Bob Speller

[Agriculture, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Canada's international grain customers are growing more and more particular about the quality of the products that they purchase. Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House specifically what the government is doing to help Canada's grain industry respond to these pressures and to sell Canadian grain around the world?

[Anti-Terrorism Act, October 16th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to take the opportunity to speak to my constituents and other Canadians who are watching tonight about the importance of the anti-terrorism act that we have now introduced in the House, about to what exactly is in the act and how I believe the act helps to lessen the threat of terrorist activities here in Canada.

The government is determined to take steps to stop terrorism. Over the past number of weeks I think the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence have very clearly outlined the steps we believe need to be taken to help fight terrorism in Canada. I have certainly outlined what I believe to be the reasons behind the actions taken today.

I want to say at the outset that the actions we are taking in the legislation today might not have been acceptable in Canada two months ago, but certainly after the events of September 11, I do not think there is any question. When I go back to talk to my constituents on the street they say they are prepared to give a little of their rights and freedoms ensure that Canadians are safe. The constituents I have talked to on the street certainly are in favour of the approach that we are taking here, with the understanding that there are checks and balances within the legislation to make sure that governments and representatives of governments do not take advantage of these changes in the laws that we are making here today.

I will outline a bit of what is in the act. The act tries to identify, prosecute, convict and, in particular, punish terrorist activities here in Canada. Activities in Canada, as we know, have always been under the criminal code. Canada has in fact been a leader at the United Nations in pushing for international conventions on terrorism. We have now signed all 12 United Nations conventions on terrorism and we have ratified 10.

What this legislation would do is help ratify the other two conventions of the United Nations that try to attack terrorism internationally.

What is critical in what we have tried to do is to get the international community moving to fight terrorism. Under the auspices of the United Nations, the work it has done on these conventions goes a long way to co-ordinating the efforts of the world community to fight terrorism.

Of the two conventions that the bill would help ratify, the first is the suppression of terrorist financing convention. That relates to the freezing of terrorist property by prohibiting dealing in any property or with a person engaged in terrorist activities and also by prohibiting making available funds, financial and/or other related services to terrorists. What that tries to do is strike back at terrorist financing to make sure that these terrorist organizations do not get the financing they require to carry on their activities.

The other convention that the act would deal with is called the suppression of terrorist bombings convention. It contains provisions relating to the targeting of public places, government or infrastructure facilities or transportation systems with explosives and/or other lethal devices such as chemical and biological devices. What this tries to do is make sure that these activities are not carried out by terrorist groups.

What this also does is deal with provisions within the Criminal Code of Canada. It defines what a terrorist activity is in the criminal code. It states that it is an offence under one of the ten United Nations anti-terrorism conventions and protocols, which is what I just spoke about earlier. If people do things to break those conventions or protocols, then they are conducting a terrorist activity.

Second, it says that an action taken for political, religious or idedogical purposes which threatens the public or national security by killing, seriously harming or endangering the person, causing substantial property damage that is likely to seriously harm people or by interfering with or disrupting an essential service, facility or system, is a terrorist activity.

On the other side, we have public debates in this country that sometimes lead to demonstrations where people go out and break a few buildings, or tear down a fence or something. That would not be called a terrorist activity.

What we have tried to do is balance the legitimate right of Canadians to express their views and at the same time make sure that these terrorist activities do not take place in Canada.

The bill also designates terrorist groups and activities. The definition in the designation framework would provide clear guidance to the police, the prosecutors, the courts and the public as to what is and what is not a terrorist group or activity.

It would also make it a crime to knowingly collect or to provide funds to these terrorist groups, the maximum sentence under that would be 10 years, and to knowingly participate in or facilitate these activities of terrorist groups.

It would also be a crime to instruct anyone to carry out a terrorist activity on behalf of a terrorist group and also to knowingly harbour or to conceal a terrorist. By doing this, someone would get 10 years. In fact, for a lot of the activity in the terrorist group, one could get life sentences also.

The criminal code would also stipulate that the sentences imposed for each of these offences would be served consecutively so the time period would be longer.

It would also change the criminal code to make a new definition and designation of schemes that would make it easier to remove or to deny charitable status to some of these terrorist groups. As has been listed in the paper, there are a number of groups around the world that claim to be charities and claim to do certain noble things for people around the world. However, they are taking those dollars and funneling them to terrorist activities. This would make it a lot easier for the government to deny that charitable status to these groups to ensure that this sort of activity does not take place in Canada.

