Joe McGuire

[Agriculture, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the discovery of potato wart in a small corner of one field in Prince Edward Island has crippled the island's number one industry. The government has announced assistance for island's producers. However hundreds of their crews, most of whom have not worked all winter, are still waiting for some recognition of their plight.

Could the Minister of Human Resources Development tell the House whether any assistance will be forthcoming, and when will the workers know of her decision?

[Shirley Buote, March 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I send my sincere congratulations to one of my constituents, Shirley Buote. Shirley returned to Prince Edward Island on Monday night after an excellent performance at the International Special Olympic Winter Games in Anchorage, Alaska.

On Friday, Shirley put her best foot forward and secured a bronze medal in the 200 metre snowshoe competition with a time of 1:24:67. This is a sport, I may add, that I share her enjoyment of. Shirley then joined three other Canadians to win a silver medal in the 4x100 metre relay event with a time of 1:55:11.

Shirley was the lone Islander competing for Canada at the winter games and she has made all Islanders proud. I congratulate Shirley on a job well done.

[Curling, February 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it was a great weekend for female athletes from Prince Edward Island. Lorie Kane winning on the LPGA tour is becoming a regular occurrence, including her most recent win last Saturday after setting a tournament record in Hawaii with an 11 under par. Lorie has become the best female golfer in the world today.

However, history was made last weekend when Summerside native Suzanne Gaudet led her team to victory at the Canadian Junior Women's Curling Championships. It was the first time an Island team has secured the junior women's title.

I should like to take this moment to congratulate skip Suzanne Gaudet, mate Stefanie Richard, second Robyn MacPhee, lead Kelly Higgins, and coach Paul Power.

They have brought credit to their community and their province with their performance and their grace under pressure. I wish them all the luck as they represent Canada at the 2001 World Junior Curling Championships from March 15 to March 25 in Ogden, Utah, where all of Canada will be cheering them on to win the gold medal.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks I would like to congratulate you on your election to the chair. I believe you are the third elected Speaker that we have had in the history of the country.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the voters of Egmont for returning me for the fourth time in the last general election. I believe we came into the House at the same time, Mr. Speaker, so we must have been doing something right for our constituents.

This is the fourth time the people of Egmont voted for me. I am both humble and grateful that they bestowed the honour upon me. The riding of Egmont extends from the new city of Summerside on the eastern boundary all the way west to the North Cape. With the exception of the aerospace industry in Summerside, most of the industries in the riding of Egmont are seasonal in nature.

It is a very important fishing area of Atlantic Canada, with 12 small craft harbours in existence and a very lucrative lobster industry. Farming is a very important part of the economy of my riding with exceptional potato producing areas and dairy and swine industries. Forestry plays a smaller but vital role. Tourism is an ever growing part of the economy of Egmont. The construction industry also plays a vital role in the riding.

The unemployment insurance program is a vital program for the people of my riding because most of the industries are seasonal in nature. They must have this program in order to survive.

As I stated earlier, I have been here 12 years and I have seen the evolution of this file, the EI-UI debate, through the previous Conservative government and our own EI bill. Now, as a newly appointed member of the HRD standing committee, I will be playing a closer role with the program to see that it becomes a more responsive program for the people of Canada.

I heard people say how unfortunate it was to have time allocation invoked to get the bill through the House, even after we have gone through the last two federal elections with EI being one of the more prominent issues in the election debates. Both times the people of Canada have returned this government. They must be supporting our concept of employment insurance much better than the proposals that were set forth by the Conservatives, the Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois or the NDP governments.

Maritimers have also heard criticism that perhaps Atlantic Canadians should go to where the jobs are. The most mobile people in Canada are the people from Atlantic Canada. If we were to go to the oil fields of Alberta, for example, we would find that most of the workers there are maritimers. If we were to go to Fort McMurray, we would see that over half the population of that city comes from Newfoundland and other parts of Atlantic Canada.

We always respond to where the jobs and have done so since Confederation, whether it was out immigration to the Boston states as we call them, or to Toronto when there were job opportunities, or to Vancouver when there were job opportunities or to Alberta where there are job opportunities now.

