Nathan Cullen

[Food and Drugs Act, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is with some pleasure that I enter this evening's debate. Obviously this is an issue that the New Democrats hold near and dear to our hearts as the history has been recounted in this place.

Bill C-517 is almost, word for word, the same bill as the one introduced by my colleague for Winnipeg North during the 37th Parliament and then introduced by my colleague for British Columbia Southern Interior in this Parliament. This is a necessary and long overdue bill and I am pleased to support it.

To recount the history of how this bill has been making its way through this place steadily parliament after parliament, it seems clear to me and to many others that it is a response by politicians representing different parties to a need expressed by Canadians.

This bill attempts to allow people a greater certainty to have as much information as possible on the products they are buying for their families, the food they are consuming. Many people have approached me and I am sure many of my colleagues in this House have been approached as well. People are confused and concerned about what it is they are buying in the stores. They want to know what the chemicals and other ingredients that are listed on the back of products actually are.

Most folks are not organic chemists. Most folks do not spend a great deal of time researching on the Internet each chemical additive to the products they are buying. Certainly there are very few, even those who specialize in organic chemistry, who understand the interaction that occurs when chemicals come together and what it means for the consumer, for the human form and for our environment in general.

When we step into the realm of genetically modified foods and products, we step into an entirely new conversation. This conversation about what the consequences are has not been properly had in this Parliament, in many of our legislatures and in the homes of Canadians. We need to understand the ethical, moral and environmental implications of the genetically modified foods that we consume, the foods that we put on the table for our friends and family, foods that have been modified at the genetic level.

Of course many on the big agriculture side, the Monsantos of the world, will say that foods have been modified for centuries. They will say that they have been trying to make crops grow better under certain conditions by only picking out the wheat that grows best or the cow that produces the most milk and that that is a genetic modification. It is patently false to try to compare those two systems and assume that they are one.

On the one hand we are choosing from the herd the cow that might produce more milk. In this case the genetic modification of food is when a scientist comes along and pulls genes from an organism at the molecular level and replaces them with genes from an entirely different organism. Genes from salmon are being put into genes that are meant to grow corn. Genes from a whole myriad of organisms are being placed into other organisms.

There is a fundamental principle that is absolutely missing from the legislation that governs this country. That is the precautionary principle.

We were very proud last year that a bill that New Democrats put forward to ban a series of dangerous chemicals from products in Canada was debated and modified at the environment committee and passed unanimously in this place and went to the other place. It applied the precautionary principle as its foundation. It said that in the absence of 100% evidence, which is sometimes the excuse I have heard from Health Canada and Environment Canada officials, that we do not have 100% conclusive evidence on a thing and in the overabundance of evidence pointing us in a certain direction there is something to be worried about with a new chemical or product, the precautionary principle says that we must act in a cautious way because otherwise the full testing of that product is taking place with the public in the marketplace. That is not responsible government.

We often have debates in this place about what the real role of government should be, what should government do and what should it not do. In this case, the setting out of the basic rules and principles as to what will be safe and what will be considered unsafe is clearly a role for government, because at the individual consumer level it is impossible.

It is an impossibility to say that rampant individualism will rule the day and people will simply know enough and will have done enough research themselves that they will conduct themselves in a safe manner and will ensure that nothing unsafe will end up on their kitchen tables. It is foolish. Every day in this place we pass security bills, crime bills and environmental legislation that we hope provides the rules and the framework in which industry and individual consumers can guide themselves, can participate in the rules. This place is a referee for what is fair and unfair, what is safe and unsafe.

There is another very important issue, and that is the reversal of the burden of proof. The industry, which profits from genetically modified foods, should be responsible for proving that its products are safe before putting them on the market, and not the government.