It would also allow stronger investigative tools for our police forces and to find these terrorist groups.

Measures within the legislation deal with electronic surveillance. Nowadays terrorist groups have all kinds of opportunities with new electronic media to deal with these sorts of issues. This would help take away their ability to use the Internet, to use this electronic surveillance to carry on their terrorist activity.

The Official Secrets Act would also be amended to address national security concerns, including threats to espionage by foreign powers and terrorist groups, and make sure that they are not able to carry on these activities denying them access to the information they require.

I believe very strongly that we have hit the right balance in this approach. I believe that constituents in my area support the approach the government is taking on this issue. I would encourage any of them at any time to contact me and let me know their views. We will continue to fight terrorism, as the Prime Minister said, to make sure that these activities do not take place in Canada or around the world.

[Food and Drugs Act, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to remind the House and Canadians that October 16 is World Food Day. Today is the day when we commemorate the founding of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. It was founded here in Canada, in Quebec City, on October 16, 1945. The theme this year is to fight hunger to reduce poverty. It underscores the need to alleviate hunger in order to eradicate poverty around the world.

I would like to first congratulate the member for Davenport for his work on this issue and particularly for his work on the environment. In saying that, though, I would have to say that I disagree with his approach on this issue.

I recognize that the labelling of genetically modified foods has become an important issue for consumers. However, I do not believe that Bill C-287 is the best way to achieve this goal. Clearly a public discussion involving parliamentarians needs to take place. I am glad that the government has done that and has asked the committee on health to look into this very important issue.

Let me turn to a few specifics for a quick overview of exactly what we do first here in Canada with regard to genetically modified foods.

Health Canada and, in particular, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, share accountability for food labelling policies under the Food and Drugs Act. Health Canada's responsibilities derive from its mandate for health and safety issues. I might say to all members of parliament and Canadians that we have the safest food standards in the world. We can be assured that Canadian food is safe because we have the people in place in the CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and in Health Canada who take the time to look at these issues and to look at these foods before they are put on our plates.

I recognize that the labelling of foods derived from biotechnology has become an important issue for consumers. I am glad that the government continues to discuss these issues with groups within Canada and in international organizations.

Recognizing that there is a need for a public discussion involving parliamentarians, as I said, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Minister of Industry and the Minister for International Trade contacted and wrote to the members of the health committee asking them to look at this very important issue. There are a number of concerns, particularly in rural Canada, as was mentioned earlier, as to how this sort of labelling would take place and the onus it would put on Canadian farmers today to bear the cost of this labelling.

In addition, one of the initiatives underway in Canada is the development of a Canadian standard for voluntary labelling of foods derived from biotechnology in a project led by the Canadian Grocery Council of Distributors and the Canadian General Standards Board, which are two groups of individuals who have taken the time to consult with Canadians across the country on this very important issue.

The draft labelling standard was put forward in July 2001 and is currently now open for comment from across the country. I would like to say that this group is accepting comments from Canadians who want to be involved and want to have a say on this issue until mid-October, with the final publication of the final standards hopefully by March 2002.

Another initiative underway is that of the Canadian biotechnology advisory committee, which is currently preparing advice for government on the regulation of GMO foods, including information provisions to support informed choice with labelling. I guess that is one of the concerns that a number of us had: that the choice of Canadians would be an informed choice. As the hon. member knows, being involved with the European parliamentary association, I do not think they have had the informed choice over there. We want to make sure that Canadians do in fact have that informed choice.

In its interim report released in August, the committee recommended that the government should support the development of an approach to labelling genetically modified foods. It suggested the implementation of a voluntary standard, such as what was being developed by the Canadian General Standards Board, at least initially, in order to test its adequacy and effectiveness and recognize the need for a reliable verification system to support labelling, whether it is a voluntary one or a mandatory one.

It also recognized that the government must continue to work with other countries to develop a harmonized international approach for labelling genetically modified foods. It is critical to have set standards for international trade and for our Canadian products to continue to go into places such as Europe.

The committee is seeking input on its final draft recommendations and we look forward to learning how Canadians respond to this interim report.

