Raymonde Folco

[Food and Drugs Act, May 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to participate today in the debate on Bill C-517, introduced by the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. This bill amends the Food and Drugs Act to make the Minister of Health responsible for establishing that a food or one or more of its components has been genetically modified, and for preparing a list of all such foods for anyone who requests it, because the public must know.

As the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles said when he introduced his bill, this is not a new bill, since a few years ago, two other colleagues, including one from the official opposition, were already concerned about the mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods and organisms, commonly known as GMOs. Since 2001, Ontario has been calling for labelling; British Columbia and Quebec are calling for it as well.

The main purpose of Bill C-517 is to inform consumers about what they are eating, and to let them choose whether or not to eat genetically modified foods or food products. Therein lies the challenge. This is not about putting genetically modified foods or food products on trial; this is about the precautionary principle and fundamental information, and about protecting the consumer from any unknown risks or potential effects these types of foods could have on a person's health. As legislators, this is our duty.

This is about ensuring that consumers are safe, by giving them the opportunity to look at the nutritional information on labels of foods on the market, and to make an informed decision.

Genetically modified organisms, GMOs, could impact Canadians' health. We do not know today what could be the effect of GMOs, in the short term or the long term, on people's health and on the environment. Some scientists say that biotechnologically derived foods create or enhance diseases such as malaria, for example. Therefore, it is our responsibility as legislators to make sure that consumers have proper information on the food they buy and eat.

In Canada, there are already about 50 genetically modified products on the market. These have been approved by the government and can be consumed on their own or can be used to produce another food. We must also address the issue of the percentage of GMOs in the food and determine which level would require mandatory labelling.

In the European Union, for instance, traces of GMOs do not require mandatory labelling if they do not contain more than the threshold of 0.9% and only if their presence in the food is involuntary or accidental and technically inevitable.

This issue, like all environmental issues, does not concern just Canada, but the entire planet. I would like to point out that the European Union, which has ratified the March 2006 Cartagena protocol, already has mandatory labelling regulations.

In fact, the European Union has incorporated the Cartagena protocol, which came out of the meeting held from March 13 to 17, 2006, into its legislation. Signatories to the protocol commit to meeting a series of requirements pertaining to the international trade in GMOs intended for human or animal consumption.

Unfortunately, as our colleague proved a few minutes ago, the Conservative government still does not seem ready to take the necessary steps to make labelling mandatory for genetically modified foods or food products. On the contrary, the Conservative government continues to advocate voluntary labelling, which has been a complete failure because it has been left entirely in the hands of the agriculture and agri-food industries.

Proof of the government's bad faith can be found in an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on April 4. The newspaper reports that Canada is opposed to the mandatory labelling recommended by the WHO, the World Health Organization, to inform consumers about the quantity of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and added sugars in modified foods.

The Codex committee on mandatory labelling, which was put in place by the WHO to develop international codes of practice and implement the WHO's food standards program, met at the end of April.

The members of the Canadian delegation, headed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, stated their position, which unfortunately is that Canada will not support the amendment put forward by the WHO that would encourage national governments and give them more power to require agri-food industries to reveal the percentage of ingredients that could pose a risk to human health in modified foods. Bill Jeffery, national coordinator of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, stated that Canada's position is indefensible.

The objective of the Cartagena protocol is to help regulate the transboundary movement, transfer, handling and use of any GMO that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and pose risks to human health.

The protocol provides that international shipments of GMOs must be accompanied by documentation that clearly indicates the exact identity of the GMOs concerned. If the exact identity is not known, this documentation must clearly indicate “may contain GMOs”.

This protocol affirms the precautionary principle, because it states the following:

Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of a living [genetically] modified organism on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the party of import, taking also into account risks to human health, shall not prevent that party [that is, the importing state] from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the living modified organism in question ... in order to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects.

The European Union's policy has two goals: first, to inform consumers, through labelling, about genetically modified organisms; and, second, to create a safety net due to the traceability of the GMO at every step of the manufacture and at the time the product is put on the marketplace.

The operative word in the European regulations is “traceability”, that is, the ability to track GMOs and products made from GMOs at all stages of their marketing, throughout the production and distribution chain.

Traceability of GMOs allows the monitoring and checking of information given on labels, the monitoring of effects on the environment and the withdrawal of GMOs that are potentially dangerous for human or animal health.

In closing, some farm organizations claim that Bill C-517 will not improve food safety and will not provide increased consumer choice, and that it will be enough for consumers to rely on foods containing the Canadian organic label to ensure that the foods they buy do not contain genetically modified ingredients.

