Joe Comartin

[Food And Drugs Act, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will start this evening by recognizing all the hard work that the hon. member for Davenport has put into the bill. It is an extremely important piece of legislation and the work he has put into it reflects the quality of the representation that he brings into the House.

The bill deserves the support of all political parties in the House. The New Democratic Party is fully in support of the legislation. It has been reflected in our policy for some time and was adopted overwhelmingly in our convention in 1999.

I also want to take this opportunity to recognize the work that my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre has put into this area. She has done much to promote the labelling of genetically modified organisms. In addition to this private member's bill, she also has a private member's bill on the same issue.

It is important to reflect on what has happened in the country in terms of this type of legislation. In that regard I will quote a couple of statistics. More than 80 groups have joined in support of the bill. They have educated the Canadian public about the importance of implementing a mandatory labelling scheme so that the public is made aware of genetically engineered foods before consuming them.

In addition, more than 35 countries around the world have adopted or are in the process of adopting mandatory labelling. The interesting part about that, and maybe the scary part about it, is that Canada is seen now as having fallen significantly behind these other countries. I believe it was my friend on the Liberal side of the House who made a point that I want to echo. As a result of falling behind we face the possibility as a country of losing access to international markets.

Our farming industry is not in great shape, as we all know, and adding to its problems is the last thing the government and the House should be doing. Support for labelling is important from that perspective.

I want to note some of the countries that have adopted or are in the process of adopting standardized mandatory labelling. The United Kingdom, Japan, China, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, and at least 14 of the European Union countries have gone down this road, much in advance of us.

Bill C-287 would also assist us in complying with our international responsibilities. We have adopted the Cartagena protocol on biosafety. We met internationally. We have debated the issue. We have accepted that protocol. We have to follow through on it. In that regard the bill would allow for the labelling of food or food ingredients that contain genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology. That is right in the definition section of the bill.

When one looks at the details of the bill it is important to note, and again this is some praise to the hon. member for Davenport, that it traces genetically modified organisms that are added to food through all stages of production, distribution, manufacture, packaging and sale. It is extremely important that it is detailed to that degree.

Again I echo the importance, as has been indicated more eloquently by other members, of the basic right of all Canadians to know what is in the food they are consuming. It seems to me that right of the consumer is ingrained in all sorts of legislation. It reflects the consumer movement that has been alive and healthy for a good number of years. In that respect every public opinion poll shows that the vast majority of Canadians believe they have the right to know what is in their food.

Coming back to the 80 groups that have lobbied around the country and have educated the public, they have moved that consciousness in the Canadian public quite significantly over the last five years or six years. We now see that 70%, 80% and sometimes 90% of respondents in these surveys indicate that they believe they have a right to know what is in the food they are consuming.

Some argue that the industry should do it itself, that we should go to voluntary labelling. We have seen in any number of areas that simply does not work. We strongly supports that part of the bill which makes labelling mandatory.

It is interesting to note the excellent work that ended in the report of the Royal Society of Canada earlier this year, in February, I believe. In that report there was a very damning condemnation of the practices of this government as far as food safety is concerned. The society was critical of the government, saying that in fact Canadians do not know enough about genetically modified foods, about what is safe and what is not. The society argued quite strenuously in that report that this is because the process itself is so flawed, so problematic, that governments approve food for human consumption using a methodology that just simply is no longer acceptable.

The precautionary principle should be applicable here. To a significant degree it is reflected in the clauses of this bill. In this situation, that precautionary principle would ensure that if we are not sure about the safety of GM food we do not allow it on the market. If scientists cannot tell us whether it is safe, not only in the short term but in the long term, then it does not go into a product that is sold for human consumption. It is simply not allowed in the marketplace.

It is time for the bill. It is time that we get in line with the international community and with a great deal of our trading partners. It is time to catch up to them. It is time to bring in the bill and pass it in the House so that our society has that protection.

It is a unique opportunity for the House to reflect on the work that has been done by the member for Davenport. We should send this over to committee, let it do its review, then bring it back to this House once it comes out of committee and pass it into law.

[The Environment, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Given that he is such a strong proponent of Kyoto and he obviously has the support of the House, why does he not just leave the House today and ratify the agreement?