However, the onus of responsibility is somehow reliant upon government to prove a thing safe, to run the tests. We know scientists in Health Canada and Environment Canada, and it is not only this administration but with the previous administration as well, have brought forward concerns about genetically modified products. They have said that in certain circumstances they have had some scientific concerns. We know a number of things have happened to them, and promotion has not been one of them. They have been terminated. They have been threatened. They have been muzzled.

This goes beyond the ideology of one party or another. This goes to the safety of Canadians and the freedom of science to conduct itself in a rational way, to provide advice and guidance to the government of the day.

We know in recent magazines the government has been noted as a so-called enemy of science, fearful of the science. That was in relation to issues around climate change and the resistance to meet the preponderance of evidence saying the climate science was in and that we needed to conduct ourselves in a different way.

We have never seen this in the history of Parliament, in Westminster tradition, but the government is filibustering a private member's bill at committee, delaying, denying, stalling hour after hour, not letting the democratic will of this place and the country to be expressed.

Is there anything more fundamental than what we do here? It is to allow the free and fair exchange of ideas and debate, to allow the best ideas to come forward and to allow the will of Parliament to be expressed, the will of the voters who put us in this place and to whom we are responsible to conduct ourselves.

What do we see from the government? It simply does not like the bill put forward by the leader of the New Democrats, the member for Toronto—Danforth. Its response to disliking environmental legislation, environmental initiatives like this one, is to filibuster, delay, deny the existence of this and therefore abdicate its responsibility.

This is consistently why New Democrats have found a lack of confidence in the government, an inability to support it in its agenda. It conducts itself in a way that is unsupportable.

We feel that if genetically modified foods are a safe thing, if the government feels it has the science and the evidence on its side to say that this is safe, 100% guaranteed, then the labelling of such products, the identification of those products, should not be a problem. Consumers will then have a choice between a product that has been genetically modified or one that has not. Consumers will vote with their feet, will vote with their dollars and they will choose products that are safer for their families.

I urge all members from all parties to take this bill into consideration, to let their conscience guide them, to support it, allow it to see debate and eventual passage so we finally feel full confidence in the products that appear on our shelves and on our tables.

[Point of Order, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my comments and apologize to the minister.

[The Environment, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is only fair that if Canadian families are willing to do their share, so, too, should the big polluters and the government.

However, after 20 years of promises to get the job done, what do we see? The Liberals did not do it. The Conservatives will not do it. The climate change accountability act will do it.

No more delays and no more excuses from Minister Mugabe over there. It is time to let Parliament do its work.

Will the environment minister stop the scorched earth environmental policy and support a bill that would finally get the job done?

[The Environment, April 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative MPs on the environment committee simply do not want to work. They prefer filibusters and sabotage.

The Conservatives are currently holding the only comprehensive post-Kyoto legislation hostage. Bill C-377 would finally put Canada back on track in the fight against dangerous climate change.

Will the environment minister tell his MPs to stop the delay and deny tactics? Why is there so little energy to tackle climate change and why is there so much energy for the monkey wrench gang over there?

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, when the member is speaking, as many people have, about the purported reasons for being there and continuing to be there, it is important for us to look at the path and general direction of what is happening in Afghanistan.

I wonder if it is the member's contention that things are improving when we have report after report out of NATO describing that the opium production has grown greater and that the violence within Afghanistan has continued to grow. The question then fundamentally becomes whether the mission in which we are engaged goes in the right direction. Is it the right mission not only for Canada and Canada's position, but is it the right mission for the Afghanis who she is talking about and the Afghani Canadians who hold concerns?

The current ratio is 10:1 of military dollars to spending in aid programs. Of that $1 being spent in aid, the accountability and transparency has been almost nil. We cannot even track the dollars that are supposedly going toward building the schools and helping the people she is talking about.

We must understand that the counter-insurgency mission as constructed will only continue down this path with the vote that she will cast tonight and that the General Petraeus model, which was used in Iraq, will be applied in greater stead in Afghanistan. Canadian soldiers will be going beyond the wire more often. There will be more risks taken. This is absolutely the Petraeus model that we know and have seen in effect and will be handed over as the marines come in with another 7,000 or 8,000 troops.

