Charles Caccia

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga West.

The fact that the motion has the unanimous support of the House shows how deeply Canadians were moved by the tragedy that hit the United States of America and the strength of ties binding Canadians to Americans. The same can be said about the people in my riding.

What we saw and read in the media has shaken us all. In addition, as we learn daily from the list of the missing ones, we also learn that virtually no nation was spared with the collapse of the towers. The names of the victims range from the United States of America of course to places as far as Guyana, and the United Kingdom to Canada. People from all continents are missing. It can therefore be said that virtually no nationality in the world was spared the horrendous and devastating impact of the four hijacked planes.

At the same time, as a result of this apocalyptic event we have learned one very important lesson so aptly outlined last week in the Globe and Mail by Amos Oz, a poet of Jewish faith: namely the importance of distinguishing firmly and clearly, and keeping apart the Islamic world and culture from the terrorist phenomenon.

In his speech today the Prime Minister made the point very well when he said that we will not undermine the values we cherish, that we will continue to offer refuge to the persecuted and that we will support and respect Muslim Canadians as an integral part of our multicultural society.

The consequences of last week's tragedy points also to the possibility of different scenarios which could emerge in the months and years ahead. One would be the United States of America, alone or with NATO, developing the most sophisticated intelligence system in the world, acquiring the most lethal weapons, pursuing terrorism and terrorists wherever they may be and, in doing so, fighting terrorism as a western crusade.

The other scenario could be one that requires more time but would give better results in the long term: a global initiative that would include Russia and China, nations which have everything to gain from eradicating terrorism as well. The United Nations would seem to be the ideal institution to launch a concerted action so as to ensure the anti-terrorism is conducted globally or multilaterally to use another term.

The global action would require, among others, the deployment of diplomatic skills rather than a war. It would be an action aimed at removing the reasons for terrorism to exist. Peace, justice and equity would be the goals, beginning with the Middle East of course, conscious and motivated by the fact that violence only breeds violence, violence generates hatred and violence leads to vendettas and revenge. This vicious circle we all agree must be broken.

The leadership for the second scenario, more preferable to the first, one must admit, would have to come from prime ministers and presidents and from people like Kofi Annan. Such a scenario would require many nations, including the United States of America in particular, to regain confidence in the unique role of the United Nations.

The main objective is to find the root cause of hatred and racism and prejudice which at present are the main motivations which feed and give power to the terrorist movement.

War in the form commonly understood is not the right option. On the contrary, war when declared would give legitimacy to the opponent. War would give the opponent a legitimate status and the right to strike back. Declaring war is not the solution to the terrorism problem. It may provide short term emotional satisfaction to some, but it will not provide the solutions for the long term as advocated today in this Chamber by the Prime Minister. We must keep in mind that for every terrorist eliminated, such as Osama bin Laden, five more will readily emerge.

The media reported the fact that terrorism can count on substantive financial resources. If that is accurate, then surely there is a role to be played by the international banking community. The banking community could and should be called upon by governments to identify and freeze the bank accounts held by suspected terrorists. In this way the banking community would play a very useful role.

In summary, what lies ahead for the global community is the opportunity for creative diplomatic initiatives, for intensive police action, for the bringing to justice of the terrorists, for a creative role by the United Nations and, as was mentioned a moment ago, for a role by the banking community.

September 11, in generating the emotions it has, could generate in the future a number of creative measures and initiatives in restoring confidence and in strengthening the fabric of society and the relations of the global community. The emotions could lead to increased international co-operation and to the pursuit of justice. It could lead to the building of a better world on the ruins of September 11, a day we will never forget.

[Petitions, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition regarding the Canadian involvement in the United States national missile defence program. It is based on the premise that the missile defence program is a unilateral initiative by the United States government based on the premise taken from the United States command document “Take Vision for 2020” which states “dominating the space dimension of military operations and integrating space forces into war fighting capabilities”.

The petitioners call upon parliament to declare that Canada objects to the national missile defence program of the United States. Second, they call on parliament to play a leadership role in banning nuclear weapons and missile flight tests.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present pursuant to Standing Order 34, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian Delegation of the Canada Europe Parliamentary Association to the second part of the 2001 session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe held between April 23 and April 27 of this year in Strasbourg, France.

[Environment Week, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is Environment Week and time to reflect on environmental issues, such as climate change, the loss of biological diversity, population growth, pollution, water supply and quality, the sustainability of natural resources, food safety and genetic engineering to name a few.