I want to talk a bit about what has been said in a few statements by these two groups. The first one is the Royal Society. The Royal Society is a group of Canadians consisting of scientists, researchers and people who are in the know about these sorts of issues. The government has called upon and relied on them to look at this very complex issue and to make some determinations. The Royal Society report stated:

In the end, however, the Panel concluded that there was not at this time sufficient scientific justification for a general mandatory labelling requirement. However, the Panel concluded that many of the concerns identified in this Report do call for a strongly supported voluntary labelling system for GM foods.

The report went on to state:

Many of the concerns voiced in favour of mandatory labelling can be addressed, at least in part, by voluntary labels. This is true, not only of the social, ethical and political concerns, but also of some of the risk-related concerns, especially those related to uncertainties and even fears about unsubstantiated risks associated with GM foods.

The panel believes that strong government support for voluntary labels is an effective way of providing consumer input into these issues, and encourages the Canadian regulatory agencies responsible to establish guidelines for the regulation of reliable, informative, voluntary labels.

The Canadian biotechnology advisory committee made the following recommendations. It said that Canada should develop a set of clear labelling criteria regarding the GM content in food and that further effort could be placed on the ongoing labelling initiative of the Canadian General Standards Board and the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors.

It also recommended we implement the labelling standard voluntarily, at least initially, in order to test its adequacy and effectiveness and widely promote its use so that people have real opportunities to make informed choices.

That is certainly the direction in which I think the government should go and it is a direction in which I think we as parliamentarians should go to make sure Canadians across the country have informed choice.

Bill C-287 raises a number of feasibility issues which I believe can be addressed and studied at the Standing Committee on Health. I would like to outline a few of the problems I see.

Amendments to the Food and Drugs Act, as proposed in the bill, would, I believe, create a two tiered system for genetically modified foods. Depending on the method used and the development of the specific foods, foods falling under the new definition would be required to be labelled to indicate the method of production while others derived from more traditional modification would be subject to voluntary labelling schemes. I think these sorts of issues need to be addressed at the committee.

What concerns me more is the fact that with the actual implementation of the bill mandatory labelling would require segregation in handling, transportation and processing systems and the cost would be borne by our farmers. The cost of changing the farms and the way they operate would put an undue hardship on farmers. I think that is why farm organizations across the country have looked at the bill and decided that there should be other ways to approach it. I am sure that they, along with consumer groups and other groups, would be more than happy to sit down and discuss the bill when the Standing Committee on Health takes a look at the issue.

Bill C-287 is intended to respond to consumer demand for choice. However the better approach to take is the approach being put forward by me, by rural Canadians, and by a group of other interested Canadians who want to talk about this issue and want to appear before the Standing Committee on Health.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. Although I have been here all evening listening to the debate I will not have the opportunity to speak to the issue. There are a great number of members who want to rise on debate and unfortunately I was not at the top of the list.

On behalf of my constituents of Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, I wish to express our sympathies to our friends and neighbours in the United States, Canada and other countries around the world that suffered through this tragedy.

I agree with those who say that these terrorists must be brought to justice as quickly as possible. I also support those who say that we as Canadians must take action more than just through our verbal actions. We must take the actions as were talked about today by the Prime Minister. All of us in the House of Commons must come together and do this as quickly as possible. If there are laws that need to be changed, then let us change them and get this done as quickly as we can.

I also support those who say that we must strike at the root causes of terrorism, that we must do that as a group collectively and internationally. We cannot take action on the one hand of striking without striking intelligently. I do agree with those individuals.

What does the hon. member feel that individual Canadians can do specifically to help this cause? I listened to the debate today. Members talked about how we could collectively do something as a nation and work together, but what can individual Canadians themselves do? A number of people have called my offices and have asked what they can do as an individual Canadian to help in this cause.

[William Knowles, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on this day when we pay tribute to former parliamentarians who have passed on, I would like to take this opportunity to pay respects to the hon. Bill Knowles, or Tobacco Bill as he was known, a former member of parliament in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant.

Bill was a teacher, a farmer and a former captain in World War II. He was a lifelong resident of Lynedoch, Ontario and was elected to parliament in 1968, re-elected in 1972, in 1974 and sat until 1979 when he retired. He attended every recognized function throughout the riding of Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant and was very well known for speaking out on behalf of his constituents, particularly on behalf of farmers in our riding.

Bill was a caring husband and friend to his wife Vera and a father to two sons, William and James. He will be greatly missed by the constituents in Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant.

