Dennis Mills

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will reread the opposition motion to the House:

That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making it mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods containing genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable Canadians to make informed choices about the foods they eat.

I compliment the Bloc member for putting forward the motion today. I totally support the system in the Department of Health today for making sure that the quality and safety of our food supply is under control, but I believe it is the responsibility of the House to have a deep and thorough review because of the rapid rate with which people are experimenting and working with altering our food products.

Most of us are not that sensitive to the whole genetically modified organism system involved with our food. Over the last few months I have been using a lot of my parliamentary time as a Toronto member looking at our whole food chain system. It is absolutely amazing the number of urban or city people who have never taken the time to get their heads around the food chain.

When we walk into a supermarket in downtown Toronto it is amazing how much food we see. The quality of the food and its prices are so consumer friendly, every aspect of it, that we just do not realize what is going on behind it. We do not get into the whole area of food processing and what is happening there. Very few of us who live in cities go back to the contribution farmers are making, which is ultimately the area we must all begin taking a closer look at.

Even before we get to genetically modified or altered foods, we in urban Canada should be aware that most studies will show that if we do not become engaged in this food chain there could be a danger two years from now that we will lose close to 80,000 family farms.

This issue deserves long hours of debate and long hours of analysis. The Bloc is doing a good thing by putting this motion on the floor of the House of Commons. At the same time we must realize and reinforce for consumers that the system out there right now is not without control. The products on the shelves in stores today have been reviewed by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Let us not send a sense of alarm into the community today because that is not the way to advance this debate.

The House has to go right back to the producer of food. The men and women who have spent their lives producing food are the ones who are best equipped and have the know-how. They can inform us in an enlightened and experienced way on whether or not they feel the food processing system ultimately ending up at the retailer needs the type of specific recommendation of mandatory labelling that is proposed in the motion.

The whole labelling system needs to be reviewed, not just in terms of the notion of genetically modified foods but also the whole area of foods produced in Canada, specifically family farm foods. The percentage that most farmers receive, outside the ones protected by supply management, is something that needs review as well.

Over the last couple of months my experience with consumers suggests that if they knew they were purchasing products which came from Canadian family farms and that there was some type of royalty system, they would not mind an extra two or three cents on particular products, whether it be a loaf of bread, a jar of jam or a box of cereal. I believe they would participate in something like that to help family farms maintain their viability and sustainability. That has been my experience in testing the idea in a very unscientific way over the last couple of months.

When we get into the business of looking at labelling we have to do it in a most comprehensive way. I do not think we should just look at genetically modified food. We have to go deeper and look into where the food is coming from, be specific to Canadian farms and make sure that we use the process of identifying the quality, safety and source of our food as a means of rebuilding and renewing the commitment our country should have to sustaining the family farm.

Most consumers would hate to see a day when they suddenly woke up and it was decided that our food dependency should be from imports rather than from our domestic supply. A good friend of mine, Paddy Carson, once said, and he actually repeats it often, that a nation which cannot feed itself will feed upon itself. The whole realm of rebuilding our agricultural foundation is something we must become seized with over the next few months as we work away in this Chamber.

I am totally supportive of the general thrust of the motion on the floor of the House of Commons today. However, I would also like to bundle it into a more comprehensive approach where every food product from a family farm is recognized in terms of its quality. We could also figure out a royalty system when consumers choose to buy products identified as Canadian family farm products. With that economic stability and predictability when the quality and long term security of supply will be maintained.

I appreciate having participated in the debate, but I would say that it should be bundled up into a more comprehensive labelling program.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is really amazing. In my mind the minister has been doing a magnificent job. The minister's role is to defend not the 25 or 30 files where we are being held accountable, it is her responsibility to defend the integrity of all those projects in every riding in Canada that have been serving millions of Canadians. That is her responsibility.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, maybe we will get unanimous consent to extend this.

First, I would not want anyone in Canada to think that I was trying to minimize any mistake. By the way, I said earlier today in the debate that there is not a businessman or woman in Canada, there is not a government agency whether municipal, provincial or federal, there is not a perfect agency anywhere in the country or for that matter anywhere in the world. The notion that we think somehow that everything we do is perfect, forget it.

Canadians know that we make mistakes. What we are defending here is we do not think it is proper that in the opposition's process of making us accountable for certain files that were maybe not up to snuff, it has also cast aspersions on the whole Government of Canada process and 99.99% of the work that is proper. That is my point.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

We have him up to 13.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to see the happy faces of my friends in the Canadian Alliance today. I have listened to many of the remarks by the opposition today and I do agree on the issue of holding us accountable. Many of us have been in opposition and we know it is the opposition's job to hold us accountable. We do not have a problem with that.

We would also like to remind members opposite that when they asked for all the records relating to the human resources development grants that happened across the country, we produced them.

The thing that troubles me about this exercise that the opposition is on right now is that it goes against the very essence of what this Chamber is supposed to be doing. What do I mean by that? I mean that we were elected to come to this Chamber, which I sometimes call the nation's boardroom, to speak for those in our communities, those in our country who need the most help.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from the beautiful county of Dundas.

We are not here to speak for the advantaged, although we do not ignore the advantaged, but we are here to speak for those who need the most help. In the last few years I think most Canadians would agree that we have gone through a very difficult and stressful time because of a tough economy. In a tough economy there are a lot more people who need help.

