Brian Masse

[Privacy, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I have risen in the House to ask questions about the U.S. patriot act and to warn the government that the FBI has access to Canadians' private information. Every time the President of Treasury Board has risen to answer, his answer has been in complete contradiction to the testimony given by the Privacy Commissioner yesterday.

Would the President of Treasury Board please tell the House why he is in contradiction?

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I remember when I had my private member's motion in front of the House of Commons in the last session relating to environmental contaminants that affected human health and the banning of that. At that time the member said that he could not support the motion because he felt that I was calling for skunks to be considered as an environmental contaminant, which was absolute nonsense.

When we have identifiable factors that are affecting human health, we need to take appropriate action. The first step I would argue for cigarettes is to have the Canada pension plan stop investing in tobacco companies. That is the first step we can do to prevent this situation.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get a chance to discuss the human health factors on youth, which is my background previous to being here.

Right now we have 10 and 12 year olds who are being tested for high cholesterol, and that is wrong. That is the age at which they should have their hearts in the best of condition so they do not suffer consequences later on where they have to take medication for the rest of their lives. There is an expense on the medical side to that in terms of prescription drugs required. At the same time there is a human health expense from the cumulative effect of high cholesterol, and that is important.

As well, it is one of the reasons why I believe that only labelling as a formulation of protection of consumers is wrong. For example, labels on baby food do not provide protection. At the same time we are not providing the right choices for people to make.

We need to ensure that our kids have the proper choices in front of them. Sometimes they have busy lives, just like ourselves, and make the improper choices on the spur of the moment because there is little from which to choose. If trans fats in some of the fast foods are reduced, I believe this will help kids. It certainly will provide immediate benefits. The accumulative cycle of what we are doing now will be harmful to people as they age.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East. I am pleased to do so and pleased to rise in the chamber to talk about the motion relating to the banning of trans fats.

It is important to identify a couple of things at the forefront. The first is that when we learn as legislators about a public policy issue related to our health and we know about the harm it is causing our citizens, there is a duty and an obligation for us to act. It is simply not enough to expect other forces out there to do the job that parliamentarians should be doing. That is why today we are discussing this issue. That is why I believe it is very important that we participate right now in the changing of a food additive that harms Canadians' lives and that we also provide the solutions necessary for our dietary health. That is what this motion does.

There has been some discussion about the issue not really being in the forefront of the radar screen of Canadians right now. They have heard some information about it on a regular basis or piecemeal through the media, but it is an issue that has been breaking ground in the health field for many years.

It is interesting that the member for Winnipeg Centre raised this in caucus over a year ago. I want to pay tribute to his hard work. It is his due diligence in the past year that has led to today's motion. I hope it will be supported by all parties. I hope we will actually see action on this to protect Canadians' health. I hope we will be at the forefront in the world in making sure that our producers comply to better standards for trans fats, that our consumption as Canadians and our health are improved, and that we become world leaders like we can be and should be in many other fields.

The member for Winnipeg Centre did that by doing due diligence. He did a lot of research at the forefront. I will touch on the people he spoke to and the organizations he consulted, both for and against the concerns he was raising. He actually followed a process that is very complementary to the parliamentary process. It goes back to previous parliaments. On February 6, 2004, he introduced a private member's bill to look at banning trans fats. That was the point of pressure. It is very important to recognize that.

One of the reasons I am proud to be a New Democrat is that we have members who are not afraid to put their necks on the line to introduce discussion on a topic that is sometimes seen as being too difficult to raise. That is how we started on this file when there was very little public discourse about the effects individually as opposed to the banning aspect, which is seen as no solution. The member deserves credit for this, because that was the situation more than a year ago.

In response to the motion of the member for Winnipeg Centre, he was able to get the House of Commons health committee to do a study on the health effects of trans fats. He also pushed for expert witnesses and a review paper to provide testimony and also the discussion points that are so necessary to open the door to not only just the health aspects of this, but also to the industrial side effects in terms of the production and manufacturing of food products. He did that in a way that was very complementary and inclusive and I once again congratulate him on that.

The hon. member also did another important thing, and it is very important to recognize the hard work of his office. His office did a mail-back campaign to educate his constituents as well as those across the country. Speaking from the Windsor West perspective, I know that many of my constituents sent back the card to give solidarity to and support for us as parliamentarians to start talking about trans fats, their effects on human health, and how we can improve our products and the goods we are consuming, to have a healthier society for all of us.

That is important, because it recognizes the fact that right now in the system of the products we have available as food substances, individuals at the lower end of the income scale often cannot afford to purchase some of the healthier alternatives out there. There is a premium on natural foods. There is a premium on some of the foods with less additives. There is also an issue of access, as some individuals do not have the transportation or the time to get non-perishable and healthier alternatives. The member has been really diligent in expressing this concern that all Canadians need the opportunity to have a better selection of food sources and trans fats need to be addressed for all of us.

