Rick Borotsik

[Food And Drugs Act, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand in the House today to represent the position of the Progressive Conservative Party on Bill C-287.

First, I congratulate the member for Davenport who is seen in the House as being an effective spokesperson for the environment and a very passionate advocate with respect to mandatory labelling.

The Progressive Conservative Party does say quite emphatically that it would work toward mandatory labelling and do so in a very logical and cautious way. We will initially support the legislation in order to move it into committee because there are a number of areas that need to be debated and discussed.

I sit on the agriculture committee. I must congratulate a previous member, Ms. Hélène Alarie, who was a passionate advocate of this particular topic. She put forward a private member's motion which I and my party voted against. We did not vote against it because we did not feel very strongly about mandatory labelling but because the agriculture committee was going to strike a subcommittee to discuss in detail the positives, the weaknesses and the flaws in mandatory labelling.

Many questions on mandatory labelling need to be debated and the best place for that debate would at committee where the necessary stakeholders, consumers, producers and corporations can put their positions forward on mandatory labelling.

It is refreshing to see a bill come forward from a member of the government where it is contrary to government policy and a votable item. It will be interesting to see how the government deals with this particular issue.

The bill does have a number of flaws. One of the specific flaws is that the bill calls for a very narrow definition of GM food to go into the Food and Drug Act. Canada's novel food regulations uses a very broad definition in capturing the regulatory system of anything with a novel heritable trait. This minimizes negative environmental and biodiversity impacts. Because the FDA supersedes the novel food regulations, the breadth of the products that go through the regulatory system would be narrowed to the product of one GM technology and everything else would pass into the food chain unregulated.

It is clear that most Canadians support the principle of openness and transparency within the bill. However, achieving the end results will be a very difficult task, as I am sure the member for Davenport accepts.

The Progressive Conservative Party believes that Canada's biotechnology industry, along with genetically enhanced food, has for the most part benefited our agriculture and agri-food sectors, and Canada as a whole. Biotechnology offers major opportunities to improve both our environmental integrity and improve our food quality.

The challenges that we must face in creating a solid and dynamic biotechnology industry are twofold. First, we must create a climate in which industry sectors can flourish, both here and internationally. International trade is very important.

Second, we must meet the public's concerns about their own health, environment and the safety of GMOs.

It would be unrealistic to think that we can put an end to the biotechnology advancements. We do not want that. I do not believe anyone in the House believes we should stop the advancements of biotechnology. What we can do is find ways to improve the system as it stands today and help improve consumer confidence in the foods that we eat.

During the last federal election, our party stated that it would ensure greater public involvement in the setting of policy and regulations.

We would work closely with the provinces, industry and the large number of consumer stakeholders interested in the question of biotechnology generally and GMOs in particular. We would work to create ways in which the industry's need and the public's real concerns about the health and environmental safety of genetically modified foods could be addressed and resolved.

We would commit to a law requiring the labelling of all genetically modified foodstuffs and products for human consumption. It would include a caveat that mandatory labelling could only occur in the future if done in a cost effective manner, in concert with food labelling policies of other major food processing and trading countries, and by using standards consistent with those of current Food and Drugs Act regulations and international standards. That goal could be achieved if these conditions are met.

There are few issues today that are as complex and as detailed as the issue of labelling food products derived by genetically modified means. There have been ongoing discussions on this topic for over 10 years.

One of the benefits of the biotechnology and GMOs is their multitude. They increase our competitiveness as Canadian agri-food processors and producers. They increase the yields needed to compensate for the increase in world population. They develop more sustainable agricultural practices like zero till and less pest control. In our opinion we should look forward to the benefits of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms.

However there are some issues that are still outstanding with mandatory labelling such as, as was mentioned earlier, the segregation of foodstuffs. We have some difficulty right now in our food production, segregating the food product itself, for example the grains we put into the international marketplace. We have to get that aspect under control as well.

Testing is a very important aspect of the whole issue. We have to know that testing can be done economically as well as effectively so that we know which is a genetically modified organism and which is not.

We also have to look at world standards. We have to make sure we work in concert with the rest of the world. We cannot sit in isolation, deal with mandatory labelling and put in different standards that are not accepted in the world marketplace. Our export markets are absolutely vital to the lifeblood of agriculture. Therefore we must make sure that any standard we set with labelling is a standard that is acceptable by our trading partners.

