Lynn Myers

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this very important issue. I represent a farming riding, at least in part, a significant part I might add. The issue with respect to genetically modified foods is a very important debate that is now taking place across Canada, and certainly in my riding. As a former farmer I have a very keen interest in the particular issue.

At the outset I want to say that Health Canada has a very strong responsibility to Canadians to ensure that all foods are safe. We know that and quite frankly take it for granted. We need to know that food and the food supply, even though it is foods derived from biotechnology, are safe and nutritious for all Canadians.

I want to take this opportunity to remind not only the members of the House but Canadians wherever they live in our great country that Canada in my view, and it is shared by many people, has the best food safety systems in the world. We need to remember that and ensure that we keep it in perspective.

For example, when manufacturers of novel foods are required to notify Health Canada before the sale of their products, this in effect means that Health Canada ensures that a team of Health Canada people reviews and scrutinizes those foods. They include people like toxicologists, molecular biologists, nutritional scientists and chemists to discuss, to look at and to conduct a thorough review as it relates to safety for Canadians.

To this end I remind the House that Health Canada has established under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations a new division that defines the concept of novel food and requires notification prior to the sale or advertising for sale of such products in Canada. This permits Health Canada to conduct a thorough safety assessment for each product. That is important. Canadians need to know that and take comfort in that fact.

Novel foods include but are not limited to food products derived from genetically modified organisms. These kinds of regulations as they relate to those foods were published as part II of The Canada Gazette on October 27, 1999.

In order to assist developers in collecting the information required to demonstrate the safety of their product, Health Canada has issued the publication entitled “Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods”. Health Canada's safety assessment approach for biotechnological derived foods reflect scientific principles developed through international expert consultations carried out by the World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, as well as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

This is important because it underscores the commitment of the Government of Canada to work with global partners in ensuring that we have the kind of food and food safety that Canadians take for granted. This approach mirrors that of the regulatory agencies of Australia, New Zealand, United States, Japan and other countries, especially those in the European Union.

The approach used to assess the safety of biotechnological derived foods was first described in an OECD publication, “Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles (1993)”. This publication was the report of a group of about 60 experts from 19 OECD member countries who spent more than two years discussing the challenge of how to assess the safety of novel foods including biotechnological derived foods.

The majority of the experts were all nominated by governments. They were regulatory scientists from government agencies and ministries in member countries who have the onerous responsibility of ensuring consumer safety. These people were well versed in the kind of issues at hand and the kind of requirements that needed to be put in place.

I should also remind the House that in 1996 after three years of experience in the safety assessment of various biotechnological derived foods participants at an expert WHO-FAO consultation again supported the approach used to assess the safety of biotechnological derived foods that was first described by the OECD.

As in the case for approval of most products by regulatory agencies around the world, companies or proponents of biotechnological derived foods are required to submit a set of data which must be of sufficient high calibre and meet the criteria specified in the guidelines. This information is reviewed by a team of scientific evaluators representing expertise in molecular biology, toxicology, chemistry, nutritional services and microbiology.

The scientific validity of study protocols used and the raw data submitted are critically analyzed as indeed they should be in a scientific review. If any part of the information provided is insufficient further studies will be provided by the company.

The safety assessment of technologically derived foods including consideration of the long term effects of such foods in the diet involves, first, how the food crop was developed, including the molecular biological data which characterize the genetic stage and change; second, the composition of the novel food compared to non-modified counterpart foods; third, nutritional information for the novel food prepared and compared to non-modified counterparts; fourth, the potential for new toxins; and, fifth, potential for causing allergic reaction.

One of the tools used in the safety assessment approach for biotechnological derived foods is based on comparing the biotechnological derived food with a conventional non-modified food with a long history of safe use. This is good science and it is appropriate that we in Canada would use it.

This tool is known as substantial equivalence. This does not mean that we approve biotechnological derived foods if they are substantially equivalent to their traditional counterparts. What this approach means is that scientists assess biotechnological derived foods against their traditional counterparts which have long been safely consumed in the human diet.

The comparative approach permits linking the composition of new foods to existing products with a history of safe use to permit predictions on the impacts of new foods in the diet. Differences identified in the comparisons are the focus for further intense scrutiny which will involve traditional, nutritional, toxicological, immunological testing or long term studies as appropriate.

One of the important benefits of applying the concept of substantial equivalence is that it provides flexibility, which is a very useful tool in food safety assessment. The application of the concept allows us to consider that everything that is the same between the biotechnology derived food and conventional food to be safe and to identify any differences intended or unintended which would be the target of the safety evaluation. Again this is important. It underscores the commitment of the government in terms of good science to ensure food safety not only in our system but for others to emulate around the world.