However, we must ensure that the so-called organic label is properly certified by an independent, authorized organization that guarantees that the food is 100% organic. The fact is, these days, we are seeing a proliferation of foods labelled as organic that contain very little or no organic ingredients.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond to that in 30 seconds. It is very complicated.

If I may, I would like to answer my colleague at some other time. However, I would like to say this about the oversight function.

One has to be very careful. The government has oversight functions that look after it, but it is so secret that the oversight does not work in any case.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry for the compliment.

We are not talking about a problem that touches only Canada. We are talking about a problem that touches not only the hemisphere but the whole earth. What has happened to people elsewhere will happen to us.

I talked about the rise in food prices. I am not a specialist in chemicals or in the environment. However, I read the newspapers and I listen to the media. The media has said for the last two weeks that it is important for us to look at the alternatives. I am not saying we have the right answers. Far from it. My colleague from Quebec mentioned a while ago that we had to do more research and in different avenues.

For my colleague from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, yes, the Liberals were in power for 13 years and we looked at several answers. He may recall that the leader of our party was, at the time, minister of the environment. He was in charge of putting together an agreement, the Kyoto agreement, which took place in Montreal.

However, the Conservative government has been in government for two years now. Therefore, the Conservatives cannot always throw back the argument about what happened before. We are asking the Conservative government to govern and get something done.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to speak today to contribute to the debate on government Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to provide for the efficient regulation of fuels.

According to the government's own technical briefings on March 14, 2008, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have grown steadily since 1990. At Kyoto, Canada committed to a target of 6% below 1990 levels; however, Canadian emissions have grown steadily since 1990. Canada's annual greenhouse gas emissions are currently more than 25% higher than they were in 1990 and 32% higher than Canada's Kyoto protocol target. This growth is due in part to the continued expansion of Canada's production and export of oil and gas. Without immediate action, our emissions from all sectors could increase by another 24% to reach 940 megatons in 2020. This is terrible news.

As my colleague, the MP for Ottawa South, has said, for Canadians all of this has to be seen in the context of climate change policy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, told the government, all parliamentarians and all Canadians that we need to contain temperature increases to between 2° and 2.4° if possible. We will only be able to do that, it says, if we stabilize emissions within 15 years and cut them in half by 2050. The IPCC report also says that there are already many low cost options available to developed countries like Canada to reduce greenhouse gases, such as financial incentives, the excise fuel tax, deploying existing technologies, tradeable permits and voluntary programs.

The Conservative government since it came to power has cut the carbon credits and the renewable power investment programs which were the former Liberal government's initiatives.

Professor Mark Jaccard of the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University said in an interview with The Hill Times last year that the Conservative government believed it could deliver a successful environmental plan based on improving air quality.

A number of the former Liberal government's climate change programs were cut. Then, public opinion polls finally made the Conservative government realize that this was not a fleeting movement, but that the public was truly concerned about climate change.

Professor Jaccard added that a number of public officials advised the Conservatives to reinstate the Liberals' regulations and reintroduce them with different names, which was a waste of time. He also pointed out that the Conservatives wanted to delay the release of the new programs because of their similarity to the Liberal programs.

My colleague from Ottawa South also reported that the failure of the government's plan has been well documented by the C.D. Howe Institute, the Deutsche Bank, the Pembina Institute and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, the Conservatives' own board, has told the government its plan is baseless and will not achieve the targets in any way. In fact, it appears not a single third party observer has put forward a shred of evidence to substantiate that the government's plan would work.

The developed countries are responsible for the pollution rate we have now in the world. By moving their industries to developing countries such as China and India, to name only two, they have damaged their environment and their agriculture and have helped increase global warming.

Today, studies show that the expansion of the production of ethanol is doing very little for the environment. On the contrary, ethanol use could add to greenhouse gas emissions, not reduce them.

My constituents in Laval—Les Îles, many of whom are from India, Pakistan, the Middle East and other countries, are very concerned about what is currently going on in their home countries.

The problem of global warming is the most urgent ecological problem of our generation, as the leader of the official opposition pointed out. That is why, together with my colleagues from the Liberal Party of Canada, I think the government's bill does not go far enough. It does not provide any real solution to the greenhouse gases problem.

According to a study by the OECD, Canada is behind other developed countries and is among the lowest-ranking OECD countries in terms of emissions per person for smog-causing gases, at 2%. Although Canada contributes just 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the quantity of those emissions per person is among the highest in the world, and that percentage keeps going up.

A number of studies show today that corn ethanol and other biofuels, such as soy or sugar cane, contribute to increasing greenhouse gases and therefore to global warming.