I note that the consultation process the hon. member undertook was extensive. I want to touch upon some of those organizations. In preliminary research, he looked at the World Health Organization, its suggestion about banning trans fats and the work done on the world front there. He consulted with the New England Journal of Medicine , looking at the research that had been done to ensure that the scientific background and merits were there before he actually launched into his work on this campaign.

From there, setting out the groundwork of the research, he then started to talk to groups and organizations that were very important and had great credibility in Canadian society, for example, the Heart and Stroke Foundation. What a great opportunity to get it involved in public policy. It is an organization that I support. My father has had bypass surgery and my grandfather prior to that. The Heart and Stroke Foundation has been leading the public charge on improving our cardiovascular health. I was very impressed to see that it was consulted right away.

He also went to universities and doctors, namely Dr. Bruce Holub from Guelph University, Dr. Ruth MacPherson from the University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Dr. Peter Jones from McGill University, Dr. Robert Issenman from McMaster University, and Dr. Sheila Innis from UBC. Those are just a few who have been consulted, although I know that there were others. It was an impressive view across Canada. He ensured that he spoke to people in different regions. He heard their concerns about what was happening in those regions.

Because of the scientific validation of this additive to our food, it is important to get the public to support the necessary transition. It is also important to get the government to act in a responsible way to ensure that we see changes, not just in words and emotion but to have a committee get things moving sot that we meet that year timeline and get real progress. It will also be important for those industries to have the validation that we support their changes.

There also was consultation with the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. The member was very concerned about how this would affect not only the daily lives of Canadians but also employment. He had discussions with the association about its concerns on the phase in approach so we could accommodate its special needs and ensure that restaurant industry would continue thrive. We are dealing with a bad decision to allow a substance in our food chain that is clearly threatening not only our current health but how we are bringing up youth. We also are dealing with the employment aspect so our restaurants are not going to be the victims of a transition to cleaner, safer food processing. That is why I was very impressed.

As the industry critic for our party and one who enjoys restaurants, I want to commend him for ensuring that we will see them as part of the process. Many students and single mothers work in the restaurant sector. They need protection. Therefore, it is important that any transition not affect their vulnerable status. Often they do not receive the wages and compensation they deserve, and it is very difficult work. The risk associated with individual businesses and restaurants is very high. We certainly do not want to impede the progress that individuals and chains can make.

I would also like to note that he met with the vice-president of McDonald's to hear the concerns of that company. In Denmark, McDonald's has moved to comply with the trans fats legislation. We have not seen Ronald McDonald running out of Denmark, which would probably be pretty hard in those big shoes. Nonetheless, McDonald's has stayed in Denmark. We hope to see the same thing happen in Canada. We do not want to be harshly punitive with any franchise. We want to work with them. New York Fries should be commended for being pioneers in this. That is very important.

I want to summarize by saying that Canada is not alone in this. Denmark has already moved in a progressive state. I again commend the member for Winnipeg Centre for meeting with the ambassador of Denmark. He also met with the ambassador of New Zealand. It also is interested in pursuing what Canada is doing now. We want to ensure that Canada is at the forefront of human health through banning a substance or, as a first step, reducing it from our diets. This would have terrific effects for our health, economy and our ability to proceed as a society

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's very good presentation. I would like to express my concern about something he said at the end of his speech and that was about whether or not this could happen within one year.

We all know the environment we are in here in the House. We would like to get a lot of legislation and regulations passed that would benefit Canadians. I would like assurances that we press for this within a one year timeframe.

Every year that we allow this to continue in the current context not only costs our health care system millions of dollars but also costs the lives of many. By moving forward on this assertively we would be encouraging those industrial pioneers that can change the products and formulas that are necessary for our foods to be bold. We could support them in that measure.

I want to ask for the hon. member's assurance that the Conservative Party will move forward very quickly along with everyone else to ensure that we deal with this issue within a year.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh for spending his summer working on this file and for all his efforts to push the issue forward for our community.

In his speech he mentioned the approximately $4 billion to $7 billion approximately that the Ontario Chamber of Commerce estimated was lost every year because of border backups. He mentioned that four booths were added on the American side at a cost of about $1.5 billion per booth.

I have been pushing the government to have a public border authority or commission. We have one of the few crossings in this nation that has any coordination from the central government, and also a public interest clause. Given his experience on the committee, would he be supportive of ensuring that we have a free flow of trade and good government policy and supports for all border crossings, whether they be public or private?

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member talked about partnerships and Bill C-6 really is about putting groups and organizations together and about reaching beyond our traditional partnerships. However one group that I have not heard a lot of discussion about and one that is very important for national security and being able to respond to emergencies is our firefighters.

