Bev Desjarlais

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has shown a great amount of support for the Auditor General's reports as I have as well. The Canadian public has also indicated strong support for the Auditor General.

One of the things the Auditor General has said in the last number of months is that she felt that the reporting requirements of first nations governments were extremely excessive. Every first nation was expected to produce 168 reports in order to receive its funding and four separate financial audits had to be done. As a result, the first nations were utilizing dollars out of their very limited funds. They did not have the resources to produce those reports. A good number of those reports were never being used for anything other than the fact that they were just being produced.

Would my colleague have a comment on the Auditor General's specific comments relating to first nations governments having to produce an overabundance of reports?

[Supply, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the feeling over the last while that the government somehow has been trying to lead the public to believe that it is because of its hard work and tight budgeting practices that it has saved all this money for Canadians, and that it now has this wonderful amount of money waiting to be spent on the debt or whatever it chooses, such as some extra advertising with Groupaction or wherever.

In reality, it is hard to imagine, as the member was indicating, a $30 billion surplus that was unexpected.

I wonder whether the member has thought of how Canadians see a government that somehow does not realize there will be $30 billion extra. How does she think Canadians feel about a government taking an extra $30 billion from them and not putting it into health care, into infrastructure, into security practices, pharmacare, daycare programs and numerous other programs that Canadians have been asking for more dollars to be going into? Rather, the government just talks about all the hard work it has done and how big the surplus is.

[Canada Transportation Act, February 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Alliance for putting this bill forward so that we will have the opportunity to discuss it and look at all the issues that relate to possible child abductions.

At first blush, the automatic reaction is that of course we would support this. How can we not support something like this? It just makes sense that we would do whatever we can to aid in an abduction. Quite frankly I thought that way too the first time I saw it. However, I look forward to the ongoing debate because after reading it through, putting it in context, and seeing how it would be put into practice, I have some misgivings as to how it would work.

I have been involved with the legislative committee on Bill C-17 and the issues regarding the identification of people on an ongoing basis, having to provide identification for this and that. There are concerns that even if people wanted to go anywhere in Canada they would have to have some form of identification.

I am a more conscious now as to some of the concerns that people have, including myself, about always having to provide identification in a country where we are not used to doing that. Part of our freedom is the ability to move without someone questioning us as to our identity or those of our children. It becomes part of the discussion when asking for identification, even if it is for a child that is with a person, because it involves the whole specifics of the family background.

It is a short bill. It states:

The holder of a domestic licence shall not allow an adult passenger to travel with a child under the age of sixteen years unless the adult passenger provides written proof of the consent of the child’s parents, or of any other person who has lawful care or charge of the child, to travel with the child.

Again, everyone would say that absolutely, positively just makes sense.

I represent a riding with a good proportion of first nations individuals who have a different way of dealing with family dynamics. When the bills speaks of domestic travel, it is talking about a flight from one small community to another, or for example to Winnipeg for medical treatment. Often it is an extended family member who has the child living with him or her. The child living there is not under the order of a court. It is just the way it is. It is okay for this month that children may be living with an aunt, or for that matter they may all be living in the same house because that is the situation in a number of cases, but the parents may not be there. There is no legal guardian as such in respect to a legal document.

People may ask how often that happens. I can tell members that it is a real situation in my riding, not just in a few instances but in hundreds or thousands. It is an issue even in a riding such as mine, so as I thought about this I had some concerns.

The second part of the bill says:

In the case of a non-custodial parent who travels with a child under the age of sixteen years, the holder of a domestic licence shall not allow that parent to travel with the child unless the parent provides written proof of the consent of the custodial parent, or of any other person who has lawful care or charge of the child, for the non-custodial parent to travel with the child.

Again it makes absolute sense, but let us look at this. I hate to admit that my colleague from the governing party would be right on an issue. He talked about what is happening in the airline industry. It is being taxed to the limit as to what it has to provide now. That industry alone, not every other transportation industry, is being asked to incorporate all of this information on travellers and be responsible for it. I do not think that necessarily should be the job of the airline industry.

