith without the fear of persecution. They do not want their children to grow up with the firsthand knowledge of war or, worse, the loss of a child due to war.

I can find no fault in any of those reasons to come to Canada, but unfortunately there are those who want to take advantage of our way of life. There are those who would pay no regard to the laws of Canada. These are people like the Snake Heads who have no regard for human life and only see the opportunity to make illegal profit through the smuggling of human cargo. What a sad commentary on the state of mankind that is.

The issues surrounding immigration and refugees have been around for a long time. Because of their heritage most Canadians want to welcome new immigrants to Canada. However they also want to be sure that those who apply for immigration status meet the minimum criteria and that those who do not meet those set criteria are not entitled to the same rights as Canadian citizens.

I believe I can unequivocally state that we would all welcome immigrants and genuine refugees to our country. I believe I can further state that we all believe there should be a set of rules for everyone to follow when implementing and regulating immigration and refugee policy.

The biggest concern I have is that all the legislation in the world will not resolve the problems we see in the present legislation or the proposed law before us. Legislation without the ability to enforce the regulations means virtually nothing. We can write, debate and proclaim endless laws on countless pieces of paper, but without the legal enforcement, without the ability to ensure that the laws are upheld, the laws are not worth the piece of paper they are written on.

Unfortunately that is what I see with most of this new legislation. We are not even able to enforce our current immigration laws. How on earth will we be able to enforce new ones without adding the necessary strength, power and ability to these newly proposed laws? Unfortunately I do not see new enforcement guidelines written into the new legislation.

Let us be realistic for a moment. Higher maximum penalties for human trafficking will have no effect on the flow of illegal immigrants to Canada. The real organizers, the real kingpins behind the smuggling of humans, have no regard for the laws of Canada. They operate outside Canada and have no plans to attend court dates in Canada. The ones who are in Canada attempt to live and operate outside the laws by which we abide. They are seldom caught and rarely convicted for their crimes.

High fines may seem like a deterrent, but the maximum fines under the old immigration act have never been applied. Therefore, why should anyone here believe that the new fines would be any more of a deterrent? It simply will not happen.

About one year ago Canadians witnessed boatloads of Chinese migrants entering Canada illegally. They made a horrendous journey under appalling conditions. The conditions under which some of them lived would not meet the same humanitarian and social structures we enjoy in Canada. Some died and others suffered serious illnesses while en route.

It is my understanding that most of those who made it to Canada are still in detention awaiting their hearings. It has been seven to ten months since some of these people arrived on our shores.

The future does not look any brighter. Reality says that it may be as much as another two years before the process is complete. When I look to the new legislation before us, a reasonable expectation would be that this length of time would be significantly reduced. Unfortunately all I can see is more disappointing news.

The new legislation appears to do nothing to mitigate this lengthy waiting time. This was one of the most obvious problems in the old legislation, and it has not been resolved in the new proposed law.

There is no doubt that Canada needs to strengthen its immigration laws to seriously address this type of crisis. This is necessary not only for our own protection but also to deter those who stand to gain monetarily from the business of smuggling people.

We simply must take a firm stand and send a message to the world that Canada is not a haven for illegal immigrants and not an easy target for people smugglers. Those who promote such activities should be subject to severe penalties without exception. The penalties must be severe enough to thwart the usury and extortion currently being forced by the people smugglers. Our laws should reflect compassion for true refugees, but they should also encompass legislation to expedite the process of deporting illegal immigrants and penalize the people smugglers.

During the boat crisis last summer I received a number of calls from Canadians in my riding who were outraged with the federal government's inaction on the question of illegal immigration. This inaction drew the ire of all Canadians right across Canada. Constituents have told me that they believe the federal government is failing them and their families by putting these illegal migrants ahead of the needs of ordinary Canadians.

One of the most interesting things I found was that the ones who voiced their opinions most strongly were in fact recent immigrants themselves. To them the situation was very clear. They had applied and waited their turn to come to Canada. In many cases they wanted to sponsor family members to join them in Canada. Their anger was that while they were attempting to abide by the law, others were abusing the law in being able to stay.

