Bob Mills

[Supply, June 15th, 2000]

moved:

That this House recognize that the health care system in Canada is in crisis, the status quo is not an option, and the system that we have today is not sustainable; and, accordingly, that this House call upon the government to develop a plan to modernize the Canadian health care system, and to work with the provinces to encourage positive co-operative relations.

[Petitions, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by 646 people in my riding.

The petitioners believe that it is the duty of parliament through the enactment and enforcement of the criminal code to protect the most vulnerable members of our society from sexual abuse.

Therefore, the petitioners pray that parliament take all measures necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence and that federal police forces be directed to give priority to enforcing this law for the protection of our children.

[Health, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we seem to have a contradiction. The Minister of Health says he will spend more money on health care. The Prime Minister says that enough money has been spent on health care. Canadians on waiting lists deserve to know. Who should they believe, the Minister of Health who wants to spend more money, or the Prime Minister who says they have spent enough?

[Crimes Against Humanity And War Crimes Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is my privilege to stand and address the member. I am rather shocked that he would choose to bring in partisan politics to something as serious as this when we are talking about war criminals. He seems to think that he holds all the cards when it comes to compassion and understanding people.

I was in Kosovo and Macedonia last year as well. A grandfather told me they had killed his oldest grandson, then his youngest one, and then they had killed the middle one. He asked, “Mister, how can you ever forgive those people? How can you tell me to not hate anymore?”

That touched me and I will remember that forever, just as much as the member has been touched and is compassionate toward those kind of crimes against humanity. For him to stand and condemn a party or condemn fellow MPs on something like this, I find that rather untenable in this House, particularly from someone with the kind of experience he has. I am sure he has compassion but we also have compassion for those people.

The question is, how do we get at these kinds of people? There are good guys and bad guys. The problem is that all the good guys agree to sign everything and form all kinds of agreements and all kinds of get-togethers where they can talk about what we should do and talk and talk. The real problem is how to deliver. How do we get the bad guys to sign on? How do we get after them?

How will the member get the bad guys? We can list so many. We can go to Sudan and Iraq. We can go to all kinds of places. How does he get those bad guys to sign on to what we good guys know should happen and want to happen?

As far as what the other member said, he has tried to put forward amendments. He has tried to make the bill better. The government is set on ramming the bill through in a hurry. Well, it just will not work. That is why we are opposed to it.

[Health Care, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this government has slashed $24 billion out of health care since it came to office. The report states that health care expenditures are expected to increase a whopping 247% over the next 25 years. It is a question of priorities. This government now spends $15 billion on health and social transfers and $17 billion on boondoggle prone grants and contributions.

Why are boondoggles more important to this government than the health care of Canadians?

[Health Care, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the provincial and territorial premiers' report on sustainability of health care is a damning commentary on the government's performance. The report shows that the cost of sustaining the taxpayers' share of health care at current levels could rise from $54 billion today to $85 billion in 10 years. This government has not even lived up to its present commitment.

How can Canadians have any confidence that this government will honour its future obligations and provide them with the health care they deserve?

[National Cancer Survivors Day, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Cancer Society assisted in celebrating the 13th annual National Cancer Survivors Day. This day honours survivors who are living with and beyond cancer. This day is so important as it also recognizes the role that family and friends play in the lives of cancer survivors, as well as health care professionals and researchers who devote their lives to helping those faced with this disease.

Cancer touches us all either directly or indirectly. Approximately one in three Canadians will be diagnosed with cancer during his or her lifetime.

Today improved detection methods, increased availability of information and enhanced treatments allow for more people to achieve a full recovery.

This day demonstrates that a diagnosis of cancer is not an automatic death sentence. Now observed in over 700 communities throughout North America, National Cancer Survivors Day is a powerful tribute to everyone whose lives have been touched by cancer. It is a day to celebrate courage and hope.

[Genetically Modified Foods, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is a pleasure to speak to this private member's bill. I congratulate the member for bringing it to the House. We get very frustrated, as she pointed out, in the health committee where we really cannot deal with any of the issues with which Canadians want to deal. We are forced instead to toe the line and simply go along with one little aspect of the health issue.

This is an issue for Canadians. It is one that they care about. It is one on which they want information. The government would be wise to learn that if information is provided an awful lot of the hearsay and scary stuff will be eliminated.

The age that we came from was much simpler when it came to biology. I cannot help but think back to my days in biology classes at the University of Saskatchewan when our professors would talk about what the future might be when it came to genetics, eugenics and all those sorts of issues. I cannot help but remember back to their talking about issues like Dolly and that sort of science ultimately being applied much further.

The problem with the failure of the government to provide information is that it is left open to emotion. It is left open to using non-scientific information that can frighten people including farmers, consumers and those who care about their health and the health of their families. It can scare them in terms of the new technology which they do not understand. By having that information in place and talking about it in detail we prevent the scary stuff from entering into the discussion.