One thing we can say about Bill Knowles was that he served and loved his constituents and he will be greatly missed.

[Criminal Code, April 4th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-330, an act to amend the Criminal Code (desecration of the Canadian Flag).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill to amend the criminal code regarding the desecration of the Canadian flag. I thank the member for Eglinton—Lawrence for seconding the motion.

We all know that a vast majority of Canadians are proud of the flag as a national symbol and believe that the desecration of it is an offence. The flag is a symbol of our freedom and independence. For those who fought for our country's liberty, the destruction of our flag is particularly upsetting.

Unfortunately there are some people who feel that by destroying our flag they are expressing their disagreement with government policy or the entire nation itself as a means of protest.

In this vein I put forward the bill to protect our national symbol. I am not advocating throwing people in jail over this, but I do think a fine on a sliding scale is appropriate punishment for those who wilfully destroy our most profound national symbol.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Supply, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment a bit on what the hon. member has been saying. He talked about the level of debate in the House. I was hoping to come to the House today and that the opposition might be able to put new information on the table that would cause me to think my constituents were wrong by not calling me a lot on this issue and feeling there is nothing new.

The hon. member talked about comments coming across the floor. On the one hand he says the government is saying nasty things about their doing that. On the other hand he talks about feathering our nests on this side and other comments like that. That does not add to the debate.

It be useful if the hon. member would come forward with some new information that is not already out there. The Prime Minister has laid on the table all the relevant information. The RCMP has investigated. The conflict officer has looked at it. The disparaging remarks these hon. gentlemen have been making about the conflict officer are wrong. He is a very well respected, long term member of the public service. They should withdraw their scurrilous allegations.

What new does the hon. member have to put on the table that would make my constituents believe we should actually take this issue to any further level of investigation?

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that I will not be drawn into his political debate because I believe this should not be politicized.

I know that a lot of hon. members say that the Prime Minister's Office somehow has a grip on hon. members. I talked with a lot of my Liberal members yesterday and they see through the tricks that the Alliance Party is putting on. They do not buy what it is trying to do with this holier than thou sudden coming forward to ask for funds. In fact, now I learn that it is not money Alliance members are asking for. They just want us to somehow change the wheat board.

I can assure the hon. member that members on this side of the House will continue to stand up and speak for farmers in this country, and in all parts of Canada, not just in the west. We in this party represent all parts of the country and we represent the farming community in all parts of Canada. We will continue to stand up and fight on behalf of farmers.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that I have only been here for 13 years or so. I used to chair the agriculture committee and have probably spoken on agriculture as much as most people in the House. Even though I come from southwestern Ontario, I have always stood up for western grain farmers.

I have been out there and have talked to farmers in the west. I have looked into the whole issue. The member talks about the wheat board. I want to assure him that I and members on this side will stand up for the wheat board and for those farmers in the west, who are the majority, who support farmers having a say in the sale of their wheat. There is no question that if we ever got rid of the wheat board, as the hon. member would like, the farmers would be at the whim of foreign nations and foreign multinational companies. They would not have a voice in the marketing of their products.

I have always believed, as I have in terms of marketing boards, that the best way we can market our products, the best way farmers can have a say in their livelihoods, is to do it through a marketing system. I disagree with the hon. member. I believe that the best way we can support farmers is through marketing boards, to make sure they have a say in the way their products are marketed and to make sure they have a say in the House. That is why I feel it is important that farmers have an opportunity to have debates like this, and I appreciate the fact that the debate was brought forward by the opposition.

[Supply, March 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to take this opportunity to thank the opposition for bringing forward a motion today on agriculture. It is a very important issue. I believe we have a crisis in agriculture today. As rural members in the House, it gives us an opportunity to speak on agriculture. It is very much appreciated.

At the same time too, I want to thank the Prime Minister, the cabinet, my colleagues in our rural caucus and some of our urban members, such as the member for Toronto—Danforth and the member for Parkdale—High Park, two downtown Toronto members who stood up and voiced the concerns that many Canadians have on the crisis in agriculture.

I also want to thank the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of National Defence who are all urban cabinet ministers but who are in the House today talking about this issue. They are concerned about this and have been listening to the concerns of all members about the crisis.

We are here today, aside from the politics of the issue, because agriculture in Canada is in crisis. We have heard from many different people who have many differing views on what the crisis is, how best we can solve it and whether or not money should be flowing into the hands of agriculture, farmers and rural Canadians.