I know people who work the seasonal industries in my province. In the fishing industry, for example, workers fish during the spring and summer. They go to Alberta to work the rest of the year. Then, they return to Atlantic Canada to go back to the jobs where they grew up as sons of fishermen, hoping one day to replace their parents in the fishing industry.

Critics of the government claim that the contents of Bill C-2 represent backtracking on the reforms introduced in 1996. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government promised that if a monitoring process indicated that the changes were not producing the desired results, then legislation would be changed. Today this is what we are doing. We have found that the bill, as passed by the House a number of years ago, has a number of flaws in it. We are moving to correct those flaws.

It was generally agreed during the early days of this government that the unemployment insurance scheme needed to be replaced. It did not respond to the new economy in the 21st century. After much consultation with Canadians and despite the outraged cries of the opposition, some of whom did not want an EI program at all and others who wanted a guaranteed annual income, the government brought in a program to replace the old regime with the employment insurance program.

The new plan was designed to be sustainable, to be fairer, to encourage work, to reduce dependence on benefits, to assist those most in need and to help workers get back to work and stay at work. The program was implemented with the knowledge that being new it would not necessarily be perfect. We knew that with time we would likely identify areas requiring improvement. The legislation allowed for a period of continuous monitoring and assessment of the program to measure its impact on people, communities and the economy.

This is not the first time that adjustments to the EI regime have proven necessary. The government acted quickly in 1997 to launch a small weeks project in order to correct a disincentive for some people to work weeks with low earnings.

As the member for the area who identified the weakness, I knew that potato grading companies could not find workers. If people came into the potato warehouses for one, two or three days during the week, their benefits would be cut in half by their response to that call to go to work. This obviously was a disincentive to get people to work. We immediately moved to correct that.

Our studies and discussions with Canadians have shown us that many parts of the EI program are working well. There are some provisions that have proven ineffective, particularly toward seasonal workers. We have always had and we will always have seasonal industries. These industries are vital to our economic well-being.

On Prince Edward Island, in Prince county alone, 65% of the workforce works less than a 12 month period in one year. I take offence with anyone who suggests that these changes will simply make it profitable for industries to gear up for a short season. I would like to comment that the seasonal businesses which are profitable, when they have such a short window of opportunity, are very fortunate.

It should be noted that seasonality is determined by a much higher power. If mother nature did not co-operate these businesses could no longer be profitable and the basic existence of many of them would be put into jeopardy.

As for the employees, if the EI program was not in place what would they do to support their families without an income? We are talking about the reality of seasonal workers across Canada, not just in Atlantic Canada. Because these industries by definition employ people for only part of the year, we must always remain watchful to ensure that our economic and social programs do not exclude these people from living and working.

While EI aims at helping all unemployed workers, we must also recognize that some groups, such as seasonal workers, have particular needs and the program has special features built in to benefit seasonal workers across the country.

The hours based system, for example, takes into account the fact that seasonal work often involves long hours of work per week. It also identifies a sector of the workforce, even with part time work over the full year, that can now qualify. For example, an employee who works in a seasonal job can accumulate hours in smaller numbers in the pre and post season in order to qualify for benefits which previously he or she was not entitled to.

As I have mentioned, one of the intentions of the EI program is to reduce dependence on benefits by all Canadian workers, including seasonal workers. The so-called intensity rule was therefore introduced to discourage use of EI benefits by reducing the benefit rate of frequent claimants.

The unavoidable fact is that many seasonal workers have no choice but to resort to EI benefits. There simply are not enough job opportunities available to them in the off season. That is why Bill C-2 proposes removal of the intensity rule. This translates into a maximum of $988 for a 26 week period and $1,710 for a maximum 45 week claim in the pockets of Canadians. If there was a maximum claim of 26 weeks, they would only get $40 more a week when the intensity rule is dropped. It may not seem like a very large amount of money, but for someone making $200 a week this represents a very large portion of that person's income.

I encourage all members to support this program and get these measures through as quickly as possible for the benefit of all seasonal workers in Canada.

[Committees Of The House, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food entitled “Making the Farm Income Safety Net Stronger and More Responsive to Farmers' Needs”, which was tabled in the House of Commons on February 22, 2000.