In my mind, what the opposition members have done over the last few months has been to put a spike in the heart of the essence of why we are all supposed to be here. They have taken the human resources development file, HRDC, and have tried to cast aspersions on thousands and thousands of projects in every riding across Canada, projects that have helped young people get into the workplace, projects for seniors, projects for the disabled and projects for farmers. The list goes on of thousands and thousands of projects right across Canada. They have tried to create a perception that this entire fund was mismanaged. They tried to create a perception that somehow $1 billion—one member today even went as high as $3 billion—just vanished, that it went out the back door. I think Canadians are beginning to realize that in all but a few examples, 99.9% of that money went to important community-building projects in every riding right across Canada.

Members in the House will cite examples where maybe the accounting procedures or the accountability of a particular project should have been better. I have no problem when the opposition stands up and tries to ask us about a specific project. Ultimately, we, as the government, have to take responsibility for all the officials. The notion of blaming the officials, in my mind, is awful. It is terrible to strike out at people who cannot defend themselves. It is our duty as elected members to say that the buck stops with us. We have to speak up and defend the officials. If they have made a mistake we have to take responsibility. However, we do not, for the sake of 40 or 50 examples out of over 35,000 projects, have to cast aspersions on the whole human resources development file. I, for the life of me, cannot figure it out.

Does this mean that the opposition wants to do away with HRDC projects? Is that what this line of attack means? Does the opposition want to cast aspersions on the $1 billion that went to all the projects? I see one of the members shaking his head no. If they do not want to cancel the HRDC file, then why are they trying to stain the whole envelope because of a few files that they want to challenge? That is where I take exception to the opposition's line of attack and line of accountability.

The opposition members have taken 40 or 50 files out of 35,000 and have tried to cast aspersions on $1 billion and sometimes even as high as $3 billion. I think Canadians see through that. If this had been a more straightforward accountability, they probably would have had better luck with the public. However, because they tried to take a few examples and say that the whole waterfront was money out the back door, I will bet my seat in the next election that all of those HRDC projects in my community, which I am proud of and which I stand by, will help get me re-elected.

The member across the way talks about this as being pork-barrelling. That casts aspersions on the public service. I am not sure if opposition members realize that public servants, officials and bureaucrats—and I think it is important for the public to know this—are bound by the Financial Administration Act of Canada. Unless a project meets the criteria, there is absolutely no way a contract will be processed because these public servants risk their own integrity and their own future in the public service.

I want to touch on one other area that is separate and apart from the human resources development file. It has to do with the Export Development Corporation. When the opposition members saw that the HRDC campaign to discredit all those good projects in every riding across Canada was beginning to falter, they began turning their sights on the Export Development Corporation. Boy, did they ever make a mistake there. This is an agency of the Government of Canada that has a reputation for being one of the most entrepreneurial units in the Government of Canada. Its economic track record shows us that. It has a responsibility to assist Canadian manufacturers of products to do business in every part of the world. To try to discredit EDC is really a shame.

In summary, I have no problems in being accountable to the opposition, but I wish it would deal with the specific facts and not cast aspersions on all departments and all the good work that tens of thousands of public servants do across Canada on behalf of millions of deserving Canadians.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians realize that every one of those Canadian taxpayers' dollars went for projects in every single riding across Canada for people in our communities who tend to be most in need.

I say with respect to the member, we have to be transparent. We put 10,000 pages of documents out there and I cannot believe that members opposite have read all of those documents.

The point I want to make is that whether we are on the government side or the opposition side, we are all here to look out for those people in the country who are most in need. The people who are most in need tend to be those clients of HRDC. I respectfully ask the member, why would she cast aspersions on 99.9% of those dollars that go to good causes for children at risk, for seniors, for people with disabilities? Why would the member or her party do that when essentially her argument is with those few files where there have been honest, human mistakes?

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, now the members opposite want to create the illusion it was $3 billion that just vanished.

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the member from British Columbia that all of us on this side of the House and in government understand it is the opposition's duty and responsibility to hold us accountable. Many of us have been in opposition and we know what that role is. We do not challenge that role.

We also would say that we do not know of a business or a government in Canada, even this government, that has not made mistakes. There will always be mistakes. That is the way life is. We are not proud of mistakes, but we will admit there are some mistakes.

It is absolutely shameful that the members of the Canadian Alliance try to create the illusion that somehow $1 billion sort of vanished when—

[Supply, April 4th, 2000]

You do not need access. We gave you the file.

[Supply, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is a very important question and I would ask the indulgence of the House to let me have a little more than 40 seconds to answer it.

The member has recognized a very important point, which is that the food processing sector in this country has reached a level of offshore ownership which, in my view, is quite scary. Foreign control is over 90%. We are going to have to enter a very rigorous debate on how we can stall and reclaim our control of these strategic industries within the guidelines of those trade agreements that exist. I know that the member thinks that would be a real challenge.

Mr. Speaker, this is critical for the way we go as a nation, so please let me answer this. I think that all of us in the House have to look at every clause in every one of those trade agreements and see how within those trade agreements we can use things like tax law and other instruments that we have to make sure that the trajectory totally changes on it and we reclaim it.