There is unfortunately no standard at this point in time. We have labelling rules that are being set by communities throughout the globe that are totally different from others. For example, the United States, our major trading partner, is currently only looking at rules for voluntary labelling and not mandatory labelling.

In the European Union all products containing 1% or more GM material must be labelled. Japan is looking at some new changes to its labelling process. It is to take effect this year and require mandatory labelling for food products and processed foods that include one or more genetically modified organism as one of the top three ingredients include. Australia and New Zealand have some very strict labelling requirements, whereas in China there are no labelling requirements at all. We must get together and try to work out a standardized world labelling system so that we can compete in a very competitive world market.

As for our position, it is clear that consumers demand to be informed and we as legislators should look at ways to make changes to cater to these demands. A substantial amount of misinformation continually comes forward with respect to genetically modified organisms and labelling. As parliamentarians we must make sure that the misinformation is backstopped by the proper and correct information. To stick our heads in the sand and not have this go forward is not the way that producers would have us look at the changes in our products and how we market those products.

I would like to see this go forward, with the condition that we do not compete with those people who are already out there doing an awful lot of work on GMOs. We should sit down and listen to all the stakeholders. We could then decide how best to put the rules and regulations into place. The proper rules should be in place that would be accepted by consumers and by the marketplace.

Finally, but certainly not least, the rules we put into place should be accepted by the food producers, those in the agricultural community, our constituents.

I look forward to perhaps debating the bill in committee. We will wait and see how far it can go.

[Marine Liability Act, May 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make some brief comments on behalf of my colleague, the member for St. John's East, who has carriage of the legislation. Coming from St. John's he obviously understands the necessity for requirements with respect to marine liability.

As I understand it there are two amendments. One was put forward by the member for Prince George—Peace River. It calls upon the House to amend clause 39 of the bill to make liability insurance for passenger vessels mandatory as of January 1, 2003. Our party agrees with it. We believe that anyone who is carrying passengers should have mandatory liability insurance.

The other one comes from the member for Windsor—St. Clair. It keeps the current wording of clause 39 that allows the government to introduce compulsory liability insurance by regulation if it sees fit. However the amendment adds a second part requiring vessel operators without insurance to post a notice to that effect until such time as liability insurance becomes compulsory.

We agree that if there is no liability insurance covered by the carrier of that particular vessel it should be posted for customers to see. Customers would then have the opportunity of deciding whether or not to use the carrier.

The bill consolidates Canada's marine liability law and incorporates into Canadian law a number of international conventions to which we are a signatory. However, nowhere in the 117 pages of the bill does it say a vessel owner must have the kind of liability insurance that the bill endlessly talks about throughout the whole document. That in itself is absolutely astounding. We would never think of taking to the roads without liability insurance. When we drive on roads we not only have collision but also liability coverage should we be at fault or be involved in the injury or death of other parties.

That is what we are suggesting should happen here. It should apply not only to ocean going vessels but to those vessels that may carry passengers and operate inland. There are a lot of lakes and waterways in Canada. We believe that any Canadian passenger vessel should have the mandatory requirement of carrying liability insurance.

That is not asking very much because there is not a huge cost associated with it. It is just good business. Whether or not it is the law the carriers should carry such insurance, but we know that some carriers feel for whatever reasons that if they do not want to they should not be forced to.

That is why we are suggesting the amendments put forward by the members for Prince George—Peace River and Windsor—St. Clair should be accepted by the government so that the changed legislation would serve Canadians better. I put that on the record on behalf of my colleague from St. John's East.

[Agriculture, May 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, just recently I obtained a ministerial briefing note that went from the deputy minister to the minister of agriculture. Effectively what it said was that agriculture was just rosy and we should not worry. I quote reads “Despite perceptions, indicators suggest the average producer is in reasonably good shape”.

I ask the minister of agriculture, is this the information he takes to the cabinet table? Is this why he fails miserably when he tries to find funding for agriculture? Will he stop listening to his bureaucrats?

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, no public policy issues facing the government and the people of Canada are more complex than those concerning first nations people.

The Progressive Conservative Party endorsed the inherent right to self-government of Canada's first nations when drafting the 1992 Charlottetown accord. It was a Conservative government that established the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and gave it a broad mandate to study and report on all issues affecting the lives of Canada's aboriginal peoples. Progress on all such issues has been slow. The Nisga'a land settlement was only recently approved after having taken years to negotiate.

There is no one size fits all solution to the problems facing Canada's first nations. Self-government as set out in the Charlottetown accord and implemented by the Nisga'a agreement is only one of many possible forms of self-government.