This is a very good issue. I am wondering whether it would not be possible to incorporate this exact same clause in relationship to custodial parents and apply it under a justice bill. It could be brought back when there is an agreement for custodial parents built in the legislation. The subject could then be done as part of an agreement, rather than putting the onus on the airline industry to have that proof.

That way we are only addressing parents or individuals who are criminals. We are not looking at each and every innocent individual who is travelling. I know that my colleagues in the Alliance are not pleased with legislation that targets innocent individuals for the sake of trying to fix a problem somewhere else. I will not get into the specifics of it.

The bottom line is that more innocent Canadians are being asked to prove their innocence before they have done anything wrong. This could be an adult travelling with a child, it could be me, for example, travelling to Winnipeg with one of my grandchildren. Has something happened in our country now where if I am with my grandchild and I take a trip to Winnipeg that I should be questioned whether I have consent for the child to be with me or, for that matter, one of my own children.

Many people out there will be saying that they have proof that this is their child. How many of us travel with the birth certificates of our children? Not even everybody has the birth certificates of their children or written proof that these children are theirs.

I think of my father when one time he had to round up nine birth certificates. There had never been a need to have them. My parents probably could not afford to get them at the time either because they had nine children. My father had to come up with the birth certificates of his children to receive his pension. This is reasonable enough.

I think of that incident now in the sense of numerous parents who do not carry that kind of documentation. There is a cost involved in getting that documentation.

I relate a lot of this to my own riding because I have seen these things happen. I have seen problems with lack of identification in my riding. I do not think there is an objection by people who travel internationally and across the border to the U.S. They have not obviously needed that kind of information. It is tougher then to follow-through with actions and orders that have been taken within a person's country than to pursue those across a border.

However, within our own country there may be ways for us to address these issues without having to ask each and every parent or family member to have that kind of consent. At first blush, it seems absolute and how can we not agree with it?

I am looking forward to the ongoing debate and, if possible, to come up with a way, through this discussion, to address some of the concerns that I have raised, specifically concerning my own riding. We will deal with it when it comes time for a vote.

[Airline Industry, February 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's airline industry is once again on the brink of a crisis. Air Canada announced a $364 million loss, threats of 10,000 lost jobs and a cancellation of regional flights.

Government security taxes and increases to NavCan fees continue to damage an already struggling industry. Overcapacity on routes where Air Canada is trying to drive out low cost carriers is jeopardizing all carriers.

The government needs to listen to those who say to get rid of the security tax and regulate capacity. This is the way to help the industry. When will the minister react?

[Canada Pension Plan, January 30th, 2003]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the definition of “pensionable employment” in the Canada Pension Plan to include worker's compensation payments.

Mr. Speaker, I will start off by reading out Motion No. 197 so that everyone is aware of exactly what it is:

That, in the opinion of this House the government should amend the definition of “pensionable employment” in the Canada Pension Plan to include worker's compensation payments.

For a lot of people it was quite a surprising thing to know that workers' compensation payments were not considered pensionable employment. There is no question that if a person is receiving workers' compensation payments, if they have had a workplace injury and if they have been in the workplace working, they would have been paying into the Canada pension plan, unless of course their income was so very low that they did not meet the yearly qualifying amount. I would not doubt that there are some industries out there that would still be proud of the fact that they have workers who might be working a good number of hours and still do not have to make CPP payments.

The bottom line is that it was recognized that when a person works a certain number of hours and makes a certain income, they pay Canada pension plan premiums and as a result they receive the benefits of the Canada pension plan.

I want to thank the members of the subcommittee on private members' business for choosing to make this motion votable. This will allow all hon. members of the House to stand and be counted on this extremely important issue.

