Dick Proctor

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

It is not.

[Supply, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question. I know there is probably not much time given the hockey references across the way.

The hon. member for Macleod is a physician. He is basically saying he is not sure about Bill 11, but let us try it and give it a chance. His arguments are that in one of these new surgical facilities it might be $500 a day versus the $1,500 that it would cost to run the health care system in a major hospital. Let me ask the doctor a hypothetical question. What happens at one of these facilities when there is a complication in the surgery?

The member for Macleod mentioned tonsillectomies. We have all heard horror stories about tonsillectomies. It is normally a minor procedure, but there can be serious problems from time to time. What happens at that point? Presumably the difference of $1,000 a day between the surgical facility and the major hospital is that the surgical facility does not have all the bells and whistles that the major hospital has. That sick person now needs intensive care and has to be rushed to the major hospital. What happens at that point? Do we have queue jumping? Is the person in the other system who has been slated for that bed available at the Edmonton hospital all of a sudden bypassed because somebody coming out of the private facility is in intensive care and needs help in a hurry?

That is the problem a lot of people have with this notion. I would appreciate the hon. member's response to that.

[Division No. 1280, May 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Devco. I wanted, especially after the last speaker, to put before the House and others who may be listening what is at stake.

We are talking about the direct loss of close to 1,500 well paying jobs. We are talking about the loss of almost $80 million per year in wages and salaries to that region. We are talking about the loss of $28 million a year in Canada pension, employment insurance and income tax. We are talking about a total estimated annual economic loss, direct and indirect, as high as $300 million for the region of Cape Breton.

The previous speaker would have everybody think that this is a very minor bill that will through and what is the problem. As I understand it this is the 65th time the government has introduced time allocation or closure, as most Canadians know it. Not everybody, but most of us know that 65 is the age of compulsory retirement for humans in Canada. We think it is time to retire this kind of time allocation and allow debates to be held in the House on a timely basis.

In February we on this side of the House endeavoured to have an emergency debate to discuss the matter, and of course it was denied. Here we are two and a half months later and we have time allocation.

Leading up to the debate in February there were newspaper stories that Canada Steamship Lines had expressed interest in purchasing the Cape Breton Development Corporation, and we know who heads Canada Steamship Lines today. The story in the newspapers is that Canada Steamship Lines is now purchasing new ocean freighters from a low wage Chinese shipyard. This is just days after a ship was launched in Saint John, New Brunswick. Many workers there feel it is the last ship that will ever be built at those docks.

What we are talking about and what members opposite do not want to talk about is almost certainly the imminent sale of Devco. They say they have to get on with it, but they are not saying who is the prospective buyer. We know almost with certainty that it will be a foreign buyer, almost certainly an American one.

I want to spend a few minutes telling the House what has been happening in the last few years in Canada with regard to foreign ownership. The fact of the matter is that for a relatively stable number of years, several years, the inflow of foreign ownership into this country roughly matched the amount of Canadian investment overseas.

However, in 1998, foreign ownership in this country jumped fourfold to $24 billion. In 1999, according to Statistics Canada, the figure was $36 billion or six times what it had been three or four years earlier. We are seeing the selling off of the country, the takeover, the buying out of our low dollar that has now dropped below 66 cents. This, coupled with the surging American economy, has made Canada a haven for buyouts.

We will see it again with Devco. We see the figures indicating that it has been losing money in the last number of years. Where did we hear that kind of story before? Canadian National was losing money on paper until it was taken over. Now 75% or 80% of it is owned by Americans and, wonder of wonders, it has turned the corner and is making a handsome profit. We will see absolutely the same scenario with the Devco operation.

The most telling of points for Canadians would be the very graphic television images of people who went underground to protest what was happening around Christmastime last year in Cape Breton Island. They stayed there until we thought a deal could be sorted out. These are the images regarding this issue that will stay with Canadians for a long time.

A number of other costs cannot be calculated. They include an increase in out migration from Cape Breton, a region that over the past decade and a half has seen a population decline of over 7% and a drop in employment opportunities resulting in the closure of Devco. The $68 million that have been committed by the government to encourage sound, long term economic development in Cape Breton is far less than the close to $300 million generated in the Nova Scotia economy annually by Devco.

