Mauril Bélanger

[Industry Canada, November 6th, 2001]

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

Canada has a long tradition of excellence and innovation in astronomy and astrophysics, yet our participation in future technologies may be in jeopardy.

Will the minister tell us what the government is doing to ensure Canada's participation in the next generation of world observatories so that our scientists can continue to compete in this most innovative field of scientific research?

[Canada Health Act, November 1st, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-407, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (linguistic duality).

Mr. Speaker, the bill we give first reading to this morning will add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act so that the provinces, which administer health services, will respect linguistic duality.

Official language minorities in Canada have limited guarantees in the area of health services. The provinces must therefore show a willingness to offer health services to their minority, which is a poor guarantee, as the case of the Montfort hospital in Ontario recently revealed.

Anglophones in Quebec and francophones in the other provinces and territories are entitled to receive health care in their mother tongue, English or French, when they are at their most vulnerable, especially since the Canadian Constitution recognizes both languages as the country's official languages.

I hope we will soon have the opportunity to debate this bill in the House of Commons and then in committee.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Export Development Act, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I find this answer very weak since the fact that the Library of Parliament is accountable to this House was not even mentioned.

We have a situation where the Library of Parliament serving members is totally unaccountable to the members of the House. We have no access to the library. We cannot ask questions of anyone speaking on behalf of the library in the House and the committee that is supposed to be overseeing it has not even been struck.

I would implore the chief government whip to make sure that the committee is struck as rapidly as possible because there is throughout this whole issue a sense of lack of respect for the members of the House by the library.

We have to get to the bottom of it. Why would they not have fixed the problem? Twice they requested proposals and twice they cancelled. Twice they were wrong.

All this mess, if I can call it that, has to be investigated by the committee which has not been struck. At the very least, the government should get on with striking the committee so that it can do its work.

[Export Development Act, October 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to use this opportunity to raise with my colleagues something that has troubled me concerning the Library of Parliament, a tool that is essential to us.

I had raised the question with the member for Ottawa West--Nepean as the spokesperson for the Board of Internal Economy back in May and requested an opportunity to respond to the question because I was not satisfied. I will break this into two parts, the issue itself and then the matter of accountability and the difficulty I and other colleagues will find ourselves in in trying to make the library accountable.

The difficulty is that the Library of Parliament issued a request for proposal for a news gathering service. One company that wanted to respond to the request for proposal uses a different system than the system that was specified in the request for proposal. It tried to get the library to correct that by calling for a generic system as opposed to a specific system on which the computer system was based. The library proceeded nonetheless.

The company appealed to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Through a series of protracted discussions and so forth, at the end of the day, the tribunal ruled that the library was in error, that the library had to correct its request for proposal or start over. This was a rather lengthy effort.

The library concluded by saying it was cancelling the request, that it did not need the service any more because it had fixed the problem. This begs the question as to why it was not fixed in the first place. The response it gave for cancelling the request for proposal and not issuing another one as per the CITT ruling was that it had used up all its money in defending itself at the CITT.

I have a problem with that. This was not a one year project; it was an ongoing one. Perhaps it could have delayed it, as I hope is the intent of the Library of Parliament, but not cancelled it outright, never to revisit it and never call for a proposal for implementing the system that might be required.

I have some problems with the rationale the Library of Parliament is using. The biggest problem I have is the total lack of accountability of the Library of Parliament to the House.

The Library of Parliament is accountable to the Speakers, the Speaker of the House and the Speaker in the Senate, yet members in the House cannot ask questions of the Speaker. We have to go to the Board of Internal Economy, yet we are told that the Board of Internal Economy is not responsible for the Library of Parliament.

Once, I managed to ask a question of the representative of the Board of Internal Economy in the House on the basis that the library offers services to the members, I am not sure that the Speaker would again allow me to do that.

We cannot ask a question of the Speaker. The library is not accountable to the Board of Internal Economy. The joint Senate and House of Commons committee on the library has not met. It has not even been struck. Therefore, I cannot ask a question of the chair of that committee in the House. There is no accountability. We are now almost into November. We have been sitting for a month and a half now and that committee has yet to be struck.