The issue we are dealing with here is very important to me as a member of Parliament for the Churchill riding. I am proposing that the Government of Canada seek to extend the Canada pension plan to injured workers receiving workers' compensation payments. My motion would do this by including workers' compensation payments in the definition of pensionable employment found in the Canada Pension Plan.

The economy of my constituency is heavily dependent on resource industries like mining and forestry which suffer from higher rates of workplace injury than most others. Over the course of my life in working in the health care sector, I saw far too many people who had been injured in the course of doing their jobs.

I know how workplace injuries can take a terrible toll on the victims, their families and their communities. When a person who wants nothing more than to work hard and make a living suffers an injury on the job, the physical injury is bad enough, but oftentimes the financial injury is just as devastating to the individual and the family.

Provincial workers' compensation programs are one of the ways we as a society try to help the victims of workplace accidents with their physical and financial injuries. Most people recognize that if they were injured and unable to work, they too would want a little help and support workers' compensation programs on the principle that we should treat others the way we would want to be treated ourselves.

In the initiating years of the workers' compensation program, it came into being not to provide some kind of insurance for workers. It came into being to protect employers from being sued for work related accidents that resulted in an employee being injured.

In the United States we often see advertisements offering help to get claims against employers. In Canada we chose to do things differently. There was a sort of no fault system put in place called workers' compensation. Over the years that has changed and workers have received less and less benefits from workers' compensation programs throughout the country. I think most provinces have found ways to slice away at what workers are receiving.

The purpose of this motion is not to get the federal government involved with provincial workers' compensation programs. As we all know, workers' compensation falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The New Democratic Party is committed to a decentralized asymmetrical federation and it is not our policy to support federal intrusion into a provincial jurisdiction.

My colleague from the Bloc was extremely pleased that was to be the case, but I am sure that is not the only reason she will be speaking this evening. Rather, this motion is geared toward correcting what I see as an oversight in the Canada pension plan that unduly penalizes injured workers.

Before I go on to explain exactly how it penalizes injured workers and how my motion would fix it, I should say that although the Canada pension plan is a federal program, I recognize that it does not apply to the citizens of Quebec.

The Quebec government has exercised its right to opt out of the Canada pension plan and has instead put in place its own program known as the QPP. My proposed change to the CPP will have absolutely no effect on injured workers in Quebec or the Quebec pension plan. Nevertheless I hope that I will be able to count on all my hon. colleagues from Quebec to vote in favour of this motion when the time comes so that injured workers in the rest of the country can benefit.

Regarding how the Canada pension plan penalizes injured workers, the key point to keep in mind is that a retiree's Canada pension plan eligibility is calculated based upon the number of months of pensionable employment. Since the Canada pension plan does not currently include workers' compensation under the definition of pensionable employment, each month a person spends on workers' compensation counts against them when they retire and their CPP eligibility is calculated. Each month on workers' compensation is treated like the person was not working and had no income. This is hardly fair since a person on workers' compensation is by definition unable to work, and not unwilling to work or without a job.

How does this penalize an injured worker? When a person retires and claims the Canada pension plan benefit, the amount of the pension depends upon the average pensionable income during one's contributory period. The contributory period begins at age 18 or 1996, whichever is later, and goes until retirement. Basically it covers a person's entire adult working life, so each month one does not have any pensionable income, the average income is lower and the pension is lower. This is not a fair way to treat a person who is unable to work because of an injury.

Currently the Canada pension plan allows what is called a 15% dropout period. This allows a person to exclude 15% of one's working months from the CPP calculation. By excluding one's lowest earning months, it raises the average earnings and the final pension amount.

While the 15% dropout can partially mitigate the impact of an injury on someone's pension, it alone is not enough to offset the penalties injured workers face from the Canada pension plan. This is because most of us earn our lowest incomes in our youth and higher incomes later in our working lives. It does not take much of our working life to amass the small percentage of months that we are allowed to exclude from our CPP contributory period. Many of us have used up this time by our mid-twenties.