The federal government's commitment to work closely with the province and the community to identify strategic investments for the $68 million is a farce. After more than nine months of silence and inaction, the few weeks of public consultations is an absolute insult to the community.

The government has repeatedly stated that no decision on the future of Devco would be made without prior consultation with the stakeholders and the community. Yet no meaningful consultation has taken place to date. That is what we have been after. That is what my colleagues, the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton and the member for Sydney—Victoria, were demanding when they asked for an emergency debate in the middle of February that was denied by government members.

It is correct to say that the federal government has put more than $1.7 billion into Devco over the past 30 years, but Devco has generated over $5 billion in return into the economy. It has been a very happy and convenient arrangement for the people of Cape Breton. Before I sit down I move:

That the amendment before us be amended by deleting the words, “Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations” and inserting the words, “Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities”.

[Voice Mail Service, May 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I too take pleasure in speaking to the private member's motion put forward by my colleague the member for Vancouver East.

The initiative for this private member's motion comes from the Downtown Eastside Residents Association of Vancouver. The member represents her constituents in that area so well. It is a coming together in support. The motion calls on the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to assist with providing voice mail for low income and homeless Canadians.

As the member for Vancouver East said in her opening remarks, telephone companies should be required to provide community service as part of their licensing. Providing access to affordable voice mail for homeless people and low income Canadians would be an invaluable community service.

The reference point for the private member's motion is the voice mail project of the Downtown Eastside Residents Association. It allows anyone in the lower mainland to set up a secure telephone mailbox that can be accessed from any phone.

The basic cost is only $10 for three months, a mere pittance. It benefits more than 1,000 users, mostly based in the downtown east side. We are getting a tremendous potential return for a very modest outlay of funds.

The hon. member is calling in her motion today for the CRTC to act as a vehicle and a lobby toward the telephone industry, much of which has been privatized in recent years, encouraging it to come up with a voice mail project that would benefit people who do not have access to telephones in order to help them to get on their feet and to find employment.

It has made a tremendous difference in peoples lives in the downtown eastside. The executive officer of the DERA Voicemail project, Terry Hanley, has said:

Voice mail has made it easier for people to get in touch with potential employers, with family members, and to access community and medical services. It provides previously marginalized people with a way to reconnect. That's not only good for them—it's good for the community at large.

The benefits of voice mail should be expanded and made available to low income and homeless Canadians across the country. While governments and industry spend millions to get Canadians and Canadian households on line, some people are without very basic services in the 21st century.

We hear from the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Finance that the goal for the country is to become the most wired country in the world as quickly as possible. We on this side do not object to that, but at the same time we do not want to leave other people behind in this process. Folks who are without homes, basic shelter and telephone service are the folks who are most at risk. We see the disparities growing between the haves and have nots. This is a very modest attempt to try to bring those people along and get a minimal amount of service for people who do not have access to telephones at the moment.

I want to pick up on the valuable point my colleague from Kamloops made a few minutes ago. We in the House do not have the greatest reputation in the world if one listens to Canadians who sit in on Oral Question Period. They hear the bickering and the back and forth that go on all the time. It would behove us to pay some attention to doing the right thing. If that means encouraging the CRTC to encourage the mostly privatized telephone companies across the country to get involved and onside with a project like this one, I think it would be a benefit to each and every one of us. The motion before us states:

That in the opinion of this House, the federal government should encourage the CRTC to establish regulations that require telephone companies to assist community agencies with providing affordable voice mail service to Canadians who cannot afford or do not have access to telephone service.

I encourage all my colleagues in the House to support this very important motion.

[Parliament Of Canada, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians, including many members of the House, are outraged that two federal politicians convicted of serious offences are still eligible to sit in parliament.

Senator Eric Bernston, guilty of defrauding Saskatchewan taxpayers of more than $41,000, is once again free on bail to sit in the Senate.

Meanwhile, the MP from Crowfoot is free on bail after being found guilty yesterday of attempted rape.

The current rules stipulate that MPs can be barred from sitting in parliament only if sentenced to a jail term of two years or more. Electors find this repugnant and offensive. I believe that they are demanding a higher standard for men and women elected or appointed to parliament.

