Larry McCormick

[Agriculture, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the concerns of the farm commodity groups. We realize that they are hurting because of the low commodity prices and because of subsidies around the world. Our minister met with farmers from at least six provinces yesterday. I know I did myself.

We have and we will recommend that we add additional funding for our farmers. We put a program in place that will provide $5 billion over the next three years. Yes, more is needed. However, we do believe in our family farms and we will be there for them in the future.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to respond to Motion M-230.

The motion by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert has two parts. The first part would make labelling a genetically modified food compulsory. The motion also calls for the government to carry out exhaustive studies on the long term effects of genetically modified foods.

Let me begin by saying that the protection of our food supply for the well-being of Canadians, animals and our environment is of the utmost importance to the government. Canada's food supply involves many hardworking partners from producers, processors and distributors to consumers. Throughout the system new food products, including those derived from biotechnology, are subject to stringent regulation, enforcement and inspection. Canada has high standards for new food products of biotechnology and we are known world wide for them.

On the question of labelling foods, our federal legislation calls for Health Canada to set the requirements for mandatory labelling. Each new food product, whether produced through biotechnology or some other process, must go through a rigorous pre-market safety evaluation before it can be introduced on to the marketplace. The data requirements for the safety assessments are established by Health Canada.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, on the other hand, is responsible for all aspects of the federal food legislation relating to non-safety matters, such as the control of fraud in food labelling. The agency carries out inspection and enforcement activities relative to food safety standards set by Health Canada. The CFIA also has responsibility for the environmental safety assessment of a number of agricultural products, such as plants, animal feeds and veterinarian vaccines, including those derived through biotechnology. In carrying out these responsibilities, the CFIA protects consumers from food safety hazards or product misrepresentation, as well, it protects the safety of animals and the environment.

Let me be clear that current labelling regulations in Canada require that all food products, including those developed through biotechnology, be labelled if a potential human health or safety issue has been identified or if foods have been changed in composition or nutrition. Labelling decisions are made by Health Canada and are based on the results of their food safety evaluations. These decisions are science based. In fact, the best available science is used to make these decisions.

Let me address the first part of the motion before us by reminding the House that several initiatives are already now in place to study the question of how and when to label a genetically modified food.

The government believes that all food labelling must be truthful, meaningful and enforceable. We have strongly encouraged the establishment of a Canadian standard for the labelling of foods derived through biotechnology. This standard will include provisions for clear definitions, acceptable label statements and claims in advertising, as well as compliance and verification measures.

The Canadian General Standards Board, under the sponsorship of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, is in the process of developing this standard through open and inclusive consultation.

Representatives and individuals from a broad range of Canadian interests have formed a committee to work on this standard. They have been working hard over the past year and are putting together a definitive draft standard which is expected to be completed over the next number of months. By endorsing a consensus based process to develop a labelling standard, Canada is indeed a leader world wide.

Just recently the U.S. food and drug administration announced its attention to facilitate a voluntary labelling approach, a development process that will start this fall. In addition to such initiatives, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food began its hearings on the labelling of genetically modified food this spring. It has already heard from Health Canada, the CFIA and consumer groups. Canada is leading the development of international standards governing how and when genetically modified foods are labelled.

As the hon. member is aware, Canada chairs a Codex Alimentarius committee on food labelling, otherwise known as the CCFL. At the May 2000 Codex meeting in Ottawa, Canada was recognized for its success in chairing the CCFL working groups that drafted key options and recommendations for the labelling of biotechnology derived foods. Again this year Canada has been asked to lead a working group to turn these May 2000 options into a Codex guideline that can be then implemented.

Informed consumers making informed choices is paramount. These initiatives represent a significant and dedicated effort by Canadians for Canadians as we seek the best way to make truthful, meaningful information available to consumers.

I reiterate that the House should not support Motion No. 230 on the basis of the first part of the motion on labelling and turn to consideration of the second part of the hon. member's motion.

The second part recommends that exhaustive studies be carried out on the long term effects of genetically modified foods on health and the environment. The safety assessment of conventional products and products derived through biotechnology are both subject to stringent health and safety requirements under Canada's food safety system. The Government of Canada is diligent when it comes to food safety and the protection of Canadians, animals and the environment. Our regulatory process is fundamental to Canada's strong reputation as a producer of foods that are consistently safe, nutritious and of high quality. Canada built its international reputation by putting very rigorous regulatory systems in place.

Our approval systems are science based and transparent. The government's decision to accept or reject a product is based on sound science and factual information. Federal regulatory scientists have experience in a wide range of areas, including nutrition, molecular biology, chemistry, toxicology and environmental science to name just a few.