Scientists further focus on the novel trait or component introduced to foods using genetic modification. These novel traits or components are then assessed using the full range of methods which consider the impact of the new trait or component in a modified organism, characteristics related to the new trait or component in the final food, nutritional quality, the potential that the new component may be a toxicant or reduce the nutritional integrity of the food product, and its potential allergenicity as well.

Additional research or testing is often required if scientists are not satisfied. That is important to note because it underscores the commitment of the government to ensure that safety is the absolute key in this process. If there is not satisfaction at any stage in the safety assessment process, further measures are taken. Only if all of Health Canada's stringent criteria are met is a novel food allowed access to the Canadian market.

Concerns have been expressed by some advocacy groups that the foods and ingredients derived from biotechnology have not been adequately evaluated in terms of their potential long term impact on health, especially on human health. Health Canada's regulatory system already provides for the requirement of long term studies when they are necessary. It is important to note that Health Canada is taking a very keen lead role in this area knowing that Canadians wherever they live require it, demand it and insist on it, and rightfully so because of the importance of this issue. Health Canada is taking the lead required in this all important area. I will give an example.

If the application of biotechnology to a food resulted in significantly different nutrient combinations or other novel food characteristics not previously encountered in the food supply, long term studies would be required to further demonstrate the safety of the food. If longer term studies are required, the food will not be approved and the company or proponent will be obligated to carry out those studies and report as necessary the findings and results before any further consideration of its submission. Again this underlines the very stringent criteria Health Canada has in place in this very important area.

As the science of biotechnology continues to evolve on a rapid basis, the Government of Canada keeps pace by using the best technology available at the moment and continually reviews the effectiveness of its approach in all these matters. It plays an active role in the international arena, for example at the WHO, FAO, OECD and other places. It shares expertise in developing assessment strategies ensuring that Canada's strategies are as effective as those in other countries. We share our knowledge with others and they share with us to ensure we have the best science, the best data and the best expertise to ensure safety in the food supply for Canadians.

The federal government recognizes it must ensure that it will have the necessary scientific and regulatory capacity in order to adequately regulate the products of biotechnology as a science as it continues to advance and new products are proposed for commercialization. We see that in a non-ending pace. Everywhere we look new technologies are coming forward. We on this side of the House and Health Canada have to ensure that these kinds of protocols are in place to ensure that we have the best and safest food supply.

To this end, I remind all members of the House that an independent scientific expert panel on the future of food and biotechnology has been established to examine future scientific developments in food biotechnology. This independent expert panel will also advise Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada on the science capacity the federal government will require to continue to ensure the safety of new food products being developed through biotechnology in the 21st century. What an important expert panel that is in order to enable the government to ensure all Canadians that the kind of food safety system we have is the best in the world. It reflects the concerns of Canadians to ensure we have the processes in place to do precisely that.

The Government of Canada is absolutely committed to the ongoing process of ensuring that its regulations on genetically modified foods are appropriate for the state of science that exists presently as well as into the future and the types of food and plant products that are being developed through research. As a part of this commitment Health Canada has been engaged in formal consultations since 1993 regarding the assessment and approval of genetically modified foods to strengthen the protection of health and safety for Canadian consumers.

As I said at the outset, I come from a riding that is heavily farmed and which includes a great deal of agriculture and agri-food business. It is important that we look at food safety. Canadians are very interested in this matter. I am interested in it and I know my constituents are. It underscores the fact that Canadians want the best when it comes to food and food safety. That is a rightful thing to ask and it is rightful to ask the government to ensure the safety of the food ingested by us and our families.

I am pleased to report to the House and Canadians in general that Canada has the best food safety system in the world. In co-operation with other member countries around the globe, we work to continually ensure that through partnership and the kinds of efforts made through a number of organizations, bilateral agreements and arrangements, we are able to share expertise, skill, knowledge and science and make sure that we do the right thing when it comes to food safety. Why do we do that? Quite frankly we do it because it is in the interests of all of us as individuals and for Canada as a whole.

I am pleased the government has moved in this area in a manner that is consistent with the values that Canadians hold. I am pleased that Health Canada and other branches of the government are working diligently in a manner consistent with what Canadians want, desire and need in this all important area.

I was pleased to speak to this motion and indicate what we on the government side are doing to ensure that we continue to maintain good food safety for all Canadians wherever they live in this great country.

[Biotechnology, May 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, over the past several months members of the House have raised questions and concerns over food safety as they relate to foods derived from biotechnology. Some have even suggested that the foods we eat are untested. This is simply untrue.

