Dick Proctor

[Canadian Grain Commission, May 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food knows that the Canadian Grain Commission has existed for decades to serve prairie grain farmers. Now however the commission is running a $10 million deficit and many farmers are concerned that on-site grain inspection will be a victim of this financial shortfall. Farmers fear cost cutting would do real harm to Canada's excellent reputation as an exporter of top-notch grains.

Given all that, could the minister assure all Canadians that our reputation as a world class supplier of grain will never be compromised?

[Reform Of International Organizations, May 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I too am very pleased to take part in the debate on this private member's motion which deals with the need to develop a multilateral plan of action to reform international organizations such as the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

The crisis we are facing today is defining how history will remember this era as one of interstate conflict with grave humanitarian implications. Whereas the first half of the 20th century was characterized by wars between states, today this concept seems to moving toward obsolescence. Countries with deep seated pluralist traditions are now facing dissent from within their borders as a result of intensifying extremist tendencies.

Strident voices and belligerent actions replace peaceful cohabitation. Victims of these so-called modern conflicts are more often than not civilians and this situation denotes increasing violations of basic human rights. While the principle of state sovereignty restricts external intervention, the international community should never justify an action through the mindless invocation of this principle.

There is one thing we should never forget about the sacrosanct principle of national sovereignty, and that is that a nation's sovereignty counts for nothing if it does not exist for the much greater good of the sovereignty of its population.

The roll call of these new-style conflicts is a long one. The names of a few countries will suffice: Algeria, Sierra Leone, Rwanda. They will forever be associated with the atrocities of which they were the theatres and their populations the actors, the spectators and the victims. While our attention is turned elsewhere, some of these crises continue to rage. But no example is more striking by its immediacy and its scale than the crisis in Kosovo.

What will be remembered of this very sad chapter in the history of humanity? Milosevic's intractability, the horrendous atrocities that are taking place and a very small part of which have been discovered so far or the obvious ineffectuality of the international community. While it is true that people are not insensitive to what is happening in Kosovo and that many have shown a generosity that has been of a great help to the refugees, we are left with no choice but to conclude that the NATO strikes have been ineffective.

The international community has seen its efforts reduced to nought by the stubborn and single minded perseverance of Milosevic. If the primary goal of the operation allied force includes facilitating the timely return of refugees to their homes, the intensity of the air attacks brings into question their utility. The reintegration of refugees into their homeland becomes more and more difficult the longer the attacks rain down on a country steadily being reduced to rubble. Peace must be negotiated even if this process has to go forward with a leader accused of numerous crimes against humanity.

As the crisis drags on, the realization that there are only two remaining options is crystallizing: we can perpetuate violence or we can choose to negotiate. The last few weeks of NATO's air campaign have demonstrated the futility of the former option. Negotiation is the only viable way to achieve a resolution to the conflict and a lasting peace.

My intervention today is not designed to focus on the atrocities being committed in the former Yugoslavia but rather to identify and denounce the general inefficiency of international organizations that deal with the types of situations which have been clearly evidenced by the crisis in Kosovo.

The architecture of international organizations needs a profound revision as their current form highlights their irrelevance. The relative lethargy of the United Nations can be partly explained in light of the organization's subordinations to the political whims of the security council. In order to address the UN's paralysis, a system whereby a member state's monetary contributions are respected must be devised and implemented. I must say parenthetically that the United States needs to know this and know this well.

By its very structure, the UN is obsolete. We can be pleased with the great work that the UN has accomplished for peace and development in these last fifty years, but we must not forget that more could have been done. To ensure it remains effective, the UN must adapt to the new realities. It was built on the respect of the sovereignty of nations. This principle still holds as long as a nation's sovereignty exists for the good of its people.

This is why, in the face of blatant and repeated human rights violations in a country, the international community has a duty to overlook the notion of sovereignty and to react in order to correct the situation.