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I commend both the member for Winnipeg North Centre and the member for Churchill for their comments today. They spoke with passion, sincerity and some degree of eloquence on this point. I will make a comment and then ask a question.

It is my understanding that the major argument from the major pharmaceutical companies is that they need more money in order to do their research and development. Is the member for Winnipeg North Centre aware that as much as 50 cents of every dollar that the pharmaceutical companies spend is spent, not on research and development, not on basic administration of their companies but on promotion, marketing and advertising?

As a supplementary question, what effect would this have on any potential for a pharmacare program in the country?

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as other members have said, these amendments have arisen as a result of a review of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act which was conducted over the last couple of years before Bill C-19 was tabled in the House.

It reflects an attempt on the part of that review committee to deal with some of the problems we have had under the act. The New Democratic Party has certain reservations as the bill does not adequately address some of the severe problems which have shown up under the act. In quick summary, we are very concerned about its ability to deal with those problems and that in fact it may be compounding them.

I hear in some of the questions and answers and comments that have been made that the interaction of the bill and the act that preceded it and the overlapping of jurisdiction with the provincial levels of government including municipalities and the first nations have become major problems.

It is a common ground of the proponents of development and those who might have problems with it or are outright opposed to it that it is extremely important for the process to be transparent, meaningful and efficient. The amendments to Bill C-19 would only address the issue of efficiency. Without total prejudgment it is our opinion they would probably not be effective or transparent.

It may speed up the process. The minister and a number of speakers on the government side stated that it would be a more efficient process, that the process would be harmonized to the extent that it would be more efficient. There is serious doubt on this side as to whether it would be more effective.

Another point that we raised in opposition to the bill as it stands now is the way that it looks at traditional land use and more specifically the involvement of the aboriginal population in the process. Paragraph 2(b.3) talks about promoting communication and co-operation with the first nations. It is obvious that there are very few provisions in the bill which make that a reality.

The issue of the establishment of co-operation between provincial and federal jurisdictions leaves very much to be desired. My friends from the Bloc have addressed this issue extensively, but it is clear, despite some of their other concerns, that it would not do anything to improve the relationship if there are to be assessments at the provincial and federal levels. The development of meaningful interaction is not contained in the bill.

We constantly hear the term harmonization, but we are concerned that it is an attempt to streamline the process, to make it less costly and to speed it up, which would be done at the expense of valid, accurate and meaningful environmental assessments. The end result raises serious doubts about its ability to act as a mechanism to protect the environment from inappropriate, unwanted and environmentally damaging proposals or developments.

We see no thrust in the bill to amend the current legislation to increase protection for the environment by building in more structures that would protect it rather than providing limitations.

[Canada Marine Act, May 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the bill. I will restrict my comments primarily to the experience we have had in my home community, an experience which has been less than pleasant in spite of what we have heard from the government in the last few minutes.

I am quite interested in the approach that my friend from the Bloc has taken in terms of recommending that authority be given under this bill to transfer the management and control of these ports to the province. We ultimately would like to see them divulged down to the municipality because of the experience we have had in the city of Windsor.

However, as I have indicated, we are quite prepared to support the bill because I think inevitably, at least in Ontario, the result would be that the province would give the municipality the authority to manage and control these lands and the traffic that works its way through.

I strongly support the point my friend from the Bloc made about the need for an integrated policy around transport. However I would add that we also need an integrated program that would allow the municipalities to do the municipal planning they need to do in order for a large city to function.

There is another point that needs to be made. Because of the nature of some of the lands that the port authority has in the city of Windsor the issue of conservation raises its head.

The experience that we have had in Windsor has not been a pleasant one. There has been a great deal of conflict between the local and municipal authorities around the issues of how transport is handled and how some of the shipping is done, particularly around the issue of municipal planning, and some of the lands the port authority holds. The city has had specific designs for not only its land but for some of the land surrounding it. There has been quite severe friction in some cases over the role the municipal government has and the planning that it wishes to do for these lands in a macro way. It has been thwarted on a number of occasions by the local authority in that regard.

I filed a petition with the House a week or so ago concerning one specific piece of land that borders the Detroit River. It is a piece of land that would act as a bridge to a large conservation area that we have in Windsor but which is controlled by the port authority. It wishes to develop it in a commercial fashion that would in effect act as a barrier for wildfowl that uses the Detroit River as a base and moves through this other region. This particular piece of land acts as a bridge. There is a local environmental group in Windsor that has been trying to get the land designated as a park but it has received absolutely no support from the port authority in that regard.