Kofi Annan, the secretary-general of the United Nations, recently said:

Unsustainable practices are woven deeply into the fabric of modern life and myths have taken hold suggesting there is little alternative to short-sighted and wasteful patterns of consumption and development.

One myth is the belief that there is a trade-off between the environment and the economy. Actually they are two sides of the same coin. We therefore have to learn how to integrate economic, environmental and social goals for the benefit of generations to come.

[Points Of Order, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly I will attempt to submit for your consideration a few thoughts in support of the admissibility of Bill S-15 and which would in essence answer two questions.

The first question is this: is the bill a tax? I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that Bill S-15 does not require royal recommendation because it does not appropriate public money. Bill S-15 does not appropriate public funds, there is no authorization of any kind for the expenditure of money from the consolidated revenue fund, and all moneys are spent by the proposed foundation. Moneys are raised through a levy imposed on the tobacco industry and, I understand, through gifts and grants.

Second, the moneys are collected by the proposed foundation and placed in its own account and distributed by the foundation alone. There is no government involvement in the process.

Third, specific clauses of the bill expressly state that the foundation is not an agent of the government and that its funds are not public funds.

Fourth, on dissolution any surplus of funds is returned to the tobacco industry as identified in subclause 33(3), as was indicated earlier by my colleague.

Fifth, even the annual audits of the foundation's accounts by the Auditor General of Canada must be paid for by the foundation itself. The money does not come from the consolidated revenue funds.

The second question that arises in this debate is whether the bill is the same as Bill S-20. As other colleagues have already identified, the answer is in the negative. First, there is a comprehensive preamble that has been added to this bill. Second, there is a refinement to the purpose clause, namely clause 3. Finally, there is the addition of part III, namely clause 34, which spells out the industry benefits.

Finally, it is worth quoting the opinion expressed by Professor Magnet of the Law Faculty of the University of Ottawa, which has already been mentioned very briefly. I will quote from his letter to Mark Audcent, the law clerk in the other chamber. In a 16 page long overview, he concluded:

This means that the levy in the Draft Bill is not a tax in the constitutional sense; it is a regulatory charge adhesive to a regulatory scheme that provides benefits to the industry by ameliorating a problem that the industry caused, for which it is blamed by the public and which it wishes to address. Because the levy, in my opinion, is a “regulatory charge” and not a “tax” in the constitutional sense, it is not subject to the discipline of sections 53 and 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as interpreted by the courts.

In the result, in my opinion, there is no constitutional impediment to the introduction of the Draft Bill to Parliament first in the Senate Chamber.

I submit these observations, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration, and I thank you for your attention.

[The Environment, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. It concerns Canada's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is a 1993 red book promise.

Given the importance of this convention and given that two former ministers of foreign affairs expressed in recent years their firm intent to ratify, when could Canadians expect the ratification of the law of the sea to take place?

[The Environment, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks intensive representations have been made by Elizabeth May on behalf of people living near the Sydney tar ponds.

The Minister of Health has promptly and persistently acted upon her representations. Would the Minister of Health inform the House about the latest development resulting from his efforts to protect the health of families living near the Sydney tar ponds?

[National Drinking Water Standards, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, for Canadians to regain confidence in the water they drink, we need to invest in water quality. At present there is no charge when we draw water from wells, when industries discharge polluted water and when we use water at home we pay very little.

Until now we have managed water mostly to ensure an adequate supply. From now on we should shift the focus to preventing water pollution from harmful agricultural and industrial activities as well as using water more efficiently.

In addition, governments should, instead of reducing, raise taxes so as to be able to modernize and improve many waterworks, plants and infrastructures in villages, towns, reserves and urban centres.

The current water crisis is man-made and therefore can be resolved. We all can regain confidence in tap water, provided we learn to respect the value of water.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 11th, 2001]

What are the total estimated greenhouse gases emissions from: ( a ) Suncor Energy Inc. project millenium oil sands development project; and ( b ) the Shell Canada Athabasca oil sands project?

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

moved that Bill C-287, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically modified food), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is in favour of mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods in Canada, and for, understandably, good reasons.

First, let me say that the debate today is timely. Just last week Ottawa hosted a meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission's Committee on Food Labelling.

Last month Canada signed a biosafety protocol to regulate the trade on living modified organisms.

Finally, the European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and others are developing or implementing legislation requiring mandatory labelling on genetically modified foods.

Against this background, the issue of labelling genetically modified foods requires urgent attention because Canada's domestic labelling policy has implications for people, for international trade and for Canada's compliance with international agreements.