Some have the notion that if we simply add a few more helicopters, 1,000 more troops and the Patraeus model, things will improve, but all evidence is to the contrary. The contestation from the NDP is that the counter-insurgency mission, as constructed and designed by the government and her government previously, is the wrong mission both for Canada and for the success that she hopes for, for the Afghani people, and must be ended.

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Conservatives. I believe we are correct that pointing out the absence of members in past votes is absolutely a correct thing to do. The record shows it, regardless of whether this is in my speech, or I point out that Liberal members were absent that night.

When the vote passed by a slim number of votes, I walked from this place, as did we all that night. I can remember the evening well. It was raining. I looked back upon Parliament, this great building we have constructed to represent our democracy, and wondered whether justice had been done. Had justice been done for our troops, for our men and women serving in the military? Had a true vote been cast?

Members who choose not to be in their places, or to abstain, or to make themselves suddenly absent, who catch the parliamentary cold as they call it cynically, do a disservice to this place. It does a disservice to the efforts of our troops because they rely upon us to have the debate here.

They did not put themselves forward as elected members of Parliament. They did not run for office. They chose to join the military and, in doing so, represent our country in military action. Our job is to be here. It is to show up, do our homework, defend our positions and to stand with the courage of our convictions, be they for the mission or be they against.

This is important because there has been talk of some wonderful bipartisan harmony going on. While it may be true that the Liberals and Conservatives have chosen to join together on the extension of this mission, to suggest that there are no politics in a vote that is put forward at the end of a barrel of a confidence motion is absolutely ludicrous. In vote after vote we have seen from the so-called official opposition abstentions, absences and an unwillingness to vote, some this very afternoon on a motion of confidence.

It is important because it has been suggested that Canadians who have some concerns with this mission are somehow unpatriotic or unsupportive. Our top general said this was not true. This talk needs to stop in this place. We can be both supportive of the troops and not support this mission because we believe it is wrong for our country.

This is what the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth wrote to Échec à la guerre in Quebec: “We want to reiterate our support for your call for the withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan, particularly in the context of the global day of action to be held on March 15.”

We must provide clarity to the Canadian people as to what our intentions are and what supports our intentions. The New Democrats will not support an extension of this mission. We believe it to be wrong for our country.

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and pleased to speak to the debate this afternoon. It is an opportunity to practice democracy, and many members in this House have talked about that during this debate. It is an opportunity to talk about the kind of democracy we want in this country.

After all this time, I am truly concerned about the tone and the words used by my colleague, but particularly by the government. It is high time the opposition state its concerns and ask questions about this mission.

First, l will be sharing my time with the member for Simcoe North.

It is important to establish and to appreciate the work that our men and women do in our armed services. Because members of my family served in the military, I believe that for many years there was a certain neglect that went on in our country, a certain taking for granted of those who did join the forces. I saw the living conditions. I saw how underpaid and undervalued many of our service people were. If there is any silver lining in this debate, it is that there is greater attention being paid to those who choose to go out on our behalf to represent our country and to fight and die under our flag.

We hold them to the highest standard. We offer them our greatest respect. Within this very debate, the respect that we show our military men and women is to challenge the government, to present our opinions and to present debate when we are in the House of Commons. We represent the people of our country. They sent us here to apply our intelligence and our vigour to each and every debate that is before us, to ensure our country, which we cherish, is headed down the right path.

The analogy of two paths before us is a correct one. When I look at the amendment the New Democrats have put before the House and I hear the misconstruction in a way that is twisted by those particularly in the Conservative and Liberal parties today, I am saddened by this.

When members consistently use jingoistic language, when they beat their chests and distort a debate, it does a disservice to this place, it does a disservice to our democracy and I believe fundamentally it does disservice to our men and women who are fighting on our behalf. We must allow the truth to be presented and allow that truth to be debated.