There have been other times where there was development with which we wanted to go ahead within the city and it too has been thwarted in various ways by the port authority because of its own self-interest.

I want to make one additional point concerning the history of the legislation that we now have. My friend from the government talked about the review that went on in the mid-nineties that culminated in legislation in 1998. Windsor sent a delegation to Ottawa at that time to put forward some specific proposals as to how the legislation should deal with the land and the control of it and its proposals were totally ignored.

The amendments that are being proposed in the form of the private member's bill would be much more in keeping with the position that Windsor had taken at that time.

I am pleased to indicate that my party supports the private member's bill. Assuming that it is not successful in passing, and I assume that will be the case given the government's position, the issue will be raised again at the end of the five year review. I assure the government and my friend from the Bloc that at that time Windsor will be here once again to make proposals on how the land should be more properly dealt with.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 14th, 2001]

With regard to Bow River water quality below Lake Louise, Alberta: ( a ) what are the potential cumulative impacts that development, community development and increased visitor use at Lake Louise may have on Bow River water quality; ( b ) what studies on the potential cumulative impacts are complete, and if not complete, why not; ( c ) what cumulative impact studies include considerations for communities downstream; ( d ) what is the maximum value for effluent loading of the Bow River at Lake Louise and below Lake Louise; ( e ) what are the parameters for aesthetic considerations of Bow River water quality below Lake Louise; ( f ) what are the parameters for “naturally occurring water” and “measurement of” in relation to the Bow River below Lake Louise; ( g ) what is the benchmark for the maximum amount of sewage effluent to discharge for the Bow River at Lake Louise and below Lake Louise; ( h ) what options to reduce effluent volumes to the Bow River below Lake Louise have been comprehensively evaluated; ( i ) based on the cumulative effects of proposed development community development and increased visitor use at Lake Louise, what are the potential adverse impacts on the ecological integrity of the Bow River?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, May 11th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, before we broke for question period I was detailing some of the difficulties our population was facing because of the type of budgetary processes we have had over the last number of years while this government has been in power. I was explaining how the financial positions of a number of Canadian families have altered to a significantly lower level.

I would now like to address the question of wealth. I will cite only one statistic. In 1999 the top 10% of Canadian families had a medium net worth of $703,500. The lowest 10% had a negative net worth of approximately minus $2,010. The top 10% are wealthy and the bottom 10% are in a negative position. That is the type of society that has been created by these types of budgetary processes.

The other point I would like to address concerns the capital gains break that the government has given mostly to the wealthy. The tax rate on capital gains had been set at 75%. The bill would reduce that to 66.7%, which is a substantial reduction.

It is interesting to note that as the bill was working its way through the process, there was other work going on as well. Neil Brooks, a tax expert, was making a compelling case against the capital gains tax break in the Senate committee. He pointed out the impact this capital gains tax break had on substantial wealth. He made the argument that it violated the fundamental tax principle, which is that taxpayers with the same ability to pay should pay the same regardless of their income sources. He went on to point out that its impact encouraged speculation not just in the stock market but in real estate, commodity futures and collectibles. We have seen some of the negative consequences of that type of speculation, especially in the stock market in the last six to twelve months.

Professor Brooks made another point, which was a bit more subtle but still important. As we encourage the type of investment that results in capital gains, it takes away from other areas of the market and the economy. He said that this provided incentives for the conversion of dividends and even labour income into capital gains as opposed to allowing those to continue, and the benefit that it would give to the economy generally. His final point was that it also complicated the tax system and actually reduced tax revenue.

It is important to appreciate the size of the gain. In 1996 taxpayers with incomes of more than $250,000 a year reported average capital gains of $74,000. That was almost 500 times the average capital gain of $150 reported by taxpayers earning between $20,000 and $40,000. That is the kind of system the bill would encourage and continue.

We heard from some of the other speakers today that over the next five years the bill would reduce taxes by $100 billion. Of course the government takes great credit for this. I would like to go back and look at that.