[Natural Gas, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex who, if nothing else, is a persistent supporter of agriculture in this country, especially agriculture in her riding. It gives me great pleasure to expand on my answer of March 23 to the question she posed on that date.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food has worked very hard with his provincial counterparts and the industry. He has announced a tentative agreement with all 10 provinces on a long term safety net plan. This will provide producers across Canada with the stability they need to thrive. The work before all governments now is to iron out the details of the agreement including the details of a disaster program.

The Government of Canada is pleased that an agreement has been achieved that provides for a three year farm income framework. We are confident that the plan will be ratified by each of the provinces as soon as possible. They have each committed to seek the authorities they need from their respective cabinets and provincial legislatures.

The tentative agreement provides annual federal funding of $665 million for basic safety net programs and access to $435 million in income disaster assistance in each of the next three years. When the agreement is finalized the federal commitment to safety net funding will be more than $3.3 billion for the next three years.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member knows very well that in the standing committee we are conducting investigations and hearings into GMO products as to whether the labels should be voluntary or mandatory.

She also knows that we have a number of committees that are working and will be working all summer to give the government advice on the policy we should pursue in view of GMOs.

[Agriculture, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the government has been very generous over the past year and a half in assisting western farmers.

We have given over $2 billion to the western farmers because of the conditions in the marketing of their grain and in transportation. Overall, I think the farmers are very pleased with the government and the efforts it is making on their behalf.

[Petitions, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to present two petitions on behalf of Prince Edward Islanders, specifically those from Vernon River, Vernon Bridge and the Lake Verde area. The petitioners are concerned that rural route mail couriers are being denied their collective bargaining rights under subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act and that this denial keeps the wages and working conditions of the RRMCs at an unfair level and discriminates against rural workers. Therefore, the petitioners would like this section to be repealed.

[Genetically Modified Foods, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The motion calls for the compulsory labelling of genetically modified food.

At the outset I want to make one thing very clear. When it comes to biotechnology issues, including genetically modified foods, the Government of Canada's number one priority is to act as a responsible steward for the health and safety of Canadians and the environment. I would like to quote from a recent speech by the premier of Saskatchewan, the Hon. Roy Romanow:

Food created from genetically altered crops grown on the Canadian prairies didn't originate from some madman's spiderwebbed laboratory; it passed through one of the best government regulatory systems in the world. The products that make it through the Canadian biotechnology regulatory system have met demanding protocols that require conclusive research into the products' impact on human health and the environment. Almost universally, peer review of research data by scientists with extensive knowledge in the biotechnology field has supported the safety of products before they are allowed into the marketplace.

The Province of Saskatchewan has long been a supporter of carefully regulated biotechnology.

The previous premier of Saskatchewan, the hon. Allan Blakeney, was responsible for beginning the biotechnology centre at the University of Saskatchewan. Maybe the province of Manitoba should catch up with the province of Saskatchewan when it comes to its support for biotechnology research in food.

Let me emphasize that the Government of Canada's commitment is always to safety first: safety for the protection of Canadians, safety for animals and safety of our environment. That is what Canadians expect of their government. It is a mission that the government takes very seriously.

I remind the House that the government undertakes very strict scientific evaluations of all food products including those derived from biotechnology. Before any new agricultural biotech product can be produced and marketed in Canada, it is subjected to comprehensive safety assessments to ensure that humans, animals and the environment will not be adversely affected by it.

Health Canada maintains responsibility for establishing policies and standards related to the safety of food sold in Canada. This department sets the data requirements for the safety assessments of all foods and undertakes comprehensive pre-market reviews of all foods.

In terms of labelling, Health Canada sets the specifics for labelling of all foods. Current labelling regulations in Canada require that all food products, including those developed through biotechnology, be labelled when the potential human health or safety issue has been identified or if foods have been changed in composition or nutrition. Therefore Health Canada determines if and when labelling is required based on scientific food safety evaluations.

The role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, is to carry out inspection and enforcement activities relative to the food safety standards set by Health Canada.

The government recognizes that Canadians want to be heard on the issue of labelling. We are actively engaged and consulting with Canadians to explore how labelling can best serve the public. There is need for informed discussion on the issue of labelling genetically modified products.

The government is responding to the public's interest in the area and has carefully encouraged the establishment of a Canadian standard for the labelling of foods derived through biotechnology. The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors has been working with the Canadian General Standards Board to develop this labelling standard.