Canadians know that no business, organization, or trade union would, for one instant, allow itself to be tainted in such a way.

To this end, an appropriate parliamentary committee must be charged with reviewing cases such as these and find a more suitable way to deal with our lawmakers once they become lawbreakers.

[Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) Act, May 4th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on Bill C-22. This proposed legislation on money laundering involves transactions through financial institutions and other financial intermediaries with the intent to conceal criminal profits and make them appear legitimate.

Bill C-22 builds on the existing Proceeds of Crime Act. The legislation institutes mandatory reporting of suspicious financial transactions and of cross-border movement of large amounts of currency. It creates an independent analysis centre as has been remarked upon by the previous speaker, the mandate of which will be to receive and manage reported information.

The legislation meets commitments that Canada made as a member of the OECD and of the G-8. Canada is one of the last G-8 countries to establish such a regime. That was pointed out to a parliamentary delegation of which I had the privilege of being a part at the European Union in the month of March of this year when we had an opportunity to discuss with our European colleagues what they are doing in this regard.

In developing the bill, Canada has taken into consideration the 40 recommendations set out by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering which encourages the strengthening of international co-operation with regard to the exchange of information on currency flows.

Some of the reasons this is important is that money laundering is now the world's third largest industry by value. It extends far beyond hiding profits from narcotics. It now includes trade fraud, tax evasion, organized crime, arms smuggling, bank, medical and insurance fraud. In this country alone somewhere between $5 billion and $17 billion are laundered each and every year. With those kinds of gaps, $5 billion and $17 billion, obviously nobody knows for sure how much, but it is estimated worldwide that somewhere between $300 billion and $500 billion U.S. are laundered in these ways. Tax evasion is not addressed in the proposed legislation.

The recommendation of the New Democratic Party is to support the legislation in principle. It is obvious that we should support the introduction of any legislation that curbs illegal activity. However there is some wariness on our part as to the lack of certainty and of clarity in some parts of the bill.

We think that a number of concerns should be examined and addressed further. There is a potential for charter violations. The guarantees of reasonable search and seizure appear to be at risk. For example, the Criminal Lawyers' Association argues that the standard of suspicion outlined fails to meet even the first and fundamental requirements of reasonable grounds. The legislation may also create an irreconcilable conflict for professionals, such as lawyers who remain subject to certain codes of conduct that prohibit them from disclosing information. It must also provide a mechanism to absolve an individual from potential liability that may result from disclosing such confidential information.

A second point is the possible pressure on consumers. The reporting regime set up to track and communicate suspicious transactions has at least two financial repercussions. One, there is a cost to be borne by the taxpayer for the establishment and maintenance of the tracking system. Second, in having to establish compliance mechanisms there is a concern that the cost for setting up reporting mechanisms for financial institutions will be borne by the customers of those institutions and the concern that there not be consumer gouging as a result.

A third point is with regard to the system's effectiveness. There remains a series of concerns about the planned reporting effectiveness. There is a warning that the new regime has the potential to create a bureaucratic monster and there is a chance that organized crime would be able to short circuit such a system through a series of shadowy, sophisticated transactions. We wonder whether money might not be better spent granting law enforcement and investigative bodies additional resources to detect and prosecute money laundering offences.

We are also concerned that the bill does not appear to address technology based crimes, the white collar crimes which surely we will see grow in future with the growth of the Internet and computers in general. Technology based crimes include credit and debit card fraud, telephone fraud, stock market manipulation and computer break-ins. Increasingly organized crime syndicates are using technological and digital means of communication, including encryption and scanning devices, thus potentially circumventing the provisions of this bill.

We would recommend to the government that a clearer and more precise definition of what constitutes a suspicious transaction be formulated. The subjective nature of the definition could provide an excuse for compliance failure and as a result many suspicious transactions might not be reported.

In addition, the use of a vague definition could result in institutions over-reporting for fear of involuntary non-compliance, thus creating unnecessary, unwarranted scrutiny of innocent individuals.

We think that the proposed legislation must clearly address the issue of the threat to the privacy of all Canadians and especially the possible disclosure of information to Revenue Canada should it involve a taxation matter. Obviously, strict guidelines must be established in this area. The bill must also address the possible violations of the guarantee against reasonable search and seizure in the charter of rights and freedoms.