The problem for someone who suffers an injury and has to go on workers' compensation is that suddenly they find the month they are injured eating up the small percentage of months they are allowed to exclude from their Canada pension plan calculation.

Now consider what happens to a person who suffers a severe injury requiring a lengthy period of rehabilitation such as an amputation, a severe burn or an electrocution. The lost months of CPP eligibility dramatically reduce that person's retirement income. Think about it. The more seriously a person is injured, the more they are penalized in the pension calculation. Is this how a just and caring society should be treating its injured and disabled? This is morally wrong and my motion is about changing that.

At the heart of the matter, this really is a moral issue. I hope I have not been boring hon. members this evening with this history lesson on the Canada pension plan. Let me boil this down to its core moral argument. The Canada pension plan was created to provide Canadian workers with a secure retirement income and we should stop excluding injured workers from its full benefit.

This is not some abstract problem that I am trying to solve with this motion. Real people with real injuries are seeing their retirement incomes and their ability to live with dignity in their old age eroded because workers' compensation is excluded from the CPP.

The very existence of this problem came to my attention because it was happening to some of my constituents who then came to see me about it. These were hardworking people who had suffered the misfortune of serious injuries that forced them onto workers' compensation during their prime earning years. Those lost years have had a serious impact on their pension incomes, making it more difficult for them to live with the dignity they deserve in retirement.

The same thing could happen to anyone who gets injured on the job. One mishap on the job site and a person could be facing retirement in poverty. This is not a threat Canadians should have to live with.

I know there is a stigma surrounding injured workers in some people's eyes. Some people look at injured workers and think they are just milking their injuries. I think anyone who has had any experience with workers' compensation would know how mistaken this impression really is.

The reality is that less than 1% of workers' compensation claims are fraudulent. However, as with so many services and benefits, until people are in need, they really do not understand.

I urge all hon. members not to let the unfortunate stigma that surrounds injured workers impair their judgment on this motion. Instead members should ask themselves how they would want the system to work if they, their spouse or their child were injured.

I know that through the Canada Pension Plan Act there must be agreement of the provinces for changes to the legislation. What I have before the House today is the start of that process to get the provinces on side to make the changes so that we do not see those workers who have had to go on workers' compensation unjustly treated.

I recognize there may be different ways of doing that. We should be open to that. I am quite understanding of that process.

Throughout the country there is no one set workers' compensation plan. In some provinces more than others workers receive even less payments on workers' compensation. Even after being on workers' compensation, a good number of workers may not be able to go back to work.

There is no rule out there that says a person will have a job forever. A person may have lost not just their valuable earning years; a person may have lost their opportunity to earn.

A number of years ago I was shocked when a colleague's 16-year-old son while working at his summer employment quite badly damaged his arm by getting it caught in a conveyor belt. I was shocked that if he were to receive some kind of compensatory assistance or help, everything would be based on the wage he was making at that time. He was a student being paid minimum wage and that would have been how things would have been geared even if it had been a more serious injury.

During my first year as a member of Parliament, a 19-year-old man went into a workplace with no proper training ahead of time and ended up blind. Again, a life which possibly would end up on welfare forever after something like this happened because workers' compensation plans are different throughout the country.

What we as the federal Parliament under the federal acts must do is ensure that the plans we have in place benefit those workers in spite of what happens in each and every province. During those periods of time when workers are on workers' compensation they should be able to at least claim those benefit times.

Again, because it varies from province to province it is hard to get the exact figures as to how each province would put this in place and what the costs would be. Without question they automatically say it is going to be huge costs for workers' compensation.

I say to each and every one of us that may very well be. However, there are alternate ways of dealing with this and I already know of a few suggestions that have come up. As we proceed with the debate, we will come up with more of those figures. It is difficult to obtain specific figures from the provinces because they automatically like to say it will cost them too much.