By not addressing this issue, legal immigrants are forced to the back of the immigration process. What they really want to do is be reunited with family members. Are we not then creating a double standard?

During the crisis last summer the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on Vancouver Island told me that their Vancouver Island forces were drastically reduced as members had been called upon to guard the most recent illegal migrants at the Esquimalt naval base. This calls into question the level of efficiency for both law enforcement and case development that the RCMP is able to provide for the residents of Vancouver Island. This is just one problem which highlights how unprepared we are for this ever increasing wave of humanity that will come to our shores either legally or illegally.

This issue has been ongoing for far too long. These are the issues which I believe need to be fully addressed under this legislation. First, full charter rights should not be available to individuals until the immigration board has accepted them.

Second, we should set new stringent penalties for those who deal in the smuggling of humans. This is a serious crime and needs to be dealt with in the most serious manner possible. International agreements should be used to pursue and convict Snake Heads and others like them.

Third, we should ensure that full security and health checks are completed on each person wishing to enter Canada. Canada's citizens demand to be safe from undue risks.

Fourth, perhaps the most important issue is that of enforcement. We cannot expect our laws to be upheld if we do not have sufficient personnel and real regulations in effect to support them. Words alone will not stop Snake Heads from dealing in human cargo.

In my riding office immigration is one of the top two issues with which my staff deals. The other issue is taxation and the manner in which Revenue Canada, now called the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, deals with people. It is interesting that in both these matters a lack of humanitarian treatment appears to be the common factor.

I should like to take a few moments to describe several immigration cases with which I have been dealing over the past several months. My colleague from Lakeland stated that he was certain that all members of the House had encountered the inadequacies of the current immigration legislation, and he is absolutely correct.

Just listen to some of the events that have taken place of which I have become aware as a member of parliament. In one case a lady in my riding invited a friend from China to visit her in 1996. Today that friend has still not been able to visit Canada.

In the meantime the Chinese applicant has been turned down for seemingly irrelevant reasons. The Canadian letter writer has chronic lymphatic leukemia and was given the possibility of living for five years. Her five years are up now. Her health has been relatively good, but we all know that there are no guarantees in this life. Offers of bonds have been made and rejected. The Chinese applicant is not looking for a job and she is not looking to immigrate to Canada. She simply has a Canadian friend who would like to be able to share a Canadian experience with her.

Letters to the minister of immigration have not resulted in any further positive results. From what I have been able to determine in this case, individual bureaucrats have thwarted the plight of one potential visitor from China to this great land of ours.

In another situation I have worked with an individual who has been waiting for over four years to receive landed status in Canada. He is currently living here and would like to upgrade his skills. However he is not able to do this until he receives his landed status.

We all expect a reasonable length of time to process applications, but four years seems to be an abnormally long period of time. In the meantime no full answers are forthcoming from either the minister of immigration or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. We ask the question why.

In another case a Canadian citizens married a Filipino. Through inquiry after inquiry no full answers were received. When visas were promised, applications were received. When time lines were committed to, they were broken in short order. After a series of pages of requests, letters and faxes I am pleased to report that this couple will finally be together. It is unthinkable that they were forced to endure this process and to live apart for many years.

Perhaps the most heart wrenching and immediate saga is in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. Mrs. Jaswant Sekhon had six children. Mrs. Sekhon was plagued by ill health, was on dialysis and was not expected to live for much longer. Her last child, a son, Santokh Sekhon, was still living in Punjab, India. The two of them had not seen each other in nine years. For a year he applied to visit his mother for a one week period. Yet Immigration Canada would not allow the married father of two to visit Canada initially on the grounds that he would not leave.

Last fall Mrs. Sekhon became too ill to travel. Unfortunately the mother and son were never able to see each other again. Mrs. Sekhon died of a heart attack on March 12 and her wish to see her son in life was never fulfilled due to Immigration Canada's denial.

In dying, Mrs. Sekhon wanted her son to reunite with the family, be able to grieve and say goodbye to her in her death. I contacted Immigration Canada asking for them to review this file to no avail. The reason given to Mrs. Sekhon was that the official was not satisfied he could support himself while in Canada. Mr. Sekhon only asked to be in Canada for one week. Does this sound like an unreasonable request? It certainly does not to me. Yet the answer was certainly unreasonable.