The actions taken by NATO, which circumvented the UN security council, clearly show the obsolescence of the two organizations. Even though NATO leaders, including Canada, are prestigious members of the United Nations, this did not prevent them from bypassing the UN. On the other hand, the UN did not respond to such action. How can we tolerate such a blatant lack of co-operation?

I believe it is Canada's responsibility to take a leadership role in the face of such obsolescence. We avoid consuming outdated products. We update our old software. We offer retirement packages to tired workers to make room for younger blood. Similarly, it is our duty to review the role of our major organizations.

Whereas our international organizations were born out of the crucible of the second world war and designed to deal with the post-1945 era, it is plainly evident that the contemporary international security environment has changed dramatically since.

As previously mentioned the very nature of wars has evolved considerably. Today we face significant crises in both development and the environment. Poverty continues to grow and foreign aid has taken on the guise of public relations gestures instead of bona fide humanitarian assistance.

Both World Bank and the International Monetary Fund actions leave much to be desired in form and function. Loans from these organizations have served to put into debt the poorest countries on earth, to the point where they can never hope to escape from their debt traps. This situation is akin to sacrificing future generations and represents the antithesis of sustainability. Poor countries have become loan dependent, a state of affairs perpetuated by the western world and the actions of international financial organizations.

Numerous development projects have proved hopelessly inappropriate, dealing with short term results at the expense of the long term viability and sustainability of the populace. Truly sustainable practices and development must aim to enfranchise their brothers and sisters throughout the developing world and must result in a significant form of international organizations.

We must restructure and rework international environmental policies. If these policies are to be effective they must be applied and implemented globally. By their very nature international environmental policies necessitate a strong guiding role for international organizations. As such the inherent inefficiencies displayed by international organizations in dealing with environmental concerns and issues must be addressed by the reform of these institutions.

The time has come to convene a global summit with the aim of reforming international organizations, rewriting the international code of conduct in order that our organizations not only reflect contemporary realities but also new more efficient modes of actions to deal with the challenges of today and tomorrow.

While it is critical to correct the current situation, the solution must not be risky. It must constantly be adjusted to the changing realities of our world. This is why it will be essential to introduce a motion to review major international organizations every decade.

We must work toward establishing international institutions that priorize human needs and rights. The sovereignty of states must be tempered by the primacy of human rights. Thus the flagrant abuse of this paramount principle can and should be met by swift and meaningful intervention by the international community.

I thank the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for this very important and useful motion.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the Group No. 3 amendments to Bill C-32 which deal with animate products of biotechnology.

The essence of the Group No. 3 motions is to remove the powers of the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health to give the governor in council the exclusive responsibility for decisions on animate projects of biotechnology. At a time when Canadians are asking more and more questions about the unknown factors of biotech and asking for further information and transparency, Motion No. 138 of the Liberal cabinet puts decisions on environment and health effectively behind closed doors, the governor in council doors.

When a lot of folks listening hear the term governor in council, I am sure they are wondering what it means. It is the executive arm of government. It is in effect cabinet. If this piece of legislation goes through, neither the Minister of the Environment nor the Minister of Health will be responsible for this area but rather it will be the governor in council. The entire cabinet will be responsible. There is an old saying that when everybody is in charge, no one is in charge. That is the fear we have with the particular piece of legislation before us this afternoon.

Canadians today are watching and listening to the news from around the world about a variety of biotechnology issues such as food labelling, biotech crops, genetics and cloning. They do not necessarily understand everything but they are certainly listening. They require some answers and they deserve some answers. I submit that only through public debate can misunderstanding and fear be addressed.

Throughout the world we are witnessing an exponential growth in the technology field. At the same time the international alarm bells are ringing and some people are even beginning to wonder if we are in fact going too far too fast in this area.

Canadians witnessed the recent debacle related to bovine growth hormone and the silencing of scientists at the health protection branch. Their concerns are shared by many across the country. The science and studies necessary to protect Canadians are based on cost recovery far too often. Cost recovery for whom? For industrial clients. As the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis asked earlier today in the debate, is the fox guarding the henhouse?