Foods derived from biotechnology must go through a very stringent regulatory process to ensure that they are safe for humans, for animals and for the environment before they are approved.

Canada has the best food safety regulations in the world. Our regulatory and approval processes are based on the best science available. Canadian regulations are in sync with standards set by the World Health Organization, food and agricultural organizations, and other international bodies.

Opposition members are simply trying to scare the Canadian public into thinking that the food they eat is not safe. Quite frankly Canadians deserve better than this. They deserve the facts. Canadians should be proud of our regulatory system and our world class food supply.

[Foreign Affairs, April 13th, 2000]

Look whose talking.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it really is hard to answer the member opposite when he gets up on his hind legs and behaves the way he does.

He talks about ingredients. What kind of ingredient does he have? Look, by the way, at his very thin skin and the fact that he raised issues like bigotry and racism. I did not do so, but he did. Methinks he doth protest too much.

It is really obvious who the people opposite are. Last night was a telling vote because they are the people who talk about grassroots participation. They are the people who talk about free votes. Yet if we look, to a person last night, they all voted, en masse, en bloc. Why? It was because they were all whipped into voting the way they did. They are the people who talk about grassroots. They are the people who talk about free votes. What duplicity. What hypocrisy.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the allowing me the opportunity to respond.

I listen day after day in this great House of Commons to the kind of thrust and parry that take place across the aisle and to the new leader of the Canadian Alliance, the member for Edmonton North. This member speaks of name calling. I watch the Leader of the Opposition very carefully and how she mocks the ministers and the Prime Minister, how she mocks language and speech and how she mocks and name calls. That is just one example of how the people opposite behave in this great House of Commons. It is unbelievable how they behave. But Canadians see through that. They see through the duplicity of those people who say one thing and do another. They see through the duplicity of people with their holier than thou attitudes who say something one way and then, quite frankly, answer from the opposite side of their mouths.

Let me get to the question that the hon. member asked. We on the government side, in recognition of the sanctity of marriage, moved along expeditiously with supporting a motion last year that underlined what we believe, which is that marriage is the sole union between a man and a woman. I do not know what it is about that the hon. member does not understand. I do not know what cheap political points he wants to score, but Canadians see through that nonsense. They see through it every time.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, you are fair and even-handed, as always.

What I found not so long ago was that in listening to members opposite I was quite astonished, to put it frankly and bluntly, at some of the misconceptions that they seem to want to perpetuate, and the myths too. For example, I listened prior to question period to the member for Dewdney—Alouette. I listened to the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands who, when I was speaking, talked about a barroom brawl. Is that not interesting coming from members opposite, a barroom brawl. I would have thought that they could do better than to be hanging out in bars, never mind brawling.

The member for Nanaimo—Cowichan was quoted recently in the Vancouver Sun . He said “A gradual blurring of the sexes has occurred that gave young men growing up in many female dominated single parent homes an identity crisis”. This, according to him, has led to the rise in “militant homosexuality”.

He went on to state that he was unable, however, to explain why he believes that single mother families encouraged such homosexual militancy.

Compare that to the member for Yorkton—Melville, again one of those Alliance people with extremist views which are way out in left field, and other right wing nonsense. He was quoted as saying in a press release “In the 1950s buggery was a criminal offence. Now it is a requirement to receive benefits from the federal government”.

It was not so long ago that the party opposite made reference to gays and blacks, saying they should be relegated to the back of the bus. That is a direct quotation from those members. It is amazing that these people opposite keep perpetuating that kind of nonsense, that kind of hatred, discrimination and bigotry. I suppose we could say it is part and parcel of who they are and what they represent, but it is very sad that they would do that.

What I want to do, instead of focusing on the negative nonsense of the Alliance people, no matter what they call themselves, is to focus on the positive, which is that we on the government side defend tolerance, compassion and caring. Unlike those people who stand for and are representatives of the politics of extremism and bigotry, we represent the politics of hope and reconciliation.

That is what decent Canadians expect of their government: caring, compassion and tolerance. That is precisely what the Minister of Justice and the government have proceeded to do in this very important area.

I could go on in terms of the kinds of myths that members opposite are perpetuating. In fact, I want to do that right now.

I have listened for the last couple of days to some of the speeches. I want to point out that Bill C-23 is not about marriage. In fact, on this side of the House last year we supported the motion which indicated that was not the case. To have them rise time and time again to say that it is about marriage is really outrageous. I do not know what kind of political spin or cheap political shots members opposite want to make in this area, but it really is quite unacceptable. Canadians see through their shenanigans, duplicity and hypocrisy.