From the bias of coming from a rural area, a small town Ontario riding which has very many similarities with the ridings of the hon. members across the floor who are from other provinces, I say there is a crisis out there and we need to further recognize that. As parliamentarians and as a government, I believe we need to move to do more in this area.

The opposition suggests that we need to put more money into it. Our rural caucus and our cabinet ministers who supported us came up with a good package that addressed many of the immediate concerns that farmers have today, particularly those concerns of getting crops into the ground this year.

In saying that, I believe we need to do more and can do more. In fact we not only need to look at the immediate crisis, but we need to look at the long term solutions. First and foremost, we need to talk to Canadians, inform them and let them know why agriculture is so important to this country and why it is in need today.

Agriculture is the third largest employer in the country. It accounts for 8.5% of our GDP. It is important to the future of the country that we have a healthy industry.

Why are we in crisis today? We are in crisis today for a number of different reasons. As was pointed out, our international partners are putting direct subsidies to exports. Exports are so important to the agricultural community today. We have $22 billion or $23 billion in exports across the world.

When our farmers try to export into foreign markets that use export subsidies, it lowers the price that that farmers gets for his commodity. Hon. members may not be aware that in certain areas farmers are not making back their costs of production. They are paying more out than they are taking in from their crops. I saw on television last night, I believe it was on CTV, that in some cases 75% of farmers' incomes come from the public purse.

We cannot continue to survive as a country and we cannot continue to thrive as an agricultural community, if that continues to be the case. We need to get our income out of the marketplace. As parliamentarians we need to sit down and try to find solutions to do that.

One solution being put forward is to put $100 million of new money into it and that somehow will solve the problem. It will not solve the problem that we are facing today. We need to go beyond that and look for broader solutions that involve all provinces and involve not only farmers and rural Canadians but also those who live in the urban centres who purchase the food farmers produce.

That is not being done. There has not been enough dialogue from the farm leadership, from the parliamentarians or from farmers themselves. There has not been enough done to bring in more Canadians and inform them of the problems that farmers face today.

I have been involved for a number of years in international trade. What I try to do, and what our Minister for International Trade is doing as we speak, is deal with how other countries subsidize their farmers and get these export subsidies down. If we can get those export subsidies down, if we can get the trade distorting subsidies down, our farmers will be able to compete. However that issue will take a while to resolve. It will not be resolved overnight. International trade negotiations take years. In fact I believe the last one took seven years. This one could even take more.

As Canadians we have to make a decision. Do we want viable farm families? Do we want to support our families in need until we can internationally negotiate these subsidies down? Those are the questions we are faced with today.

I believe we should. I believe there is a public good in having Canadian farmers produce the food we eat because we can regulate exactly what is in that food. If we did not have Canadian farmers producing the food, then we would not have control over what is in it. We would have some control, but we would have a lot more control if we were assured that Canadian farmers were producing our food.

Not only can we regulate it but we can guarantee that we will have that supply. If we start losing farmers, which is what is happening now, if we do not invest in young people getting into farming today, if we do not invest in the research and development that is needed not only to produce better crops but to produce better crops that will sell, if we do not put our emphasis on those areas, then we will not have an industry here. We will not have the guarantee that Canadians need: that the industry will grow the food we eat. In fact, we will just import it and the price will be at the whim of what is in the product, which other countries will produce and we will not. We have the cheapest food prices in the world. We have some of the most productive farmers in the world. In order to keep these things, we need to continue investing in the industry.

I represent an area in southwestern Ontario that is one of the most diverse agricultural areas. The problem today is not only in grains and oilseeds, but in areas such as apples and horticulture and particularly in areas that other countries are putting a lot of emphasis on in subsidizing their producers.

We will deal with the international problems, but in the meantime as parliamentarians and as a country we need to take seriously the problems that farmers face today and deal with them in a non-partisan way. I have tried—and I will wait for the questions from the opposition—to deal with the issue in a non-partisan way because I believe that is how Canadians will listen to us.

I thank the Prime Minister, cabinet, my rural colleagues and members of the opposition who have raised this very important issue. I believe we can and should do more. On behalf of my constituents, I guarantee that I will stand to speak at every occasion on behalf of my constituents and farmers in southwestern Ontario.