Canadians want to know how the promoter, this government, can also regulate against any possible harmful effects. The KPMG analysis done for the health protection branch mentions the need to consider the various industry and client interests. There is concern that there may be a conflict of interest bias, and Canadians certainly deserve an open and clear process.

There are calls for the government to rebalance the scale, to step back from the ardent proponent and remember that a balance is necessary to be struck on the side of public health and safety. The decision making must return to science, away from the political arena and backroom deals.

All of us as children spent some time on a teeter-totter. Some of us in political life still spend time on teeter-totters. What I remember about them is that the centre point of a teeter-totter is the fulcrum. If there is too much weight on one side it becomes unbalanced.

What is happening now on the teeter-totter of biotechnology is that we have industry and government on one side and the consumers are up in the air literally and figuratively on this issue. We need to have the government in the middle, in the fulcrum, so that there is a reasonable balance between industry and certain protection and assurances for the consumer.

Cross-pollination from modified crops to other crops has occurred and the question is could this cause problems. The process must be an open one. Can we expect the Liberal government to take a precautionary approach and err on the side of protection? A series of Liberal motions to weaken dramatically the precautionary principles suggests to us that we cannot.

Canadian farmers are becoming concerned about the issue. The potential loss of producer markets in Europe, and I will talk about those in a few minutes, presents additional concerns as well.

We certainly cannot lose sight of the success Canadian agriculture has achieved around the globe with specialty crops. We think of winter wheat, in particular, and the food delivered to less fortunate tables.

I am our caucus critic on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We all had the opportunity to travel to Washington this past February and had a good week of discussions on the future of agriculture.

One of the things that I recall from those discussions is that with 80 million new mouths to feed each and every year for the next 20 years food production will need to double throughout the world over the next 50 years, by the year 2050. It cannot be done, as it has been done in the past, by more irrigation and more development of arable lands. We simply do not have the capability. We recognize and scientists generally recognize that agricultural biotech will be the future for the millions of new mouths to be fed over the next half century.

We must ensure however that the best process for scientific review, analysis and monitoring is in place. It has to be based on science not on science fiction. Why can Canada not have the best, most open, highest scientific standards that ensure product safety for the environment and human health? An increasing number of Canadians are calling for food labelling to provide informed choices in their decision making.

I said I was going to talk very quickly about Europe. I want to note that following European labelling regulations, restaurants and fast food outlets in Britain have been ordered by the government to tell consumers if their meals contain genetically modified products. “People who are supplying food, whether it is in a shop or a restaurant, are really duty bound to know as much as they can about where the food came from before they offer it to the public”, said the food safety minister, Minister Rooker.

Genetically modified food is a hot political topic in Britain. The government says that it is confident genetically modified food is safe, but opinion polls show most consumers are anxious remembering similar early assurances before the mad cow crisis of a few years ago.

On this topic, recently the Western Producer had an editorial entitled “GMO familiarity may breed comfort”. I want to read a little of that editorial into my comments. It states:

One of the biggest debates surrounding genetically modified foods is whether they should carry an identifying label. In Europe in recent months, the issue has come to a head and the European Commission has instituted rules for labelling GMO foods.

There is a climate of growing public distrust in Europe. Denmark, Britain and France have all called a partial halt to GMO approvals, while Austria, Luxembourg and France have slapped unilateral bans on certain new crop strains.

The companies that have created genetically modified seeds are generally against mandatory labelling.

They say that if there is no real nutritional or health difference between altered and regular food, why should GMO products be singled out? It could be viewed not as information but as a warning.

As I have noted, and the editorial notes:

Many consumer groups say that for the public to make an informed decision, products must be labelled.

Last year AgBioForum , a quarterly on-line magazine devoted to agricultural biotechnology, tackled the issue.

The contributors, mainly academics at Canadian and American universities, argue that labelling, especially if voluntary, could build acceptance for agricultural technology.