The bill is not about marriage. It is certainly not about relationships, dependent or otherwise. It is not about sending in the sex police, as some members have alluded to in their convoluted way, suggesting that would occur. Rather, we on the government side, in a positive, upbeat fashion, are saying that into the 21st century we will define ourselves in a manner consistent with the values of Canadians, which are tolerance and compassion. That is why we are proceeding with Bill C-23.

It was reaffirmed by a motion of parliament last year that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. We have repeated that in the bill to underscore the point. If there are Canadians across this great country who do not feel the way I and other members of the government do, but rather agree with those on the opposite side, they can take comfort from knowing that there will not be a change in this very important area.

The proposed legislation is an omnibus bill. I know that is well known. It takes action on a number of fronts. Bill C-23 eliminates discrimination so that benefits and obligations that currently apply to common law, opposite sex couples will be extended to same sex couples as well.

The bill goes on to modernize obsolete language. It repeals provisions of obsolete laws that are no longer needed and, where necessary, makes the kinds of modifications necessary in keeping with the kind of required omnibus legislation that we have before us. I believe Canadians ultimately respect this. In the process we are putting it into a contemporary context in keeping with who we are as Canadians as we move confidently into the 21st century.

Let me go into some detail with respect to these changes. There are 68 laws and statutes that will be affected and over 20 departments and agencies of the federal government. Let me highlight some of the more important changes because I think for the record we should note them.

The term “common law partner” is a new term to law but is used and understood by Canadians who have used the concept over time. In the French language its equivalent is conjoint de fait. Every day in publications and in other media across Canada, we have heard these terms either in French or in English. I think Canadians understand them for what they are.

Bill C-23 would standardize the definition of the term “common law partner” as unmarried, conjugal relationships of at least one year. Similarly, the word “spouse” after passage of the legislation before us, would be referred consistently then to married persons only. It should be noted that the one year cohabitation period to qualify for benefits and subject to obligations is not new and is not changed by Bill C-23.

Similarly, the term “conjugal” has been used in federal legislation for 40 years to describe common law, opposite sex relationships. The factors in determining a conjugal relationship will be the same then for opposite sex and same sex partners.

What we are doing is making sure that it fits into context in a modern, contemporary sense. We are making sure that it makes sense in all kinds of areas. I could point those out but I will not take the time now other than to say that things as far ranging as the Agriculture Marketing Programs Act to the War Veterans Allowance Act will be affected in this very important area. It goes without saying that things like the Canada pension plan, bankruptcy and insolvency act and many other acts and statutes will be affected in this all important area.

Where there are rights and responsibilities, there are also obligations. It is important to note that we on the government side have recognized these all important concepts. We have put them into perspective. We have weighed them out and we have thought thoroughly and clearly, hard and long about what it means not only for us in the House, but Canadians wherever they live in this great country of ours.

At the end of the day, we have been able to come up with a very workable bill. This is a bill that makes a great deal of sense. It accomplishes what the supreme court asked us to do. It accomplishes, in my view, what Canadians expect the government to do in this important area. In Ontario, Mr. Harris did the very same thing within 48 hours. Why did he do that? He did it because it made sense and it was also the right thing to do. He did it because he knew that the supreme court judgment had to stand.

We in this great Parliament of Canada need to follow suit. We need to modernize and update the very legislation that is important in this area. That is precisely what we are doing. I believe that ultimately Canadian people will judge us as having done the right thing.

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I said the reformed CRAP party, the alliance people. Now, having said that—

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-23. I think it is very important in terms of the kinds of measures that the government is taking in this very important area.

I want to begin by congratulating the Minister of Justice for putting together what I believe is a very fine piece of legislation and one which I think Canadians, for the most part, wherever they live in our great country, will not only respect but also welcome. I want to indicate at the outset that I think it is a good move and that Canadians, ultimately and historically, will applaud the fact that we are moving in this all important area.

I have listened to the debate on Bill C-23 over the last little while and I have to say that some members opposite, the reformed CRAP alliance party members, have in fact gone repeatedly—

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We cannot refer to a member's absence or attendance in this House. However, for the record, I was here, and I listened with some—

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, April 11th, 2000]

Listen to them laugh. I remind those members opposite: Stockwell Day, go away; anti-choice, anti-gay: Stockwell Day, make my day; right wing bigot, go away.

That is who those people are. That is exactly who they are. That is what Ontarians think about those people.

Why is it that the very party which talks about free votes all the time last night voted in a block? They are the very people who talk about grassroots support and what it means to have a free vote. Why did they vote in a block?