I would say to them that those workers should have been working, but they were injured in the course of their employment. They should not have a double jeopardy against them and be denied the full benefit of the Canada pension plan because of that injury. They were injured in the workplace. We need to come up with a system where they are not losing out.

[Aboriginal Affairs, January 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, despite all the rhetoric about wanting stronger partnerships with first nations and Métis people, the Liberal government refuses to work cooperatively with first nations governments. The government refuses aboriginal leaders their rightful place at the table with first ministers deciding the fate of health services in Canada.

Will the government put an end to this shameful disrespect for the aboriginal people and their leaders and give them their rightful place at the first ministers meeting on health?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. He always puts forth such an extreme amount of passion when he speaks. He truly has commented on a number of perspectives about how the Kyoto ratification can work.

This debate is probably unlike any other debate we have had in the House to date. I think of the items we have discussed over time, and I see that the ratification of Kyoto will produce positive results that will take place within the world, certainly toward addressing the issue of climate change. Those results will have the most lasting effect on Canada, but also on the world.

Although it certainly will not be a quick response where we see everything fixed overnight, without question it will be a commitment we make which will be of lasting benefit to the generations throughout the world, not just in Canada. A number of speakers have commented on that today and quite frankly that is the real background and hope behind the Kyoto ratification process: that there will be those long term changes and we will ultimately see the benefits.

Certainly as far as climate change goes, we would be hard pressed to find too many people in Canada who do not think there are some really strange things happening with the climate. There are those who think that maybe getting warmer weather at certain periods of time and longer spouts of warmer weather in northern Manitoba might be a great thing, and we do enjoy it while we can, but as a result of those types of weather changes, we as well have seen some strange things happen that are not very good, such as the effect the changing weather pattern is having on wildlife. Most obvious to most people at this point is the effect on the polar bear populations, with the decrease in weights and the risk that they are now at as a result of the climate change. It is certainly one of the key factors.

As well, in my own time as a member of Parliament I have seen changes in weather, with times when winter roads could not be put in because it was just too warm at certain periods of time. The length of time that those warm periods stayed with us and shortened the opportunity of certain communities to have access to the rest of the world via land transportation has been quite apparent. So we do not have to go out there and sell this, because most people are seeing it and the effect is it having first hand.

As well, in spite of the warm weather and in some cases where we get a lot of moisture, in other areas there is absolute drought. Whole weather pattern changes are happening. It is not just a matter of global warming making everything wonderful. It is changing weather patterns around the world, so there are consequences all around the world.

I recall one of the first conferences I ever attended. It was then that I first realized there was a country called Papua New Guinea. I had probably heard about it somewhere along the road, but I actually sat with representatives from Papua New Guinea and listened to their great concerns over climate change, because for the first time in their history water had come over their sea wall. They were literally at risk of being totally wiped out if things did not change, because of the warming and the increased water levels that were affecting this small island country.

There are lasting consequences, and there are lasting benefits to the Kyoto ratification process. They are very achievable benefits.

I will go now to my own province of Manitoba and what I believe are extremely fine examples from the province. Without question, the Manitoba government believes the Kyoto ratification process is an absolute must. It is committed to Manitoba meeting its targets and maybe even exceeding those targets. The Manitoba government has done a fair amount of investigating into how this will affect jobs. Some will be lost, but a good number will be gained as a result of the Kyoto process. The Government of Manitoba is quite confident that there will be a greater increase in jobs than there will be jobs lost.

One of the most recent projects in which the Manitoba government has become involved to help address the climate change in a meaningful way is a cleaner form of bus transportation. This is a situation where we see the involvement of numerous different industries working together to come up with a different form of transportation. I will read a bit about it to the House, because it does exemplify that industry is out there promoting cleaner industries as well. There will be the testing of a hybrid fuel cell technology “to promote research and development of cleaner, renewable and more fuel efficient forms of transportation” to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a time when we can actually have some partnerships involved. The article states that the Province of Manitoba, in conjunction with the Government of Canada, and along with “Hydrogenics Corporation, New Flyer Industries, Maxwell Technologies, Dynetek Industries and ISE Research...announced a new $8 million hybrid fuel cell transit bus project”.