To conclude the editorial, it further states:

Companies with products made from GMO foods might do well to institute voluntary labelling. Although they might take some heat in the short-term, in the long-term they will familiarize the population with the benefits of the science.

And the process should become easier as researchers move from the first wave of bio-tech crops, which were directed at giving farmers more options, to products directed at consumer needs like lower fat levels and higher protein.

To wrap up, how can well-informed consumer decisions be made if the entire process is clouded and under a veil of secrecy? Shutting out environment and health ministers and placing critical decisions behind closed doors with the governor in council sends a wrong message to Canadians. What is this government trying to hide? Why limit the safety net in the decision making process if everything is above board?

[Agriculture, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the fire alarm in this building earlier today may well have been sparked by the incendiary letter from the dean of the Senate to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Senator Sparrow said that AIDA is inadequate to alleviate the disaster affecting farmers and states what this party has been saying for months about AIDA including the refusal to recognize the problem, implying rural Saskatchewan residents are ignorant, lazy and/or inefficient. The senator states that if the government chooses not to support rural Saskatchewan then just say so.

How does the minister respond to these stinging criticisms of AIDA from a member of his own parliamentary caucus?

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will wrap up my speech on the Group No. 1 amendments to the CEPA legislation. The New Democratic Party supports Bill C-32 as amended by the committee. We believe the amended legislation can protect the environment and give the dedicated scientists and citizens who wish to protect our environment and human health the tools to do that job.

However, a series of motions in this group removes the phase-out of the worst toxic substances. In the opinion of the NDP, Motions Nos. 1 and 2 set the stage for the Reform Party and the Liberal cabinet to appease their polluter friends and remove the need to phase-out the most persistent and bioaccumulative substances. We have to ask about the guiding principle.

Why do we not recognize that we must remove these toxic threats which continue to poison Canadians and our environment? The Reform Party and the Liberal cabinet only seem to be interested to “virtually eliminate” these substances, but the toxics will still be manufactured and used. They will still be emitted into the environment. There is still the threat of a spill or an accident and these are the most persistent and insidious chemicals that we know of.

The industry said when we were attempting to remove lead from gasoline that it would be a crisis. We were able to do that. There are a number of other things that we have been able to do over time that the producers of these products said would be a catastrophe. They said that they would go out of business if we did that. They screamed foul and they started a fear campaign. In the case of lead they said that there would be no more cars on the roads if we did not leave lead in gasoline and there were a number of other hysterical concerns.

We spend 45 minutes each day at question period when Liberal cabinet ministers, one after another, stand to condemn the Reform Party for all things that are wrong with this country and all things that are wrong with that party. As far as I am concerned, they spend the other 23 hours and 15 minutes doing the business of the Reform Party in producing very bad legislation for this country, and this is but one example.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the continuation of the debate today on Bill C-32.

I want to begin by saying what it is that we are discussing here in the House of Commons today. The background to Bill C-32, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is an act respecting pollution and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development. It is a reintroduction of Bill C-74 which died with the dissolution of parliament prior to the June 1997 federal election. It consists of some 12 parts and 8 divisions with a total of 353 clauses that include regulations on such things as toxic substances, exports and imports of hazardous waste, biotechnology, ocean dumping, vehicle emissions, fuels and fuel additives, international air pollution, enforcement and other environmentally related matters.

It is also noteworthy to tell the House and others that Bill C-32 underwent one of the lengthiest reviews in recent parliamentary history setting several records. The committee, chaired by the hon. member for Davenport, held some 59 meetings, 37 of which were on clause by clause review. More than 560 amendments were drafted for consideration, exceeding some other bills. In terms of our particular party and the member for Churchill River, the New Democratic Party submitted over 100 amendments at committee.

The committee determined that the health and environmental association of the bill was too weak. It accepted the notion that there was a pro-industry bias to require little action to act for environmental protection. The underlying theme was a complete devolution of the powers of the environment minister to any other federal department or government jurisdiction.