Canadian regulators set the comprehensive data requirements for the environmental safety of new agricultural products derived through biotechnology. These scientists demand that the quality of this data be of the highest calibre and that the research directly assess and address the potential risks of the product to human health and the environment. If there is any question as to the safety of these products, they are not approved. The government continually reviews the effectiveness of its approach.

The Government of Canada takes pride in advocating its science based approach around the world. It relies on the need for scientific research to settle questions related to long term health, safety and environmental issues. The government is committed to a regulatory system that meets the highest standards of scientific rigour.

This commitment is reflected in the establishment of two important groups, an expert panel and an advisory committee. The Royal Society of Canada has appointed an independent expert panel to examine future scientific developments in food biotechnology and to provide advice to the federal government accordingly. This proactive, forward thinking body would advise Health Canada, the CFIA and Environment Canada on the science capacity the federal government will need to maintain the safety of new foods being derived through biotechnology in the 21st century.

The royal society named its expert panel this past February. From examining the leading edge of this technology, the panel will recommend what new research, policies and regulatory capacity will be needed to ensure that Canada's standards of safety remain stringent for the next generation of biotechnology derived foods.

A number of challenges and opportunities associated with biotechnology require detailed consideration and public discussion. Food biotechnology presents Canadians with challenges but also great and unprecedented opportunities.

The Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, or CBAC, will bring stakeholders and interested parties together to advise the government, to raise public awareness and to engage Canadians in an open and transparent dialogue on biotechnology issues. Canadians want to take part in the dialogue on food biotechnology.

The CBAC will create opportunities for Canadians to participate in its activities and discussions. This includes an interactive website for interested Canadians to review, consult and provide input into this topic among others.

The work of the royal society's expert panel will contribute to this balanced and consultative process where all questions and concerns can be thoroughly considered. The government looks forward to the contributions the expert panel and the CBAC will make to furthering the dialogue on biotechnology issues.

I assure the hon. member for Louis-Hébert that the government will continue to undertake the steps necessary to ensure the health of Canadians, animals and our environment.

The 2000 federal budget confirms this priority in Canada's regulatory system. The $90 million investment in the regulatory system for biotechnology products will allow Health Canada, through the CFIA and other regulatory departments, to continue to enhance and evolve their regulatory approach of safety first to keep pace with the next generation of scientific discoveries.

This increased investment illustrates the Government of Canada's continued dedication to supporting the regulatory system for the benefit of all Canadians. We can take pride in the steps the Government of Canada has taken. We have initiatives under way to ensure—

[Criminal Code, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following Private Members' Business, could I add my name back on the list to vote with the government, please?

[Supply, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have something of interest for the member's riding.

There was an announcement made on Monday this week about rural Canada. It would certainly apply to beautiful Vancouver Island.

A new system has been set up to deliver an ultrasound service into northern Alberta, probably about three hours north of Edmonton. The technology is now available to transfer the ultrasound images from the town via satellite, across the Equator and back into the clinic in Calgary.

We sat in Chesterville and all Canadians were able to watch the ultrasound images being transferred. A doctor who specializes in interpreting these images received them and sent them back to the doctor in the home town. It saved the patient travel time of three and a half hours to have the ultrasound tests conducted. Also, in front of Canada and with television coverage, an hon. member of this House said everyone wanted to know if it was a boy or a girl, but someone in northern Alberta said the mom and dad did not want to know. We all have to work together to address health care.

[Supply, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House accept the responsibility of fixing a system that needs to be enforced. We ask for co-operation from all colleagues in this House to take the politics out of health care and to fix the situation.

This gives me an opportunity to thank the people of the beautiful town of Chesterville for their hospitality this past Monday. Chesterville is in the beautiful riding of Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh where the government announced the investment of $50 million into the innovation fund for rural and community health and an additional $11 million for the projects under telehealth. This is so very important. Telemedicine is necessary to help fix the situation with respect to health care in rural and remote communities.

[Firearms Act, June 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on the reference regarding the Firearms Act.

Can the Minister of Justice tell the House what this decision means to Canadians?

[Supply, June 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the number one concern of Canadians and that is health care.

I want to take the time to recognize the great work of the health care professionals in my riding and across Canada. We live in a better country because of the work of our professionals. In rural and small-town Canada they often go the extra mile without a lot of thanks and I say thank you.

One of the key roles of the Government of Canada is helping Canadians to maintain and improve their health. It does so in several ways, most notably by ensuring the continuing availability of our publicly funded health care system.