On the simple basis of fairness, does it make sense to be doing this? Do those tax breaks do anything at all to reduce the inequality that I mentioned earlier in my address? The answer is no, it does not. In fact it perpetuates and increases the inequality between that lower 10% or 20% of the families in Canada and the upper 10% and 20% of the families in Canada. It will follow an American model that is even worse than what we have now, but toward which we are very rapidly going. This will result in the same type of inequalities from which that country suffers.

The other point I would make about the $100 billion is that it just cries out, as I made the point earlier, of the hypocrisy of the government supporting the motion we had on safe water earlier this week, then not spending it on an infrastructure program that was at all meaningful in terms of treating our water and our sewage, thereby creating a safe water system for all of Canada. This government level is the only one that has the ability, in terms of revenue, to deal with the problem.

In that regard, it is not as though it can claim any ignorance of the need for these funds. I have already mentioned that the Canadian Federation of Municipalities had a figure out there for some time of $16.5 billion that would be needed over the next 10 years. I mentioned earlier that CMHC, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, had a study three years ago that set out the need for $4 billion a year in infrastructure over the next 15 years to deal with the water problem and crisis and to provide the country with safe water.

Somehow the government missed those two studies, those figures and that information. We had Walkerton and that was before the bill was introduced. We saw the tragedy in that community as a result of an unsafe water system.

In conclusion, it is a bill that obviously my party cannot support and is one that we will vote against for all the reasons that I mentioned today.

[Petitions, May 11th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, from my constituents and other members of the city of Windsor in the county of Essex.

The petitioners are looking for support in their drive to have a small area of land, known as the Ojibway industrial site, preserved in perpetuity for the members of the community. This is property that is on federal land managed by the Windsor Port Authority.

[National Drinking Water Standards, May 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, three years ago a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation study concluded that the cost of providing safe drinking water in Canada would be $4 billion a year over 15 years. Canadians are looking to their elected representatives to give them reassurances that the water they drink is safe.

New Democrats across the country are working on this. Last month in British Columbia the NDP government passed the drinking water protection act. It provided an additional $11 million in new funding and enforceable standards, despite the objections of the B.C. Liberal Party.

In Ontario New Democrat Marilyn Churley has introduced a private member's bill to ensure Ontarians that they can trust the quality of the water they drink. Both of these pieces of legislation provide a framework for public disclosure and ensure the public has the right to know the results of water testing.

It is time the government follows suit by providing national standards for drinking water and an adequate infrastructure funding program.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, May 11th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I did have a different introduction to make, but after listening to my colleague from the Alliance I thought it might be important to point out to him and other hon. members of the House that the first government in Canada to balance the budget was an NDP government in Saskatchewan after some horrendous budgetary practices by the prior Progressive Conservative government.

We were the first ones. There were terrible practices by the prior government. It was a right of centre government, by the way. We take some pride in having been able to do that and, quite frankly, in the history of the administration of the finances of that province all the way back to when it was led by Premier Tommy Douglas.

I rise today to speak in opposition to the passage of this bill and wish to do so from a number of perspectives. I will start with the issue of the environment as that is my responsibility as critic for my party.

Earlier this week we had the opportunity to come together as a House on an issue proposed by the Progressive Conservatives with regard to the protection of water in Canada. All members of the House, with the exception of the Bloc, supported that motion and rightfully so.

When we look at these budgetary items we cannot help but realize the height of hypocrisy when the government side proposes that our finances be handled in this way. At the same time it ignores to a very significant degree the responsibilities of the government to provide necessary financing for a municipal infrastructure program to deal with the crisis facing Canada with regard to providing safe water for all citizens.

We see figures from the municipalities on what it will cost to treat our water and our sewage. The type of dollars they are talking about are no way reflected in the budgetary items before us. The figure proposed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is $16.5 billion. The allocation from the government for all types of municipal infrastructure is only $2.5 billion over six years, which is simply not enough.

I would like to present some statistics on the situation leading up to the financial statement. In the decade from 1989 to 1998 there has been a dramatic shift in wealth and we have seen the impact it has had on family incomes. If we break down by 20 percentiles all families in Canada, the statistics show that from 1989 to 1998 the families at the lower end of the scale dropped in income quite dramatically.

The poorest level dropped 17% in earning abilities in that period of time. The lower middle income group dropped 13%. The middle income group dropped 4%. The upper middle income group went up by 1%. The top end families that earned $114,000 in 1989 went up to $124,000, or a 9% increase, in 1998.