The committee review presented an interesting dynamic. The New Democratic Party, the Conservatives, the Bloc and several Liberal members pursued a mandate to improve environmental protection. The Reform support for the Liberal government agenda carried the majority of close votes on proposed amendments.

The bill, as amended by committee and referred to the House, is supportable. Although not perfect, there have been additions to ensure that the precautionary principle provides the basis for environmental protection and that the environment minister's ability to act to protect the environment and human health is retained. However, the NDP has very serious concerns that the government's report stage amendments could reverse committee improvements that strengthen Bill C-32.

I am aware that we are on Group No. 1 amendments. I will now turn to those and quickly outline the New Democratic Party's concerns in that area.

Group No. 1 removes the phase-out of the worst of toxic substances. It removes the achievement of virtual elimination. It weakens the committee effort to strengthen precautionary principle with government efforts to return cost effective restriction before taking protective measures.

We support Motions Nos. 26 and 83 which recognize precautionary principle to be added for legal clarity. We moved Motion No. 61 for improved inherent toxicity interpretation which removes restrictions to amounts or quantities.

The NDP supports the principles of pollution prevention and polluter pays. We recognize the balance between the environment and the economy, in other words sustainable development. We think that it can be a difficult task. We are not against industry. We are against polluters who place our environment and our human health at risk.

The links between chemical exposures and human health are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The links between the contamination of the environment and the damage and degradation to Canada's biodiversity, including wildlife, are proven.

The Great Lakes, an area, Mr. Speaker, that I know you grew up on the shores of and and so did I, became one of this planet's infamous laboratories in this regard. We remember only too well the near loss of eagles from damaged eggs, the near loss of the ability to reproduce. Mothers depended on fish from these lakes and passed the contamination on to their children and it will be passed on to their children. It is not anyone's fault; it is the fault of the previous unknown, the unproven.

In the far north, mothers in Canada's arctic have PCBs and a variety of chemicals contained in their breast milk. Another generation faces known consequences, including learning disabilities, shortened attention spans and an increase in behavioural problems. Again, it is not their fault. It is the fault of industrial practices from this century carried by the winds and waters for thousands of miles. It is the environment that is contaminated.

Wildlife studies demonstrate these effects are passed between generations. The adverse impacts continue throughout the next offspring, the next and the next.

The fault lies with those polluters who allowed and continue to allow the poisoning of our environment that supports life, including humans as a species. The fault lies with the manufacturers of these chemicals that poison our shared environment. It is a disgrace that there are toxic manufacturers that continue to make and ship those poisons to countries without laws or protections against the criminals.

The fault also lies with legislators, those elected representatives, politicians who could have acted and should have acted to protect their fellow citizens, the environment, the fate and the future of their children and tomorrow's children. The fault lies with those parliamentarians who ignore history, ignore the facts, ignore the science, and avoid the leadership and vision to protect the common good and our children.

On the Group No. 1 amendments specifically, I draw attention to a series of motions proposed therein that will continue to poison our environment and our lives. The House Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development went through one of the most comprehensive legislative reviews in Canada's history.

We believe that the amended legislation can protect the environment and give the dedicated scientists and citizens who wish to protect our environment and human health the tools to do the job.

[Grain Transportation, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the government has been sitting on the Estey report for five months now, it is a fairly feeble excuse.

The minister should simply stand up in his place and admit that he and the government have bought the Estey report lock, stock and barrel. They are not only refusing a review of costs, but they are stating that Mr. Estey's report is a compass for the future, a compass, I might add, that is pointed directly at the Canadian Wheat Board.

Why is the minister so eager to emasculate the role of the board and force ever higher grain transportation costs onto the backs of beleaguered prairie farmers?

[Grain Transportation, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, three days ago the Minister of Transport assured the House he would not slam the door on any reasonable suggestion from anybody at yesterday's grain transportation meeting in Winnipeg. However, he did just that by ruling out of hand any independent accounting of current handling costs for moving prairie grain. A dozen western farm organizations had unanimously requested that as a first step but the minister slammed the door in their faces.