Let me explain. Members of the House, either through media or from letters, have been made aware of growing concerns over the pervasive presence of genetically modified foods in the food chain. There is definitely a lack of public confidence due in good part to having been kept in the dark, beginning with the fact that the public does not know which foods are genetically modified and which are not.

What is the purpose of the bill? Members of the House have probably receive all sorts arguments against the mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods. I urge hon. members to keep in mind that this is not a complex, scientific nor technical issue. It simply comes down to the fundamental right of people to know. Canadians want to know what is in their food. It is as basic as that.

Is a mandatory labelling system feasible? Let me describe the key features of C-287 with respect to feasibility and reliability of a mandatory labelling system for GM foods.

What are genetically modified foods? There is confusion surrounding which foods should be labelled. Should foods that are the result of traditional breeding be labelled? The answer is, no. The confusion arises from the fact that genetically modified foods in Canada fall under the broad definition of novel foods in the Food and Drugs Act.

By contrast, international agreements are clear on that issue. As a result, members will find in Bill C-287 that genetically modified food is defined in accordance with the Cartagena protocol on biosafety. This protocol has been signed by Canada. Consequently, the labelling would apply only to food or food ingredients that contain genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology. Nothing more, nothing less.

Having clearly defined GM foods, the bill aims at ensuring that the genetic history of a food or food ingredient be recorded and traced through all stages of production, distribution, manufacture, packaging and sale. This is the only way to ensure the integrity of the documentation trail, to provide accurate labelling and prevent incorrectly labelled material from reaching the consumer. The result of the documentation trail is that no person can sell genetically modified foods unless it is labelled “This food is genetically modified”. Foods that have not been genetically modified do not need to bear this label.

This proposed system does not prevent a vendor from voluntarily applying a label describing the food as genetically modified free, if that is the case.

Why mandatory labelling? Opponents to mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods often refer to the process set up by the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors under the auspices of the Canadian General Standard Board. They form the committee called, and I quote, “The Committee on the voluntary labelling of foods obtained or not obtained through genetic engineering”.

Regrettably, there has never been a consultation through this committee on whether to proceed with a mandatory or a voluntary labelling system for genetically modified foods. The committee on voluntary labelling was struck to work only on a voluntary standard for labelling on genetically modified food. I submit that such a voluntary system offers no guarantee that all foods containing genetically modified material will be labelled.

Under a voluntary labelling system, some foods may be labelled and others may not be. This would be confusing and deceptive to consumers who want to know what they eat. Separation and tracking of genetically modified foods in our food system, as proposed in the bill, are essential features to providing consumers with accurate information. This accuracy cannot be achieved with a voluntary system.

Moreover, a voluntary labelling system cannot offer any guarantee of the genetic integrity of experts to our trading partners.

The committee on voluntary labelling is currently contemplating a voluntary labelling system with four different labels: genetically engineered, genetically modified, non-genetically modified and non-genetically engineered. This is utterly confusing to say the least.

Bill C-287 would put in place a simple mandatory label stating “this food is genetically modified”, or “this food contains an ingredient that is genetically modified”.

The committee on voluntary labelling has had eight meetings since November 1999. It may be meeting for a long time before it can reach consensus on a standard for voluntary labelling. In the meantime, Canadian consumers and trading partners are kept waiting and will continue not to be informed about the content of the food.

Let me also mention this very important fact about voluntary labelling. It is already possible under the Food and Drugs Act to identify biotechnology products under certain conditions. In fact, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency states “Consumer choice can already be accommodated through Canadian legislation via voluntary labelling companies”. Yet, although it is currently permitted under the law, food companies have not seen the necessity to label their products containing genetically modified ingredients. Hence the need for a mandatory labelling system requiring companies to inform Canadians.

I have a final note on the voluntary labelling committee. I believe industry sponsored, closed processes are inappropriate for dealing with an issue as important as food safety and the right to know what we eat. Such debate belongs here, in parliament, and this is one of the reasons for bringing Bill C-287 before the House.

I want to say a few words about the advantages of tracing genetically modified food and of labelling. A mandatory labelling system would make available crucially needed information. It would indicate where genetically modified foods can be found in the food chain, something we are not sure of at this moment. Scientists and medical professionals have frequently made that request. Let me quote from a statement last year by the British Medical Association:

Genetically modified foodstuffs should be segregated at source, to enable identification and traceability of genetically modified products. This is important as there are considerable doubts about the behaviour of GMOS once they are released into the environment, and this will also facilitate monitoring in the interests of public health. It is unacceptable that at present some GM and non-GM products are mixed at source, and are not adequately labelled.

