Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Hébert for having presented this motion to the House, which reads as follows:
That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making it mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods containing genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable Canadians to make informed choices about the foods they eat.
I have read this text over many times, particularly the first words “That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness—”
Why does the member for Louis-Hébert have to urge the government to demonstrate openness? We have all followed the debate that took place in the first few months of the year and that was orchestrated by the so-called Miami group, to which Canada and the United States belong and which is opposed to the food labelling.
Why all this opposition when European and Asian countries like Japan and Korea have already adopted such measures. If it is good for the Japanese and the Europeans, why would it not be good for Canadians and Quebecers to know what is in the products that they consume?
I commend the member for Louis-Hébert for bringing forward this debate in the House and also for having toured the province. She invited the members to accompany her. I was unable to attend the meeting held in my riding because of a death in the family, but I inquired about what had happened. I also listened to colleagues who talked about the various consultations that took place.
The member for Louis-Hébert did not only consult consumers. She also talked with producers and people from the industry. She held a balanced consultation process without bias or witch hunts.
Of course she has proposed food labelling and in a way was rather innovative in putting this issue up for debate in the House of Commons. However, it is a matter that concerned a lot of people in the country, at least in Quebec.
A while ago I asked her to how many signatures had been collected for the petitions on the labelling, not the banning of GMOs, and she said that between 45,000 and 50,000 signatures had been collected so far, only in Quebec. This means that a lot of people are worried. The issue is not necessarily being discussed every day, but occasionally, at the Montreal debate for example. It is therefore a public concern.
She probably gave out information when she was touring Quebec, because people came unsolicited to my riding office and said “I want to sign the petition”. They were well informed. Eight out of ten were mothers. They are more concerned about the food their children and their family eat. They probably care more than men, but I know that some men are also concerned.
We have seen that the majority of Liberal members have spoken out in opposition, although there were what I might call some heartening exceptions. The Liberal member who spoke before the last speaker went even further, asking that all products be labelled. We cannot object to this principle, but there are some natural products the contents of which we do not need to know because they have been around for so long, for hundreds of years, and they never made anyone sick. But GMO technology is rather new.
My father was a farmer. I am 52 years old today, and when I was a kid, I used to help him spray DDT on potato crops. It was not illegal then, and we did not use any protection or protective masks. DDT was used to protect the crop from insects, especially those called potato bugs.
Some time later, it was realized that DDT is extremely dangerous. As soon as they were made aware of this, farmers immediately discontinued this practice. Most farmers are responsible people. They do not want to harm people's health or their own.
This morning, I sat on the environment committee for my colleague from Jonquière. The committee had a discussion on pesticides. We can see their impact and the concerns they raise. Members in the party opposite are deeply concerned about this.
There are many kinds of pesticides, of course. There is a certain analogy to be made with GMOs. Members from all parties were asking whether we have made all the studies we need.
To those who have described the hon. member for Louis-Hébert as a scaremonger, I would say that she is just being cautious. In matters of food and human health, caution should prevail. We should not scare people but we must show them that we need to be cautious. The principle of openness underpins democracy and we have a right to information. That is what the charter says.
If a principle is guaranteed in the charter, it must mean something. It must be adhered to. We cannot say, as the Liberal government does, that it would be too costly or that we would need more human resources.
In this regard, 200 food quality experts from the federal government wrote to the Minister of Health to let him know that because of a lack of personnel they could not make all of the required analyses. This is the reality now, but, because of a lack of personnel, are we going to close our eyes, ignore the risks and prevent any check? This would be absurd.
I do not want to go too far, because I know that this is a word that is almost taboo in this House, but regarding hepatitis C and all the problems caused by the HIV tainted blood and so on, who would have thought at that time that such a thing could happen? The problem was acknowledged, because caution is always the best way to go. Of course, here, we are not talking about these kinds of issues, but there are people who are concerned.
The member for Louis-Hébert is not being alarmist, because I know that she is a great specialist in this area. She was the first woman to become an agrologist in Quebec. This is quite something. That dates her, but it is true. She was an assistant deputy minister in Quebec's Department of Agriculture. She was a member of the Commission de la protection du territoire agricole. Her father was a searcher in this area. So, I do not see how she can be embarrassed of my reminding her of it.
I have full confidence in her and I have known her for many years. When the hon. member for Louis-Hébert immerses herself in an issue like this, she takes it seriously and is very thorough. Indeed, she became some kind of an expert on GMOs for many people.
Personally, I am in favour of progress and I think that we must not necessarily reject GMOs because they have tremendous possibilities and many benefits.
If I rise today to speak to the issue, it is to protect the right to information of the public and to promote transparency. I think that those principles command that we put the efforts, the money, the resources, the research and the studies needed. We know that knowledge is important. For that reason, it is important to know all that needs to be known and not to let something as fundamental as food subject to arbitrary or hasty decisions.
We talked about food, but we could also talk about the risks for the environment. I am a farmer's son and I know that in some parts of the United States and elsewhere in the world, the soil has been overexploited. In the end, if proper care is not taken, the farming potential of the land can be affected. We cannot ask too much too rapidly from farm land without dire consequences. That applies to the use of fertilizers and other things. That is the risk I saw when I read the documentation on the issue.
At first sight we could think that it would be better to have bigger and faster growing fruits and vegetables. Of course there are clearly economic benefits, but I ask myself some questions. When the same companies, the same corporations, that extol the virtues of genetically modified organisms are selling pesticides, insecticides or chemical fertilizers, it is almost as if the doctor owned the drugstore.
In Quebec, there was a time when it was like that, but it is not allowed anymore. We are trying to avoid integration, because we do not want to put people in a conflict of interest because they are promoting one industry and trying to offset the effects of a phenomenon that they are benefiting from at the same time.
I congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hébert who is speaking only of labelling, only of information. The public must know what they are eating.