Firefighters from many municipalities require training for emergency preparedness. They have requested some additional resources to be able to be trained properly to deal with that.

Does the hon. member support the proposition that our firefighters be brought into the fold to make sure that our first responders are very well-equipped and well-trained to ensure they could be on the ground level supporting men and women in our community in times of emergency?

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-6 is precipitated a lot from the dealings with the United States and having to coordinate our trade and other policies for national security. That is also going to require massive infrastructure and investment by the government because those policies conflict with our current streets, roads, bridges and tunnels, all those things.

My concern is whether the Conservative Party will support that infrastructure investment that is so necessary. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce, for example, said that the border in my area lost about $4 billion this year alone because of lack of infrastructure. Will his party support that in a balanced approach as opposed to just tax cuts?

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary. My specific community has a crossing between Canada and the United States. With 40% of our trade going through it, it is the busiest international crossing in North America.

My question is specifically with reference to the supports necessary for the service at the border. I know our customs officials have been frustrated with the lack of supports. The municipality basically is doing the lion's share of protection of our border. We do have some RCMP, but it is deficient in what is necessary. With the restructuring, will we get the adequate supports that our men and women need?

Last, can we get a resolution to the current labour situation to a benefit so our borders are protected in a thorough way?

[Competition Act, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, amendments to the Competition Act. I want to preface my comments by saying that the issue we are dealing with has to do with housekeeping. There are some important changes to the act. There have been additions that I believe will benefit consumers. We will have questions at committee and the opportunity to discuss them, but overall the bill fails to address issues that were discussed in 2002 with quite a degree of public consultation.

It troubles me that we have seen a series of bills like this coming through the House already, but we want to see a greater progression of legislation and we will have to see if it carries on past that. I hope that at committee we will address some of the deeper issues.

In this bill, there is an addition of additional monetary penalties for abuses of dominance and the effects on consumers in the market. I think that is a good step. Having some type of penalty is very important, because some of the practices that are affecting consumers right now are very difficult for people to deal with, especially when they lead to the frustration that nothing will happen at the end of the day. We do not want to be in a situation where we are over-penalizing or reducing the ability of the market to be creative. There needs to be an opportunity for people to advertise and push their products in the market. At the same time, there has to be accountability.

One of the things I am concerned about, and about which I have heard of a lot of frustration from my constituents, is related to the preying on seniors. I think we should be in the forefront of that particular issue because we have an aging population and there are more opportunities for those with less scrupulous practices to prey upon seniors.

The bill would act as a framework that applies to all businesses in Canada. It now has civil and criminal law provisions, which are being discussed. The objective is to protect competition, not individual competitors. Once again, that is the way in which the bill should be moved forward. Everyone agrees on that, which is very important.

The big issue is the resources from the bureau. We know the government scaled back the bureau significantly. In the past, the government took the Competition Bureau much more seriously. Back in 1993 there was a department of consumer affairs. The department was folded into government restructuring in the 1990s and has been part of Industry Canada since then, with its budget and staffing reduced. It is very important that the staffing and the tools are available so that we can look at competition issues.

One particular example is the fact that unions, organizations and a number of interest groups brought up the issue of evergreening to the Competition Bureau. It did not have the appropriate tools to deal with the situation and had to pass it back to the government. It blocked a situation where we wanted to have an anti-competitive issue looked at because it was affecting the pricing of drugs. The Supreme Court of Canada has called the current rules draconian, while at the same time the Competition Bureau could not deal with it because it did not have the appropriate tools.

Many of the changes to the bill will be minimal, as I have noted. It is important to once again focus on the fact that we do want to have the resources available when people have complaints.

Another big issue that has been raised is the labelling of foods, an issue on which we believe the Competition Bureau should have more flexibility. Once again, consumers want to have choice. That is what it is about. They want to have the opportunity to see what is in the foods and the services they are purchasing with their money. That requires rules and regulations. If there is misguided advertising related to those products, it can affect human health and people do not get a chance to actually make the choices they want to with their money.

I will wind up quickly, because I do not believe the bill deserves much more debate at this time as it will be referred to committee and is generally just housekeeping at the moment.

We will be asking significant questions about the AMPs, the fines and such, and whether or not they will be tax deductible. A good example is that those who are fined for an environmental infraction in this country after going through a court process get back 50% of the fine as a tax write-off. It is a business related expense. I want to make sure that if there are to be fines against competitive practices, perpetrators will not be able to write off half of those fines as a business related expense. That is absolute nonsense. It is not just about the consumer being ripped off; it is about those industries and business that are competing fairly but are seeing their profits and their employees suffer because of that.

There are other issues related to that in terms of how the deductions, taxing and all those things will be related to the bill. I am looking forward to asking those questions. Hopefully we will see a further review of this act so that we will have significant changes, as opposed to this housekeeping that is happening.