In addition, the issue of tax-related offences could be addressed. Tax offences occur when money is transferred to offshore tax havens through companies, trusts and bank accounts. The purpose obviously is to conceal assets from Revenue Canada. Money laundering, on the other hand, involves the intent to conceal criminal profits and make them appear legitimate.

It is perplexing that even the definition of a suspicious transaction, a fundamental principle indeed, is to be determined after the legislation is passed. Many other key dispositions would be determined after that fact by regulation. These include: the appointment of the centre's director and the determination of his or her remuneration; the determination of the individuals or businesses that will be subject to this legislation and how they will report; the delay which will be granted to financial institutions to retrieve and report information; bodies and institutions which will be required to report on how records are to be maintained; the delay a financial institution must respect; and the length of time records are to be kept.

In agreeing to a bill such as this we also wonder about things like the Tobin tax which the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle brought forward. Indeed, it was passed as a private member's bill in this House. Why could that not be established with the same alacrity with which we are working in this area?

As the House knows, a Tobin tax framework would be an excellent initiative to establish an international monitoring system of currency flows.

Those are the points I wish to make. After listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia I was pleased to note that the financial reporter for the National Post , Terence Corcoran, has many concerns about this bill. That resolves my belief that the bill is worthy of support. It is one of the few things that has resulted from the fact that the National Post is now in existence that I do not have to look at Terence Corcoran's column in the Globe and Mail .

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for the question.

This is a developing area for all of us. What I was trying to say in my remarks, and it is reflective of the question and what is going on in the industry, is that the latent concern people have had about this issue has become more significant in recent months and the last few years. There is a recognition that we need to have independent research and an arm's length or longer arm's length relationship between the government and generally speaking the transnationals that are engaged in or funding much of the research in this area.

To that extent the government's announcement to fund more science, scientists and chairs at universities will be helpful. We have gone away from that in recent years in our obsession with eliminating the deficit as quickly as possible and cutting back in so many areas of the public sector. It is to our detriment that we have done that. It seems that at least in some areas we are now in a period of modest growth. This may very well be one of them and that would be welcome news for all.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this morning. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kamloops.

The motion before the House today deals with proof of transparency in genetically modified foods and labelling to permit the public a clear choice in this matter. I congratulate the member for Louis-Hebert and her colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois for bringing this interesting debate to the House today.

Some significant witnesses will appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, beginning in a couple of weeks, to look in depth at the issue of labelling. Certainly we will be looking forward to that. I suppose today's debate serves as a preamble to it.

I listened with care to what the minister of agriculture said in his remarks a few minutes ago. To paraphrase it I think he is clearly saying, and we all agree, that the onus is not on the Monsantos, Novardis and DuPonts of the world to prove the safety of foods but it is government that must regulate those. He believes and we all hope he is right when he says that we are well served and that Canadians do have a very high standard and can rest assured that the food they are ingesting is regulated well in advance of its going to the public.

The issue seems in many ways to come down to one of the environment. As has been noted several times already, there has been lots of discussion on this topic.

We know for example of the battle between the giant Monsanto versus a farmer in Saskatchewan, Mr. Schmeiser, about pollution from a GM crop that went to Mr. Schmeiser's field. Today in the Toronto Star Thomas Walkom has a column based on a report out of the New Scientist about a farmer in Alberta who grew three different fields of GM canola, one that was seed resistant to Roundup, another from Cynamid and a third for Liberty. What has happened over the last three years since he first planted those crops is that he now has weeds that are resistant to all three. He is looking at an extensive cocktail solution to try to dispose of the supermutant weeds that have been created in the wake of using these.

A lot of questions are being raised by Canadians. I think there is a growing market concern as a result of that and perhaps even a rebellion by some farmers to the giant chemical and pharmaceutical companies that are busy promoting these products.

Consumer resistance has certainly come to Europe in the wake of the mad cow disease, to the extent that the European Union is prepared to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars a year for importing North American beef into that continent. Because the beef may well have been injected with hormones, they are not going to allow it to come in and they are prepared to pay a significant penalty under the WTO provisions in order to keep that product off the European food shelves.