Let us remember that all the family members except for one are Canadian citizens. They have lived as productive participants in Canada for 10 years. No family should have to endure the agony that this family has gone through because of our immigration system. Yet this is not the only family to endure this type of hardship.

Thankfully there is a somewhat happier ending to this story. Nine days after his mother passed away, Mr. Sekhon received his visa authorization to attend his mother's funeral. Imagine what those nine days must have been like. What a horrifying thought, what a tragic thing.

These are real people who have been enduring real hardship imposed upon them by a government ministry, an immigration bureaucracy that appears to be uncaring and unable to resolve problems.

This government is responsible for creating, causing and maintaining the shortcomings that are now before us in immigration.

I believe that every member of the House, even government members, would echo similar kinds of cases.

This department needlessly and negatively impacts countless lives and families. We only need to read in the papers of concern and allegations of corruption at various levels. This concerns not just illegal migrants, but also visa and counsellor services abroad.

I must raise the question of regulations again. From what I have seen in the proposed legislation, the situations that I have brought before the House would not be resolved. I believe that Canadians should receive more than this when members of parliament debate legislation. Unfortunately, they have come to expect even less with empty words and broken promises. We have seen the lack of true public consultation and true problem solving in many prior bills, and this bill is no exception.

This is not new. The 1990 auditor general's report identified serious problems within the immigration department. Here we are, 10 years later, and they have still not been addressed. Overseas offices are grossly overtasked, resulting in waiting times of up to three years for approval.

Immigration plays an important role for Canada today, but under the present legislation and the present government what we see is really a department in chaos. The proposed legislation will not resolve the big issues before us. Bill C-31 requires a serious overhaul and the regulations must been seen in full in order to address the real immigration issues before us.

In light of these outstanding issues and others that other of my hon. colleagues in the House have mentioned, I am not able to support this bill unless it is extensively amended.

[Petitions, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today and present on behalf of 275 constituents both in my riding and across Vancouver Island a petition which says that many people receive health benefits from naturopathic practitioners and medicines. The petitioners believe these people are basically discriminated against and while they save the government a lot of money, these people must also be financially responsible for their own medical expenses.

The petitioners request that parliament pass some kind of legislation recognizing naturopathic practitioners as equal to members of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. It is my pleasure to present this petition on the petitioners' behalf.

[Hepatitis C, May 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to give recognition to two very special Canadians.

On May 3 Joey Hache received an honorary recognition for his continuing fight in an effort to bring equal compensation to all victims of Hepatitis C. Joey was recognized at the Third Annual Spirit of the Capital Youth Awards.

Hon. members will remember Joey and his cycle of conscience. After the government refused to offer compensation for all victims of Hep C, Joey told the Prime Minister that he would be his conscience. In June 1998 he started a bike ride across Canada with the goal of raising awareness about those who suffer from Hep C. Joey has worked long and hard to achieve this goal.

On Monday, May 1 of this year the first annual Hepatitis C candlelight vigil was held across Canada and into the United States. It began with the dream of one person, a very special lady in my own riding, Sue White. Sue has Hepatitis C and wanted to recognize the many victims who have died since this tragic disease has spread across this land. The purpose of the ceremony was to create awareness, provide education and promote the prevention of Hep C.

I salute these two special people who face personal challenges far greater than any of us.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague and her party have put this matter before the House I know that it opens up the whole debate. There is no question that we must have it and we must ask ourselves important questions such the one she has raised.

Personally I would not know the answer to the particular question. There are many unanswered questions in this whole area, but I think the issue of cost is one which was not raised in her motion. I am perhaps the first person to raise the particular point in the debate today.

It is not an issue that has had the full investigation it should have. We can only go on what we have before us. There is the example of the Australia-New Zealand experience where they are suggesting that there would be an extra cost to the consumer for the mandatory labelling of these products. We must look at it in terms of what it would do to our markets overseas and weigh that in the balance. We must look at all sides of the issue. The verdict is still out and I am grateful we have the opportunity to debate it in the House today.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to participate in today's supply day motion put forward by our Bloc colleagues, that the government be called upon to make it mandatory to label all genetically modified foods, including genetically modified ingredients in foods so the population can make a clear choice as to what they consume.