Manitoba is committed to promoting research and development in new, efficient technologies and clean, renewable forms of energy. That is what a province can do when it works to reduce greenhouse gases and to meet the Kyoto ratification process.

As well, without question I think Manitoba has been a wonderful example of clean energy with hydro power. The fact is that Manitoba Hydro is a crown corporation. It does not have to go out there solely to say that it will try to sell, sell, sell to make a profit. It can go out there as a hydro company and promote energy savings processes.

It is not that Manitoba will abuse hydro energy solely because we have it. Manitoba Hydro will promote energy saving methods even within hydro development.

The Manitoba government believes that the Government of Canada can succeed with the Kyoto protocol by adopting Manitoba's approach. The number one approach is hydro. Federal studies have shown that developing Canada's hydroelectric capacity is the single most cost effective way of using existing technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. I am proud to say that each and every hydro project in the province of Manitoba falls within the Churchill riding.

There have been some ups and downs, but I can tell the House that there have been more ups than downs. Manitobans are proud that we have a publicly owned hydro corporation and that it is there to meet our needs in giving us some of the lowest cost energy in the country, if not the world.

Notional estimates show, for example, that if the federal government supported an east-west power grid, more than 20 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year would be displaced, creating as many as 175,000 person-years of employment in construction alone. The project would also create significant economic development opportunities for Canada's first nations. I can tell the House that the Government of Manitoba has been a partner with first nations in hydro development and will continue to be so. Those first nations have supported hydro development in their areas or it would not be happening.

Ethanol is another way. Mandating the use of ethanol across Canada and providing incentives at levels similar to those available in the U.S. would cut emissions by 3 tonnes per year and create 5,000 jobs.

The third method is energy efficiency, which I have already touched on. In January 2000, Manitoba Hydro launched enhancements to its Power Smart program to help Manitoba families and industries save energy. If Manitoba Hydro's Power Smart programs and benefits were emulated across Canada, greenhouse gas emissions would be cut by roughly 50 tonnes per year and up to 5,000 jobs could be created.

These are only three of many initiatives the federal government could sponsor across Canada to create jobs while helping the environment, so it is not as if we have to see the Kyoto ratification as the end of the earth. Quite frankly, I strongly believe that each and every province needs to be there to support each other so that no one province is detrimentally or unjustly affected. We need to be there to understand that if some industries are stronger here and they will be affected a little more we will be there to support them. That is what Canadians do. That is what a group of countries and territories together, united as a country, will do to make the Kyoto ratification process work.

[Health Care, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, there is no end to the government's wasting of taxpayer dollars: the billion dollar boondoggle by HRDC, millions of untendered contracts to Groupaction, millions more to Attractions Canada to promote tourism when we already fund the Canadian Tourism Association, and now the 400% cost overruns of the gun registry.

Under the direction of the former finance minister from LaSalle—Émard, the Liberals slashed health care funding and cut EI benefits while raking in a $40 billion surplus.

The Liberal government pretends to care about Canadians while wasting dollars that could go to health care funding.

The Prime Minister has received the Romanow report. Canadians have spoken but is the government listening? Is the Liberal government promoting Romanow's recommendations? No, it is silent. Canadians wanting to review the report must pay $49 to get a copy.

Canadians want a publicly funded, publicly delivered system. Canadians agree that there should be accountability by the provinces but how can the Liberal government ensure that accountability when it misuses and abuses taxpayer dollars?

[Food and Drugs Act, December 9th, 2002]

My hon. colleague says that is just not true. In a good number of instances it is the only way to make it work because there are some businesses that, quite frankly, want to save every little bit of cost and therefore deny the right of consumers to know what they are eating in this case.