I have seen what can happen when we deal with non-science, when we deal with what people think might happen. I encourage the government and the House to force the issue of GMOs in the whole area of biotechnology. We should force it to be transparent. We should involve the participation of as many groups including citizen groups as we can. We should go an extra distance with the consultation process and base all our decisions on scientific evidence, not hearsay evidence and the fear some might have.

The safety assessment of biotechnology is critical. We must look at it in our foods. We must ask what it does. We must know that using this technology is for the benefit of humanity, as opposed to a danger to humanity. We should not jump into what we will do. Information is key. The information available to our citizens is what we should be concerned about in the House.

We in the Canadian Alliance have developed a position which we have discussed at some length with our agriculture critic, our health critic, and our membership in general. We came up with a position I certainly want to read into the record. It is much more reasonable than what we have heard from the government side.

The alliance supports using scientific information to determine if an agricultural or food biotechnology product meets Canadian health and safety requirements. If it does, the acceptability of the product in the marketplace should be determined by consumer choice and not by political interference. The alliance supports increased consumer awareness and choice in the voluntary labelling of these products. The alliance also supports labelling of foods that are not genetically modified. This should be on a voluntary consumer driven basis, which would go a long way toward solving some of the problems of today.

While we come out somewhat in between where the hon. member stands in terms of genetically modified foods and where the government is at, the ends we would go to would be much the same and would accomplish the same for Canadians. That is what should be important when it comes to an issue like this one.

There are reasons to label everything. We can look at them, but we must ask some questions. Why would we do that? The obvious answer is for people with allergies and different genetic make-ups. There could be a peanut in something that they would not expect it to be in. That is an obvious reason. That is science and a reason for labelling. People are developing increased resistances and increased allergies. All kinds of medical issues should be dealt with, which we need a lot more information on.

We could simply respond to our trading partners. I particularly point to the European Union. In many respects, from the little bit I know about what the European Union has done, it seems that it has been stampeded into opposing genetically modified foods without the science that is there. We could point fingers at why that happened but we can understand the politics involved. Some of it would be justified and some would not. We should have learned from that however that we had better not get in that same category of being stampeded into labelling or not labelling just based on scientific fearmongering.

The obvious disadvantages we have think about when we talk about labelling, and the one that would be most significant to me, would be the cost to our agricultural community which is already under severe strain.

Over the past week I was in my riding talking to farmers at farmers' markets and at town hall meetings. One morning I met with a group of farmers and they told me that they were growing canola that was roundup resistant and that they were worried about what would happen if we started to overregulate. They said that it would hurt an industry that is already hurting. We must consider that and look at the consumers and the food manufacturers. We must tell the farmers that we will not get on the bandwagon of anti-GMO just because someone else is pushing us. We must make sure that we consider the farmers and all the others who are affected.

How would we enforce the labelling of genetically modified foods? I read an article once that said “If a chicken eats genetically modified grain does that mean you are going to label the chicken as being genetically modified?” My biology says that we have been eating chromosomes and genes for an awfully long time and that I will not become what I eat in terms of genetics. I am not likely to have canola growing out of my ears or a cob of corn under my neck or whatever. That is not science. It will not what happen.

I cannot help but think of some of the bills we have passed in this House. I cannot for the life of me imagine how we will enforce Bill C-23, which might be the most recent example. We will have sex police checking out couples. We will spend $4.5 million on health police to make sure Alberta follows the law. If someone in Alberta is extra billed or jumps the queue it will be on the front page of every newspaper in that province. We do not need police to do that. We also have the gun police for Bill C-68. I guess we will now have GMO police checking out what chickens are eating. I am not sure where all this stops.

The main point, as my time is running short, is that we should base things on science. We should have voluntary labelling based on consumer demand and we should let the consumers decide. We should base everything we do on science. We should also ensure that consumers are informed. The government must take a lead role in making sure that this information gets out to all Canadians who are concerned about this issue.

[Health Care, May 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, after spending this past week in my riding, on behalf of my constituents I rise in the House today to express our concern for the health care system in peril.

Canadians across the country are concerned about their health care system and so they should be. The government's response to date has been downright insulting.

The budget that gave $2.5 billion over four years to health and education is an insult. A health committee that does not address the health issues of importance to Canadians is an insult. A health minister who is all talk and no action is an insult. A federal government that chooses to antagonize the provinces and refuses to work co-operatively with them is an insult.

Canada is the fifth highest spender and is in the bottom one-third of OECD countries for health care. We have farmers, educators, industrial workers and professionals concerned about health care. So they should be.

A government that is unable to address this growing concern is an insult to Canadians.

[Hepatitis C, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the health minister says that he cares. We have heard that over and over again, but he should talk to some of the victims of hepatitis C to see how they feel he has treated them.

Two years ago the federal government announced that it would send out compensation. The only people who have been paid to this point are the lawyers. The forms just went out last week to the actual victims.

This minister and his government have no conscience. How can the minister be so callous as to ignore the suffering of those victims?