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are one of the fastest growing issues of concern for Canadians today. This is a truly global issue. However, one of the difficulties vexing Canadians on all sides of this debate is the ability to find bona fide research that confirms or negates different parts of the argument.

On one side of the debate are those who feel that any changes to our food supply are automatically bad. Regardless of the quality of science, good or bad, the result is bad. There are also those who believe and are willing to accept what the scientists say without questioning whether or not the scientific proof comes from a company or someone who has a vested interest.

I believe that prior to any knee-jerk reactions calling for labelling of any sort, we must define what a GMO actually is. Although I am certainly not a scientist, I believe that an appropriate working definition for a genetically modified organism would be any plant or animal that has had genetic information inserted into it from a different plant or animal.

One of the greatest difficulties in debating a subject such as GMOs is the incredible rate of change that the scientific field is undergoing. What was unknown yesterday is common knowledge today and passé tomorrow.

The rate of change that we see in genetic engineering is incredible and what we may consider as being unthinkable or unattainable today is surely within the realm of the possible and the reachable tomorrow.

Within this debate, we must also remember that the cross-pollination of plants has led to new hybrids that have assisted Canada a great deal. I am no expert but I do know that new hybrids for wheat and other grains, as well as certain fruits and vegetables, have been cross-pollinated specifically for our northern climate and, consequentially, the shorter growing season that we experience.

I am certain that my hon. colleague from Selkirk—Interlake, our agricultural critic for the Canadian Alliance, would be able to add greatly to this particular part of the debate.

The debate is not as simple as whether or not we want to label genetically modified organisms. We must be sure of course of the safety of the product before we even release it to the public. If we accept that a product is safe and viable for the general public, what is the best way to label the product? Should we label those products that are modified or should we label the ones that are free of modification?

One major concern I have is that the debate on genetically modified organisms is being largely led by rhetoric and sometimes scare tactics without the reliance and proof of good, sound, provable science.

When organizations or noted individuals speak out, of course they gain immediate media attention, and certain portions of our society will follow along with their recommendations regardless of the validity and truth behind their statements. People will follow along simply because a certain organization or individual, an individual who they perhaps support, has made that statement. When any notable person or group makes a statement, they need to be able to stand by their comments, not in a micro-version of the words used but from a macro standpoint. Any organization that needlessly elicits concerns without proof is being negligent in its duties not only to its membership but to the general public at large.

We live in an information society and many people willingly accept what information is displayed for them across the banner headlines of their daily newspaper or what they happen to read on Internet sites. Unfortunately many people also read these headlines without taking the time to critically think about what is being said or reading the full debate.

I believe that such is the case with some of the tactics used in the debate on genetically modified organisms. We have all seen the headlines calling for a complete banning of Frankenfoods. We have all seen the news clips of anonymous people destroying fields of wheat in Europe all because we have been told that it is bad for us.

I do not really know if it is bad for us or not. I am not a scientist. I am not a genetic engineer. What I hope I am is a critical thinker. I do want to know, however, the full story on genetically modified organisms. I think every member in the House wants the same thing. Members should note that I said the whole story not just a selected portion that fits the agenda of any particular group.

I think we would all agree that our food supply is one of the most critical things necessary to sustain life not only here but around the globe. Whether we read today's newspaper or one from five or ten years ago, we can read stories of crops or food supplies devastated by drought or plague, early frost or lack of nutrients. The fallout effect of these things have been devastating. To see the pictures of starving children pulls on my heartstrings, as I am sure it does on everyone else here.

Can genetically modified organisms solve those problems? I frankly doubt it. Can they solve some of the problems? Possibly. Are there risks involved? Most certainly. I believe the bigger questions are: What are those risks, and, are they acceptable to the public at large?

We all take risks every day. Most of us take a risk just getting up in the morning. Stepping off the curb in front of Centre Block carries the risk of a car or a bus running us over. I think I can safely state that the risk of endangering our food supply is something that all of us want to be very cautious about. This brings us back to the question of the need for scientific proof.