A study published in Science magazine concluded that the current use of prime farm land to expand biofuel crops will probably only exacerbate global warming because of deforestation and increased cash crops to the detriment of food crops. That is to say nothing of the economic pressure being put on farmers to produce more biofuels including wheat, soy, barley and sugar cane, which has a negative effect on the price of corn and wheat, and therefore on the living conditions of those involved.

We are already beginning to feel the negative effects. All we hear about in the media these days is the food crisis, which is a direct result of the massive cultivation of cereal crops and other food products for uses other than feeding populations. And this is only the beginning of a vicious circle.

According to recent studies, there are other solutions, particularly the use of renewable or green energy sources that do not use carbon.

As for transportation, we could follow the example of Europe, and particularly France, which is currently developing electric car prototypes.

As for household energy consumption, we can now use alternative energy sources, including wind, solar or photovoltaic energy, that is, converting solar radiation directly into electricity, as some countries in northern and western Europe are doing, as well as hydroelectric energy.

We can also use new, environmentally friendly materials in the construction of houses, which is already being done in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and even in certain developing countries. Some African countries, for instance, are using solar and wind energy. These environmentally friendly materials are designed to conserve energy in houses, thereby reducing the waste and over-consumption of energy.

My colleagues and I firmly believe that the most effective solution combines two attitudes: first, consuming less energy; and second, developing and producing more renewable energy.

[Foreign Affairs, March 14th, 2008]

It continues, Mr. Speaker, and we will get more of the same. I am not at all certain that the Canadian people really accept this answer.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would not even take Ms. Martin's phone call. The secretary of state could not even be bothered to visit Ms. Martin in jail when she was only 20 minutes away. When she was asked why she did not visit Ms. Martin's cell, where she was crammed in with 11 other prisoners, the secretary of state answered, “It's not my job”.

If it is not her job to help Brenda Martin, will the Prime Minister use this break week to fill the void and make the case to have Ms. Martin immediately returned to Canada?

[Foreign Affairs, March 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Brenda Martin is languishing in a Mexican prison and is at the end of her rope. While this Conservative government drags its feet, Ms. Martin is hitting rock bottom. There are concerns that she will not make it. She is so desperate that she says she is now thinking of taking her own life.

What is this government waiting for to give her a glimmer of hope? Since his ministers are incompetent, will the Prime Minister finally deign to pick up the phone and help Ms. Martin?

[Chantale Guay, March 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as part of Quebec intellectual disability week, I would like to pay special tribute to a woman of great merit from Laval, Chantale Guay, who passed away in December at the age of 51.

Ms. Guay was the executive director of the Laval association for intellectual disability for eight years. She loved and respected people with intellectual disabilities, giving generously of herself in her devotion to them. They were very dear to her.

For many years, she was a member of the board of directors of the Laval association of organizations for people with disabilities. She spearheaded the annual “Hats off” program, which honoured five people with intellectual disabilities from Laval who achieved exceptional personal growth.

Her commitment made a real difference in people's lives. Chantale Guay very much deserves this tribute on behalf of all of the people of Laval.

[Ethics, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, in his book, Tom Flanagan does not say that the Conservatives were interested in having Chuck Cadman return to their caucus. No, their interest was motivated only by the fact that, and I quote again, “Chuck Cadman was a swing voter who could, at that time, trigger an election and they were prepared to make one last desperate try to win him over”.

Whom should we believe, the parliamentary secretary or the man who ran the last Conservative campaign?

[Ethics, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary claims that all that the Conservatives offered Chuck Cadman was a chance to rejoin their caucus. His theory has been disproved by none other than Tom Flanagan, in his book Harper's Team. Mr. Flanagan writes: “Chuck was gracious when he received us in his Parliamentary office, but he was visibly tired, and I could see that he wasn’t up to negotiating a return to caucus”.

Could the parliamentary secretary give us an answer with a hint of truth this time?

[Status of Women, March 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this week, women around the world will be celebrating their international day. This year's theme is, “Strong Women, Strong World”.

We will remember the pioneering Canadian women whose determination made it possible for women to be recognized as people.

Nevertheless, let us not forget that a Canadian woman today earns just 71¢ for every dollar a Canadian man earns.

Let us not forget that this Conservative government eliminated the court challenges program, which helped women.

Let us not forget that this Conservative government abolished the law commission.

Let us not forget that this Conservative government cut 12 of the 16 Status of Women Canada regional offices.

We salute Canadian women and call on this government not to make any more decisions that will hinder their progress.