At some point the rules of the House are going to have to be changed so that the Library of Parliament is accountable to the members of the House. Then we can get information about the library without having to go through the hoops and a system that does not seem to work.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. If a member raises a question of relevance, is it appropriate for the member to whom the question is directed to respond with personal allegations and asinine comments as we have just heard?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the member should speak in French as in French he might be relevant to the topic of discussion because at this point he is not. Perhaps the member could--

[Heritage Canada, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, amidst the anxiety and the uncertainly there is a group of Canadians looking with optimism to the future, trying to secure a major international event in Canada.

Would the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us if there has been any progress in recent days with the Vancouver-Whistler bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics?

[Food and Drugs Act, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak this evening to Bill C-287, which in my view is necessary.

It is vital that we recognize the desire of Canadians, which is consistent across the country, to ensure that labelling of genetically modified foods is made mandatory. This is the primary purpose of this bill.

As for the principle, I believe that the vast majority of Canadians are in agreement and I also believe that it is our duty to carry out their wishes.

Does the bill require any amendments, corrections or adjustments? Perhaps. It is in committee that this work must be done. I therefore intend to support the bill at second reading so that the appropriate House of Commons committee can study it.

It should be pointed out that supporting this bill is not voting against genetically modified foods. Some people make this connection. They say that anyone supporting this bill is automatically against the existence of genetically modified foods and the fact that they are sold on the Canadian market. That is simply not true.

The concept of mandatory labelling is not ipso facto systematic opposition to genetically modified food. On the contrary, it is instead a proposal of choice, relating to the principle that consumers are entitled to know what they are eating. Our bottom line is merely a call for support of that principle, the consumer's right to know what he or she is consuming.

That right manifests itself in the labelling of the foods we buy in our grocery stores. That is what this bill seeks to do.

Nor is this a vote against our farmers. I say the opposite is true; it is vote in favour of our farmers. If Canadian consumers no longer have the right to know what they are consuming as far as GMOs are concerned, the next step will be a food boycott.

Moreover, the desire to protect the farmer, which appears to be the motivation of those opposed to this bill, is in danger of turning against the very people it is trying to help, that is, this country's farmers.

This is not a vote against the farmers, nor against genetically modified foods. It is vote in favour of the consumers' right to know what they are consuming.

I must admit that I was somewhat stymied by a little document sent to our offices today encouraging MPs to vote against this bill. It comes from the agrifood industry. A number of points are raised in it and I would like to address a few of them.

One of the first, in which they claim a vote in favour of the bill is a vote of censure, states as follows:

A vote in favour of Bill C-287 means a vote of censure against our world-class regulatory bodies.

This is not the case at all. This means that if a vote in the House amends or expands upon a legislative measure, or some regulatory measure. it represents censure of the body responsible. This is not the case.

What it is instead is a demonstration that our society is evolving, our knowledge is evolving, our ability to genetically modify foods, non-existent fifteen or so years ago, now does exist and needs to be reflected in our regulations, in our legislation. This is not censure. Saying that it is, in a way, is taking us for fools.

The second point that is raised, I will read in English.

Mandatory labels on ALL food products containing GM ingredients, estimated at 60-70% of products currently on store shelves, despite the fact that they have undergone a rigorous approval process.

If we vote against Bill C-287, that is what this means. I have a serious doubt about that.

My colleague who spoke before me referred to a very important document, entitled “Recommendation for Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada”, prepared by an expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada. It is important to note what they recommended for security in our food system. Recommendations 8.1 and 8.2 state:

The Panel recommends the precautionary regulatory assumption that, in general, new technologies should not be presumed safe unless there is a reliable scientific basis for considering them safe. The Panel rejects the use of “substantial equivalence” as a decision threshold to exempt new GM products from rigorous safety assessments on the basis of superficial similarities because such a regulatory procedure is not a precautionary assignment of the burden of proof.

The Panel recommends that the primary burden of proof be upon those who would deploy food biotechnology products to carry out the full range of tests necessary to demonstrate reliably that they do not pose unacceptable risks.

It seems that in some circumstances we are relying on the concept of substantial equivalence to determine that. The Royal Society has determined that it is not appropriate.

The third point made is as follows:

If the bill is passed, producers will be forced to reformulate their food products with ingredients that do not contain GMOs, as they have had to do in other countries.

This raises the following question: If it is what consumers want, then is it not up to vendors to ensure that they get it, especially when it is feasible? Who is deciding here? Consumers or vendors? Are we being asked to reverse the law of supply and demand? It is completely absurd. We could not, because we would have to change what we are offering consumers, and give them what they want. It is completely backwards.