A committee composed of representatives and individuals from a broad range of Canadian interests has been established. This committee has already met for three intensive working sessions since it inception in November of last year. A number of working groups have been established to examine various components of the standard. These groups are focusing on the scope of foods to be covered under the standard, label statements and mechanisms to verify the truthfulness of these statements. A completed standard is expected within the next six to twelve months.

Canada is fully immersed in developing its own national standard in full consultation with the shareholders and in a way that is open and transparent to all Canadians. Because of the leadership of the government, we are the first country in the world to actively engage such a broad range of stakeholders in this issue. Earlier this month the U.S. food and drug administration announced similar plans to prepare labelling guidelines that will ensure that labelling is truthful and informative.

The development of a comprehensive Canadian standard for the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology allows consumers, health care professionals, other levels of government, processors, distributors and producers to work together in establishing a single national standard. I believe the government has done the right thing by taking this approach. As consumers, we have the right to clear, concise and understandable information that allows us to make knowledgeable choices about the foods we eat.

Moreover, Canada is assuming a leadership role in the search for international standards that would govern how and when genetically modified foods are labelled. In fact, Canada's food regulatory system is held in such high esteem internationally that the Codex Alimentarius committee on food labelling asked us to chair the working committee to revise the proposed draft of the Codex standard for the labelling of food biotechnology products.

I also remind the House that last year the ministers of health, the environment, and agriculture and agri-food asked the Royal Society of Canada to appoint an expert panel on the future of food biotechnology. This past February the Royal Society named its expert panel, which consists of scientists who have widely recognized expertise in specific areas of knowledge. This panel is carefully balanced with respect to the various points of view on biotechnology issues.

This proactive, forward thinking body will advise Health Canada, the CFIA and Environment Canada on the science capacity that the federal government will need to maintain and enhance the safety of new foods being derived through biotechnology in the 21st century.

Once again we can see that the Government of Canada is committed to maintaining the highest scientific standards. We strive to ensure that scientific advice is broadly based and that Canada's regulatory assessments keep pace with the latest scientific innovations and discoveries. This type of proactive thinking underlies our efforts to make sound policy decisions that will continue to protect Canadian consumers.

The government also recognizes there are a number of challenges and opportunities associated with biotechnology that require detailed consideration and public discussion. Food biotechnology presents Canadians with unprecedented challenges but also unprecedented opportunities.

The recently formed Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, CBAC, will bring stakeholders and interested parties together to advise the government, to raise public awareness, and to engage Canadians in an open and transparent dialogue on biotechnology issues.

CBAC will deal with tasks such as the issues surrounding regulation and stewardship of emerging applications of biotechnology, with public education about biotechnology, and with the social, economic, environmental, legal and ethical issues relating to food biotechnology. CBAC will monitor scientific developments that underpin new developments in the field of biotechnology and the application of those new developments.

Another important initiative is that of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. This committee raised labelling as a key issue in the 1998 report entitled “Capturing the Advantage: Agriculture Biotechnology in the New Millennium”. This report recommended that parliament consult with stakeholders to review labelling policy.

I recommend that report to the hon. member. She thinks that opposition members are the ones who are filling the void. She is missing the two years of activities of this government, in conjunction with six other departments besides the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, to put together the Canadian biotechnology strategy. I recommend that she pick up that strategy and read it. The present standing committee has already begun a series of hearings on the labelling of genetically modified foods.

I remind the House that during the debate on the same issue earlier this month my hon. colleagues from the Canadian Alliance called for a joint study by the health and agriculture committees of the issue of labelling. Such a review would add considerable information and raise the level of dialogue on the issue.

The House owes it to the people who are working so hard to study the issue of food biotechnology to wait until we hear what they have to say. The message we are sending to Canadians is this: our priority is health, safety and the environment. We have incorporated these values into a regulatory system and will continue to ensure that we have a regulatory system in place that is rigorous, thorough and scientific.

The Government of Canada considers the issue of labelling of genetically modified foods to be very important. We want to hear what Canadians have to say. We want to hear what the experts have to say. We remain committed to the exchange of ideas on the issues surrounding biotechnology.