We are not unique in our debate on this issue. There are many countries around the world that have entered into the current debate. Many world governments have expressed concerns over GMOs. However, we must note that many of these foods remain on European store shelves around the world.

I am concerned that we have not fully researched the entire issue of genetically modified organisms. As a father and grandfather, I share the concerns over the testing, publicity and safety of genetically engineered products. Canada currently has 42 genetically modified organisms approved for use in Canada. However, the issue of labelling and perceived safety by consumers certainly remains an outstanding issue and one that has to be faced.

On February 23 of this year I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-434, an act to amend the Department of Health Act (genetically modified food). Through this bill, I have requested that the Standing Committee on Health review and recommend legislation concerning the testing, approval and labelling of genetically modified foods.

Specifically in that bill I have identified the need to conduct research in order to, first, establish whether the consumption by a human being or an animal of genetically modified foods produces, in the short term or in the long term, dangerous or harmful effects on their health.

The second is to establish whether the cultivation of plants from genetically modified seeds produces in the short term or in the long term dangerous or harmful effects on the environment, insects and other plants.

The third is to make regulations on the labelling of genetically modified foods in order to allow consumers to easily identify that characteristic of the food.

The remainder of my bill sets out steps to take for implementation and examination of ethical problems which may go against certain religious practices. It encourages a public debate on the issue and is intended to set up information programs for the general public to make people aware of the effects of the consumption of genetically modified organisms, including a full parliamentary review process.

Then we come to the rather delicate issue of labelling. If we recognize that genetically modified organisms exist and therefore will continue to exist in one form or another, and if we have a general agreement that individuals want the ability to freely choose what they feed their families, we need to be clear and consistent with our labelling.

I note that one aspect missing from today's motion is the cost factor in the whole equation of labelling. There is no doubt that there would be a cost involved when additional labelling comes about. The Manitoba Co-operator reported that the largest portion of the increased costs would arise from the need to segregate GMO crops and non-GMO crops all the way from the field to the consumer's plate.

Although something like this is very attainable, what is the full cost and who will bear it? We do not know that. Will the producer bear the additional costs, considering that he is the one who planted the seed? Will food processors bear the costs since they are the ones who purchase the raw material and sell a finished product? Or, should consumers bear the cost since they are the end users? Certainly labelling has a cost involved and today's motion does not particularly identify what that might be.

Down under in Australia and New Zealand a report by KPMG estimated that the cost of mandatory labelling to the food industry would be $3 billion in the first year and $1.5 billion in each subsequent year. According to its study this amounts to a 6% tax on all food products.

Also according to the study the true costs of labelling compliance would include such things as verification of the maintenance of an identification system for both GMO and non-GMO food products. It would include checks and audits for each batch of ingredients within a product. It would include testing and record keeping for each batch. It would include analysis on non-compliance and/or non-specified testing or audit results. It would also include the investigation of non-compliance complaints and subsequent prosecution records.

I have not asked my constituents but I am pretty certain that I know the answer if I asked whether or not they would be willing to add 6% to their food bill. A few would say that it would be worth it. A few would not care. However I suspect that the vast majority would be very concerned about adding 6% to their food bill.

Recently a meeting took place in Montreal to debate and determine a protocol regarding genetically modified organisms. I believe it is important to note that the protocol fails to follow the principles supported by the Canadian Alliance of using scientific information to determine if an agricultural or food biotechnology product meets Canadian health and safety requirements.

I also note that, as for most treaties or protocols, parliamentary approval is not required for Canada to ratify this particular protocol. It will not come before parliament. We will not have our say in it. That is fundamentally wrong in our democratic system.

The signing of such agreements should not be left to bureaucrats alone. Rather they should come before parliament for debate and ratification. We are the lawmakers of the land. The courts are not the lawmakers. The United Nations is not the lawmaker. We are the lawmakers and we should be the ones to make the final decision.

Where do we go from here? I believe it is safe to say that there is a great deal of scientific research being done on genetically modified organisms. Is it all valid research? I do not know, but experts are available that can assist members of parliament to better understand the entire issue.