It is fair to say that consumer resistance is also spreading to Canada and North America. We have seen a significant growth in that in recent years. In recent months giant Canadian companies such as McCain, McDonald's hamburgers and Frito-Lay have indicated they want to ensure that their consumers are not ingesting genetically modified products. Even a company like Monsanto is obviously aware of the problems. It is hiving off its agricultural division because of the spate of bad news and it is changing its name. It is interesting that Novardis, one of the leaders in GM food, now has a baby food is labelled as GM free. Marketers and big business are doing what they always need to do to ensure they have a strong market.

Ninety-five per cent of Canadians say that we should have the right to purchase non-genetically modified food and a corresponding high percentage say that there has to be labelling. We know that in a few very well to do Canadian households there is the opportunity to purchase non-GM foods, but without labelling the vast majority of us would not necessarily know where to go, although we did hear about the flour that a member talked about previously.

What I am trying to say is that the precautionary principle should still prevail in this area. Lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures. That means it has to be science based and not based on science fiction.

At the New Democratic Party convention last year I was pleased to take part in a resolution that dealt with this topic. The points contained in that resolution which was passed overwhelmingly at the convention were that there be a full scale public discussion initiated on GMO foods; that the labelling process to make consumers aware be mandatory; that there be adequate protection for farmers; that liability for genetic pollution shall rest with the huge companies, the Monsantos et cetera; and that for food safety there must be the capacity to evaluate GMO food and to ensure that this evaluation is independent of the food producers and the food producing industry and government food marketing.

Recently the government in its wisdom, or lack thereof, dispensed a booklet that was referred to by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, “Food Safety and You”. This has generated a lot interest in my constituency. I had a recent letter, an e-mail, from people who are very concerned and unhappy that the government had put out this product. To quote in part from a letter from the Hjertaas family:

As for “labelling,” it seems to me that Allergy Associations have been fighting for years to get all ingredients labelled for health reasons and I'm not sure we are there yet. For instance the unlabelled practice of putting corn grits on the bottom of bread has made my son sick more than once!

And why in the world would the Government of Canada use the organic standards developed under the Canadian General Standards Board as a model for the development of labelling for foods derived from biotechnology? Biotechnology has no place in organics as is well illustrated in the new U.S. organic standards.

The writer concludes that the Government of Canada has absolutely no business supporting the corporate agenda.

There was a very recent interesting article by Brian Flemming, a Halifax writer and columnist, in the current issue of Policy Options Politiques . He talked about the huge government conflict of interest brewing in Ottawa where genetically modified foods are beginning to trouble both bureaucrats and the Canadian public. He indicated, as I have said, that a majority of Canadians would be less likely to buy GM food if they knew it had been modified. The same Canadians would no doubt also overwhelmingly demand that the country's food regulator be just that, a regulator, and not a promoter of GM foods like canola. He said:

Ethically, the federal government has a duty not to extend its regulatory reach any further into the GM food world without first divesting itself of its current, conflicting roles, of promoter of, or financier for, GM foods.

He ended by saying:

—the following “regulatory commandment” should be posted on the walls of the offices of all ministers and deputy ministers: Thou shalt not simultaneously regulate and promote, regulate and finance, or regulate and insure any industry.

In closing, I think that would be a very good commandment for the government to follow on this lively issue of genetically modified foods.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the minister based on his remark that no other country has developed effective mandatory labelling.

This morning some of us had the opportunity to hear the secretary general of the OECD, a former cabinet minister in the House, Donald Johnston, speak on this subject. He indicated to those in attendance that on April 10 a mandatory labelling process had come into effect in the European Union. He also indicated that one is already in effect in Japan.

There seems to be a discrepancy from what I heard a couple of hours ago and what the minister is saying now. I wonder if he could clarify it from his viewpoint.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food as is the member for Louis-Hébert. There was some discussion earlier this year about the possibility of there being a joint committee or subcommittee of health and agriculture to look at the whole issue of genetically modified foods. I would be interested in asking my learned colleague, and she is indeed very learned on this topic, if she has been able to figure out why in fact that subcommittee of health and agriculture has not come together.

I recognize that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food is going to be looking at this later this month with a series of meetings. What intrigues me is why the two committees were not able to work out an arrangement.