No matter which structure is desired, however, governments must move in that direction. It is only through self-government that first nations people can begin to recover the dignity and power taken from them since the early settlement of Canada.

Many other issues face aboriginal people as well. These include determining a sound economic basis for first nations to grow, flourish and benefit from being a part of the country. The legal and cultural role of first nations women needs to be addressed especially in the movement to self-government.

Among the most pressing concerns to be addressed are the complex issues facing first nations youth and first nations individuals living in cities without land base. More than half the first nations population of Canada is under the age of 25 and living in cities. Most often they are experiencing poverty and functioning alone, without direction. Without significant steps being taken by governments in partnership with the first nations, these young people will become a generation lost to Canada and their own people.

Our party feels that the minister needs to look no further than at the royal commission created by the former Progressive Conservative government for ideas and changes made to the Indian Act. It has been mentioned on a number of occasions by previous speakers that it took years and millions of dollars to put the royal commission together. I have seen the volumes. There are recommendations in there that could have been implemented yesterday be implemented now or in the very near future without having to go through a make work project that the minister seems to be embracing.

The PC Party believes that the ineffective paternalistic and colonial approaches of the Indian Act must give way to greater self-reliance and self-esteem through effective education, economic development, social justice and local control. It must also lead eventually to the elimination of both the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as well as the Indian Act, which would lead to self-government.

The PC Party does not support the establishment of a third level of government. Instead self-government is best achieved within the current system of our government. The current government with this minister could make major progress, but it seems to be choosing what on the surface may be a delay tactic. Progress delayed is progress denied.

On the surface this initiative has the appearance of a make work project from a government that seems to be void of ideas. It has the opportunity to look at the royal commission and to implement some of those ideas now. However the process that the minister has chosen looks like another stalling tactic. I hope it is not.

I hope the minister could convince me and the first nations people that he wishes to consult. I hope the process in place now will come to fruition and will not be another report sitting on a shelf gathering dust. The policy issue is far too important, not only to the first nations but to the people of Canada.

I wish the minister good luck and Godspeed. I also wish he will be able to implement some of the things he is putting forward to his government and to the House in the not too distant future.

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party will be voting yes to the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Charities Registration (Security Information) Act, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party will vote yes to the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party will vote yes.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Canada Elections Act, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the PC Party will be voting yes to the motion.

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, April 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is one of the few areas in which I do not have a lot of experience or understanding. However I too was not a recipient of the apple. There were 100 apples given out and I never got one. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I do not know much about aquaculture.

I do know, however, that aquaculture is funded by the FCC. It should be funded by some sort of venture capital program. Aquaculture should have the opportunity to develop as an industry. In order to do so it must have investment programs available to it, particularly venture capital investments. Whether that is done through the FCC or some other program is not important. However the FCC does have experience with that and I would like to see it continue putting dollars back into the industry.

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, April 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I know where the member for Souris—Moose Mountain's sympathies lie. I sympathized with producers in my area and his area in 1999 when a lot of our constituents were unable to put in a crop. The worst thing that can happen for a producer is to see land sitting there and not allow it to grow a crop.

I could stand here and argue the insensitivity of the government in not providing proper support to the area as it did for the ice storm, the Red River Valley flood and other situations. However that is not the question. The question is whether the bill will allow the FCC to put the proper tools and money back into those areas.

The FCC always had the tools to put money into those areas but on an individual, one on one basis. The hon. member is a farmer. He recognizes that different operations are handled differently. Each operation has different commodities, different debt loads and different cash flows, and each must be dealt with individually.

The FCC, as any other bank, looks at the likelihood of repayment as the final requirement in deciding whether to put more dollars into those areas. I believe the FCC would consider investing in those areas, certainly more so than some of the large national banks that are pulling out of them. I am sure the member would agree that banks are not as forthcoming with agriculture, whether in our areas or other areas. Only the FCC would consider investing in those areas.

Credit unions may consider it as well. I give credit unions a lot of support for going into smaller areas and putting money back into the agricultural community, particularly in our areas.

We are finding it tough. There is no question. Some people in the area affected by the flood will not put in crops this year. It is as simple as that. Will the land be farmed? In most cases, yes. It will be rented out and farmed by someone else, but perhaps not by the right people. It should be farmed by the people who owned it originally but they have decided to get out of farming. That is sad. It is something we try to prevent, but unfortunately the government does not listen.