We are sent here as members by our constituents to represent their views, to determine the best policy route for our great nation, and to ensure that all Canadians are well taken care of no matter what the issue. It was with a great deal of enthusiasm that I filed a motion with the Standing Committee on Health that we study the health and safety of genetically modified organisms.

All members of the opposition on the health committee supported the motion, but as usual the Minister of Health dictated through the parliamentary secretary and the chair of committee what would and would not be studied, so the health committee at this point in time is not studying GMOs. Yet it seems to me that is exactly where it should be studied, if we are concerned about the safety of our food system, our food supply, and its effect upon the health of Canadians.

To those on the committee this should not be a major surprise, considering that the same committee has also refused to study the larger issue of health care, the number one issue of concern for Canadians today. It steadfastly refuses to study the number one priority of Canadians.

Unfortunately the Liberals have no answers or solutions to the enormous questions and problems concerning health care and GMOs. Therefore there is a lack of desire to seek them out and to be embarrassed by the public response to their non-compliance with the demands of Canadians to study such vital concerns. Unfortunately in the end result all Canadians continue to lose under the Liberal government.

Is mandatory labelling the full and best answer? In order to make clear personal choices some consumers wish to be assured what foods do or do not include genetically modified organisms. Clear and concise labelling is important to these consumers. The Canadian Alliance would cite the volunteer labelling and industry regulated process that organic farmers currently use.

In stark comparison to the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois today, I would like to read a press release from SPEC, the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation. It indicates:

Lower Lonsdale's trendy Artisan Bake Shoppe is the first retail outlet to display the bright yellow and green sunflower symbol indicating products that are free of genetically modified organisms. SPEC president, David Cadman, and Artisan master baker, Katarina Dittus, launched the new GMO-free label campaign on Saturday, March 18, 2000. SPEC will be inviting restaurants, grocery stores, specialty shops and other food outlets throughout the lower mainland of British Columbia to commit to carrying only GMO-free products.

I believe the lead taken by this north Vancouver bakery is probably a far more appropriate route to follow than mandatory labelling. It seems more akin to the process used by organic farmers.

I agree consumers demand choice. I agree they need to have the resources to enable them to make knowledgeable decisions. To not allow consumers to have access to full and good science restricts them from being able to make those complete and full decisions.

I am led to believe that mandatory labelling of all genetically modified organisms leads to a food supply that is overregulated by bureaucrats and subject to the whims of government. By comparison, voluntary labelling for all products that are free of genetically modified organisms encourages a food supply that is self-regulated, market driven and supports the freedom of choice of consumers.

I would also question the minister of agriculture and his department and wonder aloud what the cost of sending out a food safety booklet to every Canadian would be when the researchers and the minister's blue ribbon panel have not completed their work. How can the government waste money when the job at hand is not yet completed? Has it learned nothing from the HRDC boondoggle? Maybe not.

While I relish the opportunity to debate genetically modified organisms today, I believe that the debate is perhaps not in the proper space. As a House we need to have the experts come before its members and discuss the entire issue and safety of GMOs. That is properly done before the health and agriculture committees. I call again for a joint committee between agriculture and health to discuss this huge issue. We need to have that done. Although we have asked for this opportunity, the government has so far refused to research and publicly debate the issues at the committees that should be studying them.

I thank my hon. colleagues from the Bloc. As much as I agree with the need to bring the particular motion to the House and to have this kind of debate, I would say that we have to keep the debate open in terms of labelling.

The Alliance does not have an issue with safety of these organisms, but we do take issue with the mandatory labelling of all GMO products. We should look at the other side of the coin, the labelling of non-GMO products that could be driven by consumer choice and not by the bureaucracy.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Bloc Quebecois for bringing this motion forward. It is an important motion that not only parliament but all Canadians should address as we discuss this issue.

There are loads of material on this issue. All we have to do is look on the Internet to see there are all kinds of information. Some of it is quite good and some of it we just do not know about. It is good to have a debate to become more informed about GMOs.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question about GMOs and perhaps in her research she has found the answer. Could the hon. member tell the House whether or not in her research she has found any evidence of real harm to humans who have ingested foods containing GMOs? Has the hon. member ever heard that eating a GMO has been fatal to a human?