We are told that if we support the bill there will be a drop in investment in biotechnology which will lead to the loss of beneficial genetic technologies and life sciences programs in Canada.

I would assert that the opposite is true. If this technology poses no risks, then why not be up front? The best way to do this is through mandatory labelling on genetically modified food products.

Over the years, consumers will become aware of what they are eating, which will have the opposite effect: a greater acceptance of the technology and therefore more private sector investment in order to offer more products. However, the opposite of what they claim is also true. If in fact the country does not require mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods, there may be a backlash. Consumers may well say “If you will not give us want we want in terms of information, we will obtain it some other way. We will insist on it”.

Some companies have already decided not to stock genetically modified products in their stores. The consequences for our farmers, agricultural industries and the agrifood sector are serious. We would be wise to think carefully before voting blindly.

Finally, they say a vote against Bill C-287 would ensure that food companies would continue their ongoing dialogue with consumers about manufacturing processes, including the use of GM ingredients, the toll free number and websites.

They have just given us the solution for mandatory labelling. It is very simple. We can design a symbol and that symbol could be affixed on food products, be they packaged or not. When people buy fresh food products, be they vegetables or fruits, they will find a sticker with numbers on them, including where they have been grown.

That symbol of genetically modified food products could become universal, as other symbols have become, and could be affixed on all food products, packaged or otherwise, with a website address or a 1-800 number for Canadians to call and get the information they want.

No one is asking that we put a label on each apple. However, a person could easily find out how a particular food product has been modified genetically through a website address or a 1-800 number, thereby giving the consumer what he or she deserves, that is, the information they want in order to determine what they eat.

That is what is at stake here. It is not a vote against genetically modified foods. It is not a vote against our farming community. It is a vote in favour of consumers.

Canada has a symbiotic relationship between the farming community and the urban community. Whenever our farming community needs help, quite often the urban community comes through, perhaps in some cases not enough and I recognize that, but it has come through by way of tax grants and programs.

The reverse is also true. Not only the urban community, where the bulk of consumers is located, but Canadians everywhere are demanding to know, via mandatory labelling, whether they are consuming genetically modified foods. That is to the advantage of our farming community as well.

When we vote on this tomorrow, I invite all my colleagues to vote in favour of sending this bill to committee so we can seize the government of this important matter.

[International Actions Against Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the House for its unanimous consent to give us all an opportunity today to address this very serious matter in this take-note debate.

Since it is a take note debate on the actions of this government, this country and other countries in reaction to the horrors of September 11, I wish to convey to the government some of the concerns and thoughts that I have heard expressed from people whom I have been elected to represent in the House.

First, I have heard universal condemnation for the attacks of September 11 on the American eastern seaboard in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania and more recently through biological terrorism all over North America and perhaps elsewhere in the world. There is universal condemnation of that.

Second, I have heard that people want the perpetrators of these attacks brought to justice. That is again a nearly universal position and certainly a strong indication of the will to eradicate terrorism. Those are essentially the opinions that I have received.

I would say that in terms of what the government has done, the reaction is somewhat mixed. About 10% of the people to whom I have spoken believe we are going too far with the proposals. Another 20% or so are saying that we are not doing enough. About 60% to 70% are saying that they are generally okay with the direction that the government has taken so far in terms of military action, diplomatic action, financial action, legal action and the necessity for more intelligence to better cope with the terrorism threat.

Essentially, that means a majority say yes to military intervention, but not universal support and I recognize that. I have had letters and phone calls from people who would rather that we not participate in a military effort. However a majority of the people who have written me or called my office have indicated their support for Canada's military participation in the campaign against the ongoing terrorism.

There is a definite and resounding yes also to increased humanitarian aid, especially for the Afghan people and the Afghan refugees who are living under extreme conditions. There is no hesitation from almost any quarters. Again, that is close to universal approval for increased aid to the Afghan people from our government, our country and our people.

I would also indicate from discussions that I have had that there is overwhelming support for the continuation of our immigration policies. I distinguish between immigration and refugee. If I am to be faithful to what I have heard, I must indicate that there are serious concerns with our refugee process, not with the notion of us welcoming refugees but with the current way we handle that system, and I believe it is my responsibility to convey that to the government in this take-note debate.