This is quite a firm statement by a medical source.

The current Canadian policy is to limit labelling where there are proven health or safety concerns. However, how can potential long term health effects that may arise from the consumption of genetically modified foods be proven a priori in advance?

In Bill C-287 at least we address this question by mandating the Minister of Health to use information provided by the labelling system and conduct research into the possible long term effects of the consumption of genetically modified food on health. This approach is consistent with the precautionary principle, which Canada adhered to in 1992 at the Rio convention.

I have a few words now about the loss of export markets. Hon. members are being told it is not feasible, too costly and not in Canada's interest to label genetically modified foods. This is not the case. Mandatory labelling is necessary for trade and economic reasons. Our farmers and agribusiness have already incurred costs as the result of the loss of export markets. Without a reliable system for separating genetically modified crops from non-genetically modified crops, we continue to lose export markets in countries that have banned genetically modified foods or require the labelling of genetically modified foods.

We can no longer export canola to Europe. We will soon not be able to export soya to Japan. The Canadian Wheat Board is pleading with the Canadian regulatory agency not to approve genetically modified wheat for fear of losing export markets. As a major agricultural producer and exporter of crops such as wheat, canola, corn and soya beans, Canada relies on their European market for export of agrifood products. Canada cannot continue to lose markets because of an obsolete policy which is increasingly out of sync with the rest of the world.

About the feasibility of separating GM crops and private sector initiatives in response to consumers' demands, this can be said. There is the argument that it is not feasible to separate GM crops from non-GM crops. There are many initiatives by the private sector to the contrary. For example, Casco Inc., a milling industry, announced in spring 1999 that in order to retain its European customers it would no longer be buying varieties of genetically modified corn.

In September 1999 the agribusiness company Archer Daniels Midland asked corn and soya bean suppliers to keep their genetically modified crops separate. Then Commercial Alcohols Inc., Nacan, A.E. Stanley, McCain, Gerber baby foods and Seagram have joined the ranks of food processing companies that will not use genetically modified foods.

Similarly, members of the Prairie Oat Growers Association issued a news release stating that they do not favour the commercialization of any genetically modified oats until there is a clear market signal in consumer acceptance to do so.

As members can see, the private sector is already responding to consumer demand by separating genetically modified crops from non-genetically modified crops so as to continue to supply to expanding markets.

I submit that it is time for Canada to establish a system for separating genetically modified crops from non-genetically modified crops and go for a mandatory labelling system in keeping with market demands.

I have a few words about farmers and genetically modified crops. Some will tell hon. members that genetically modified crops benefit farmers and are necessary for their survival. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the National Farmers Union adopted a new policy in December of last year which called for a moratorium on the production, importation, distribution and sale of genetically modified food.

In the policy, the farmers union speaks of markets in Europe, Japan and elsewhere that are closing and domestic markets that are being likewise threatened. It states that closing markets and falling prices threaten to overwhelm any small, short term economic benefit genetically modified crops or livestock may offer. The farmers union makes the very important point that the proliferation of some genetically modified crops has effectively deprived many organic farmers of the option to grow those crops. The National Farmers Union also states that:

Food products which contain genetically modified ingredients must be subject to clear, consistent, mandatory labelling.

Do we need more evidence? Is it not abundantly clear that the uncertainty surrounding genetically modified crops and the lack of public acceptance, the trend in foreign markets and domestic markets are real concerns?

To conclude, it seems to me the necessity of mandatory labelling is evident. We cannot wear blinkers and pretend this is strictly an issue of our domestic regulatory system because it is not. The rest of the world has recognized the need for mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods and is moving ahead. Canada will be left behind.

I would like to reiterate the fact that mandatory labelling is a response to a basic right and that is that Canadians want to know what they eat. Mandatory labelling is in Canada's economic interest. Mandatory labelling corresponds to Canada's international commitments. Mandatory labelling is relevant to human health.

Opponents of labelling say there are already too many genetically modified foods on our store shelves to make labelling meaningful, that the horse is out of the barn and that it is too late to fix the stable door. These arguments are weak. The fact is that having invested so much in the diffusion of this technology we have an obligation, a clear interest and a responsibility to label. Moreover, mandatory labelling would actually increase the public's acceptance of this technology. It would remove the suspicion that there is something to hide. It would reduce the public's distrust in this technology.

Finally, without mandatory labelling we would deny Canadians the fundamental right to know how the food they eat has been produced and to make an informed choice. It that not the essence of democracy?