I will read the first portion of the amendment so those who are listening to the debate can have it in clarity and not listen to the short-handed media clips that some of my colleagues have used. It states:

That the House call upon the government to begin preparations for the safe withdrawal of Canadian soldiers from the combat mission in Afghanistan with no further extensions;

We believe this is a responsible action. We believe this is something that can be respected and be honoured in other places, in other democracies that are also fighting in Afghanistan.

I can recall the two paths chosen. This is an important recollection for Canadians, who many of which do not get to hear these debates. The first night we had a vote in the House for the first extension of the Afghanistan mission many of the same arguments were presented, that things were getting better, that they would improve, that we must continue and not pull back. I can recall that night because I had listened to the 12 hours of debate that had gone on in this place. I had watched members one after another rise in their place and present their views.

I respect those who present their views forthrightly, whether in support of the mission or against and use evidence and their intelligence to back up that position.

However, late in the evening that night we gathered ourselves for the vote, to stand in our places on behalf of the voters who sent us here. I remember talking to some of my Conservative colleagues because of us had all been doing the count. We had listened to the speeches. We watched members rise to declare their positions with some assertiveness. It seemed confirmed to us, not just those of us in the New Democratic Party but also some of my colleagues in the Conservative Party, that the vote was about to fail, that the extension of the mission would not happen.

I was in conversation with many in that party as to what would come next. They would have to make some plans. The higher ups and mucky-mucks in the PMO and all the rest would have to do something about the vote, which was about to fail.

Then I was given pause. I looked across the aisle at my Liberal colleagues on the opposition benches. I was filled with a moment of uncertainty. I was filled with a moment of fear. As I looked through the benches, there were not one or two members missing, as can happen, someone is sick, someone is away, something happens and they are unable to get here, a dozen were members missing. The member for LaSalle—Émard who had been here that afternoon debating this very motion—

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will make my comment brief as the clock is going.

The hon. member, for a moment, talked about the basis of his decision and I will comment on one point. There are many that I would like to debate, but the one in particular is on costs.

I am wondering if he is aware that his vote this evening, which will obviously be cast in favour of extending the mission for an indefinite time, is based without the knowledge of what this mission will actually cost.

I just want to deal with the dollars. There are all sorts of other figures and issues we can deal with, but on the cost front, I wonder if he is aware that he will cast his vote tonight without the knowledge of what the actual cost to Canadian taxpayers will be because the mission, already a minimum of $700 million over budget, will continue in that path.

Senior federal officials within the government have been briefed on the estimates of costs because they do know these, but yet those have not been made public. Those have not been brought to the light of day.

They have not informed my hon. colleague. He talked about that issue during his discourse, about knowing the full cost and knowing what the terms and conditions of this vote will actually mean.

I would appreciate a response to this one important piece, that he will cast a vote tonight with no clear knowledge or understanding of information that once again this government has chosen to withhold from Parliament and the Canadian people on the eve of such a momentous vote as will take place this evening.

[Afghanistan, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the confusion that the hon. member has as to who sets our foreign policy as somehow using the soldiers' enthusiasm or lack of interest or disagreement with the mission is somehow some justification one way or another in this debate.

He knows that New Democrats have gone to Afghanistan and have spoken with the troops.

When Parliament is setting the direction for our foreign policy in regard to a war, how the troops feel about that particular mission should be the guiding and only force. The reason we have Parliament and we have debates is to allow the representatives of the people of this country to discuss the issues.

Does he disagree with the merits of this very debate?

[The Environment, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative agenda is getting us nowhere. According to Louis-Gille Francoeur, of Le Devoir, the government will incur a minimum $35 billion penalty for not respecting the Kyoto protocol. Canada made legal commitments to the planet, and the Conservatives are not following through on them.

Why does the minister not invest now to fight climate change, instead of wasting our money on penalties?