Approximately 90% of Canadians want to see labelling on food products that are genetically modified. For a variety of reasons over the years different types of labelling were suggested. At one point I asked, is it that important to even mention that there is a slight bit of nut oil in something? Then we saw tremendous allergic reactions to different nut products. We were more conscious of it and were not willing to see even one person die as a result of an allergic reaction simply because people could not find out if that product had nut oil in it.

Over time I have come to realize that it is crucially important that whatever consumers need in the labelling process it should be made possible for them to make an informed decision as to whether or not they would consume that product. We as a Parliament must ensure that the information is there. Voluntary labelling would not cut it. What happens within a society is, if there are a good number of products that are voluntarily labelled, there is a tendency for the public to think that the government has already established that foods must be labelled, so if it does not say it, we are okay. Quite frankly, that is not the case.

There are a number of Canadians out there to whom it has been brought to light on numerous different issues where they thought something existed because it was always done that way, but there was no legal responsibility and, as a result, they suffered the consequences. That is what the hon. member for Davenport has indicated in his years of experience in the House and within the environmental aspect of things.

I put a lot of value on his experience. The fact that he would come before us and say that we need mandatory labelling itself is a point that the government should be looking at. It is not often that I will sing the praises of any individual from the governing side, however the hon. member for Davenport has been extremely good in this regard, as have my colleagues from Palliser and Winnipeg North.

There is no question that 90% of Canadians want to see mandatory labelling. The government is ignoring that. Some 75% of processed foods found on our supermarket shelves contain some kind of genetically modified product. I must tell the House that since this debate has become more open I have started looking at things and reading more about it. I am shocked at the number of genetically modified products.

I know people who have different symptoms that are sometimes related to some of the things found in genetically modified products, or there is an indication that they may come from genetically modified products. Those individuals deserve the right to know so that they can make informed decisions as to whether they want to take chances with their lives. There is also an indication that some genetically modified products, apart from having allergenic concerns, may be toxic or even carcinogenic.

It is not a matter of saying that we do not know for sure because there have not been enough studies. I do not know about everyone else, but when I see that kind of wording I think, yes, but I have the right to make the decision as to whether or not I will be a guinea pig. I do not want myself being a guinea pig and I do not want my children being guinea pigs while someone decides whether or not it is a problem. I do not want my grandchildren being guinea pigs.

We should have the right to make informed decisions as to whether or not we would take those chances with our lives. If other people still want to take those chances, so be it, but surely we must allow individuals to have the right to make those choices by having an informed labelling process which would allow them to make those choices based on proper information.

I am looking forward to hearing further debate on this. The real disappointment is that it is not votable. I wish to acknowledge again the work in this area by the hon. member for Davenport.

[Food and Drugs Act, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in this debate on Bill C-220 introduced by the hon. member for Davenport.

As indicated by the previous speaker, it is disappointing that it is not a votable bill. There are a number of items that have come up for debate in the House that are not votable. Many of us would like to see more votable bills. I guess until that process changes we deal with what we have and make a point of getting the message out to Canadians knowing that when pressure comes from Canadians there is greater pressure on the government to address their concerns.

My colleagues in previous debates this year, as well in other years, have brought up the issue of genetically modified products. That is not the crux of the issue that we are talking about here even though the question of whether or not there is a need for everything to be modified genetically does come into question when there is a situation where crops are made in such a way that the seed cannot be planted again.

There is a shortage of food in numerous countries. The idea that any company would see it as an essential thing to modify a seed so that there would not be regrowth is somewhat astounding. It is one of those areas where it is the final straw for a good number of people to realize that it is just something where a company is out to make money and it is not for the benefit of society.

The issue of whether or not labelling should be mandatory is extremely important. It has been suggested that voluntary labelling would do the trick. However, we have often seen that anything voluntary within business does not work. Those who see that--