How does the minister justify that decision?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the third reading debate of Bill C-78. I understand that we are dealing with a group of motions this afternoon. I want to refer specifically to Motions Nos. 2 and 3, as well as Motions Nos. 9 and 10. These are motions which have been put forward by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre.

Motions Nos. 2 and 3 deal with the ethical investment of the pension fund and specifically suggest that they not include tobacco sales or manufacture or promotion. They also would exclude pollution or environmental degradation, labour standards and practices which are inferior to those required by law in Canada, and any practice or activity which may result in the elimination or contracting out of the jobs of members of the plan.

Motions Nos. 9 and 10 simply make reference to the fact that the Auditor General of Canada should be the primary auditor of the public sector pension investment board to protect the interests of the retirees and those who will be retirees sometime in the future. I certainly stand in full support of those valuable recommendations.

I would like to make some general comments on Bill C-78 and to say that this is a closely watched debate. I know that because I have heard from many constituents in Saskatchewan who have spoken to me about this issue. Some have met with me as recently as last week in the riding to talk about their concerns. I know the government knows it is a closely watched debate. That is why it is ramming this through as fast as it possibly can. That is why it has introduced closure. The government has refused to hold cross-country hearings because it does not want the people to come forward to vent their spleen and anger at what is happening with Bill C-78.

Simply put, the approach of the government is to commandeer $30.1 billion and to appropriate that unto itself. There is no hint that it is prepared to share this surplus with the retirees or the current public sector workers in any way, shape or form. There are basically three groups which have or are contributing to the plan: the government, the pensioners who have contributed over the years, and the current employees who are contributing. As I said, the surplus stands in excess of $30 billion.

This affects public service superannuation members, folks who were employed by the Canadian forces as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

When we debated this at second reading a week or so ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board indicated to us that one of the reasons the government was commandeering the $30 billion was because the government has to guarantee any deficit and it has to ensure that the pensions are paid out. The parliamentary secretary indicated that over the years the government has paid out some $13 billion.

If we can just picture this, the government has paid out $13 billion according to its figures, but it will grab $30 billion. Where in the world is the equity in that proposition? It has refused to share this with the other two groups that have contributed over the years. It is the old adage, “What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine as well”.

We have seen this movie. The member for Dewdney—Alouette was talking about movies. There was another pornographic film around and that was on the $26 billion grab that the government made on the employment insurance fund a few years ago where there was absolutely no money and even less justification from the government. It put none of that money in. It was all employers' or employees' money, but somehow it appropriated that unto itself as well.

When the government takes the $30 billion and runs with it, who is left in the lurch? The people who are primarily left in the lurch are women. The average pension, not the bottom end, for women in the public service is $9,600 per year. Again, that is not the low end. That is the average received by these folks who have worked over the years earning low wages, having their salaries frozen, not qualifying for equal pay for work of equal value or anything of that sort.

That is why the government wants to close this debate down as quickly as it can because it knows how high the feelings are running out in the country on this issue. That is why it chose to stonewall any suggestion from the member for Winnipeg Centre, or others in our caucus or on this side of the House, that there be cross-country hearings.

Once upon a time the Liberals, when they sat on this side of the House, saw this issue much differently than they see it today. At that time, in the 1991-92 period, they proposed that any surpluses in pension plans should be resolved by binding arbitration. That was then and this is now. Then they were sitting to the left of the Speaker and now they are sitting to the right of the Speaker and they have a whole different approach to this issue.

I submit that what is happening is not only a shame, it is also a sham. Obviously, with its majority the government will get its way on this issue today, but I predict that there will be a day of reckoning because the government has not heard the last from the retirees on this issue. I suggest that it will rue the day when it absconded with $30.1 billion.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister would agree that Mr. Estey in his report did not review transportation costs in any comprehensive way. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and many other prairie organizations stand ready to help the minister in this costing review.

Why will the minister not take this advice from a dozen prairie farm organizations and agree today to investigate this on Wednesday with them?