Providing leadership in the areas of health protection and promotion, the federal government fulfils its mandate in health through various approaches, always respecting the primary roles of the provinces in health care delivery. For example, it contributes financially to the provinces and territories in support of their health care systems and through fiscal measures for individuals such as health and medical expense allowances.

It interprets and enforces the principles of the Health Care Act. It ensures that Canadians have the benefits of timely access to safe, effective drugs and products, and that Canadians are protected from health risks associated with pharmaceuticals, blood products and various medical devices and consumer products. It conducts and funds health research. It develops national disease control strategies in collaboration with the provinces and territories. It ensures access to the community based health care services for first nations and Inuit.

When exercising its leadership and responsibilities in the areas of health promotion, disease prevention and overall management of risks to health, the federal government acts in the spirit of partnership with the provinces and in collaboration with health stakeholders and Canadians.

Some recent concrete examples of federal-provincial collaboration include the development of a strengthened blood system in Canada, intergovernmental action on tobacco control and smoking cessation, and initiatives such as the health transition fund supporting provincial-territorial innovations in home care, pharmacare, primary care and better integrated health services for all Canadians.

The Government of Canada often acts as a facilitator and at times as a co-ordinator on health issues with pan-Canadian dimensions. It has done so on a range of issues in the past, for example to support the development of universal health insurance dating to the 1940s and research and support in areas including child, maternal, mental and dental health also dating to the 1940s. In fact, there is a long tradition of federal-provincial co-operation in the health sector.

The principles and values which have long guided the federal government in intergovernmental collaboration in the health arena are also consistent with those outlined in the social union framework agreement.

An excellent current example of the benefits of federal-provincial co-operation are two initiatives announced recently by our federal Minister of Health. They are the innovations in rural and community health and the Canadian health infostructure partnerships program, known as CHIPP. Both initiatives are meant to ensure that all Canadians no matter where they live in Canada have access to top health care.

The innovations in rural and community health is a $50 million investment. Two-thirds of this money will go toward supporting innovations in community health care such as access to home and community care, affordability and accessibility of pharmaceuticals, and improvement in integrated service delivery.

Another $11 million will go toward rural health. The objectives of the rural health grants and contributions programs are to promote integration and accessibility of health services, to explore ways to address workforce issues and to examine system reforms to improve the delivery of health services.

Health Canada has been working closely with the provinces and territories in the development of our rural health grants and contributions program to identify areas of shared concern. All provinces and territories agreed that the objectives and priorities for the funding program complement and support their own.

The Canadian health infostructure partnerships program, CHIPP, is a two year $80 million shared cost incentive program which will support the implementation of innovative applications of information and communication technologies in the health sector. It will focus on two priorities: telehealth and protected electronic patient records.

Telehealth is a key element in improving access to health services for all Canadians, especially those in the rural and remote areas. It represents a great opportunity for our country to improve access to care, as well as to develop a cutting edge industry.

Electronic patient records will also facilitate improved patient care through improving the integration of services, avoiding needless tests, and better prescription benefits.

As chair of the rural caucus on this side of the House and as someone who lives in a rural area of Canada, I have had the opportunity to speak to a lot of my constituents and often with other rural Canadians across the country, about the health care challenges which face rural and remote Canada. We know about the difficulties that rural areas have in attracting and keeping health care professionals.

After a long period of consultation we recommended to the Minister of Health that an effort be made to move to multi-use or multidisciplinary primary care approaches. The minister supported our recommendations and I thank him. It will be a priority area of discussion at the federal-provincial level. May I also say that I am delighted that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research interim governing council has recommended the creation of an office of rural health to promote and support rural health research.

These are only a few ways that federal, provincial and territorial co-operation has produced results in this country.

Let me conclude my remarks by saying that Canadians no matter where they live expect health services of the highest quality. They want their governments to work together and not play politics. They want them to come up with lasting solutions to ensure the future of publicly funded health care. The Government of Canada is committed to federal-provincial partnerships to serve the health care interests of all Canadians.

[Supply, June 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is probably the last day in the House and I see some smiles opposite. I proudly say, when I go back to my riding or across this country, that I do have friends in all parties of this House. However, it is not right to make a comment like that. In the six years that I have been here, it would be untrue for me to say that I have not been interrupted vocally and loudly during one of my debates.

[Supply, June 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for having put such an important issue in front of this House on the opposition day. It is something we need to work together on.

As a member from Ontario, I think about the hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps millions, that Premier Mike Harris spent on advertising to attack the health care system.

When my hon. colleague returns to his riding would he consider asking his provincial colleagues to work with the federal government because, yes, we do need to fix this problem and we do need to work together on it?

[Canadian Tourism Commission Act, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to add my name to the list as voting with the government on this motion.

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