On the matter of security measures, such as have been introduced today at first reading, there is some general support but some very strong words of caution that we not restrict unduly civil liberties.

That is what I have been hearing and I wish to convey that to the government in terms of take-note for the purposes of this debate.

I would also like to add some thoughts of my own. Terrorism is by its very nature unpredictable. We may wish to tighten security at the airports, at our ports and at our borders. That in and of itself is a good thing if only to prevent those who may be tempted to attempt similar types of terrorist acts or even to foil the efforts of others.

In that sense, it is appropriate that we increase our capacity to prevent. However, if we stop at that, we are seriously mistaken.

I had occasion on September 10 to speak at the 47th annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. I addressed the assembly in terms of whether parliaments around the world subject scientific advances to legislation and the regulatory framework. I had occasion to quote a fellow by the name of Bill Joy, and I will quote him again tonight. Bill Joy is a co-founder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems. He wrote a rather disturbing article in the April 2000 issue of Wired magazine, a piece titled “Why the future doesn't need us”. I will quote four very brief passages of the article because it would take too long, in time allowed, to quote it all. He said:

Accustomed to living with almost routine scientific breakthroughs, we have yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies--robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology--pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: They can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once--but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of control.

A little further on he says:

Perhaps it is always hard to see the bigger impact while you are in the vortex of a change. Failing to understand the consequences of our inventions while we are in the rapture of discovery and innovation seems to be a common fault of scientists and technologists; we have long been driven by the overarching desire to know that is the nature of science's quest, not stopping to notice that the progress to newer and more powerful technologies can take on a life of its own.

Later he states:

Unfortunately, as with nuclear technology, it is far easier to create destructive uses for nanotechnology than constructive ones. Nanotechnology has clear military and terrorist uses, and you need not be suicidal to release a massively destructive nanotechnological device--such devices can be built to be selectively destructive, affecting, for example, only a certain geographical area or a group of people who are genetically distinct.

Finally, he states:

In truth, we have had in hand for years clear warnings of the danger inherent in widespread knowledge of GNR technologies--

This is for genomics, robotics and nanotechnology.

--of the possibility of knowledge alone enabling mass destruction. But these warnings haven't been widely publicized; the public discussions have been clearly inadequate. There is no profit in publicizing the dangers.

As we progress scientifically, it behooves us all in our institutions, whatever they may be, to make sure that our scientific progress is limited as much as possible to the benefit of mankind of our human species and not to its destruction. I urge those in our government who have the responsibility for these institutions to make sure that they take great care of the use of the knowledge we are generating.

Another random thought, perhaps not that random, is that I encourage my colleagues in the House from all parties to keep in mind the concept of separation of church and state as we engage in these debates. I believe that it is an extremely sound principle and one of which we should not lose sight. I sense that on some occasions we have had a tendency to invoke God on either side of this issue. I urge my colleagues to be very careful in maintaining this principled separation of church and state.

Finally, these events will help us reaffirm the importance of government in our society and of public good. Profitability in and of itself is fine, but it cannot be the end-all of our society. It cannot be the driving force of humanism.

If there can be any good coming from these events of September 11, that might be indeed reaffirmation of this value that the common good is not to be valued less than profitability.

I would have liked to have gone on and perhaps invoked the notion that it might be time for nations around the world to consider a stand-alone UN military force, supported by these nations around the world so that it is not always at the bequest of nations to participate in efforts that may be required urgently. Perhaps I will have another occasion in the near future to debate that.

I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to put these thoughts to paper so that perhaps they can be useful in the days ahead.

[Guy Beaulne, October 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, I attended the opening of an exhibition marking the 150th anniversary of the Institut canadien français. The honorary chairman of the event was Jean-Pierre Beaulne, who took the opportunity to speak to us of his brother Guy. Guy Beaulne had suffered a heart attack the week before, and died last Monday.

His brother spoke of his beginnings with Le Droit , and of the theatre scholarships he then received, which led to a magnificent career in the theater. He was the first director of La famille Plouffe . He headed the Grand Théâtre de Québec and the Conservatoire d'art dramatique de Montréal, and was awarded both the Ordre national du Québec and the Order of Canada. He founded the Association canadienne du théâtre amateur.

On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I would like to thank him for his lifetime of accomplishments and to extend my most sincere condolences to his family and friends. As the curtain drops for the last time, I would like to wish him the very best, as in the famous French theatrical expression.