Reports from Alt-London

by

A couple of interesting posts today over on the Alt-London site.

The first article seems to indicate that local Councillor Paul Hubert isn’t 100% supportive of “a voluntary [drive-thru] idling period of not more than one minute “ and/or “a moratorium on new drive-thrus.” 01

Not too sure what to make of that. The article doesn’t actually come right out and say that Mr. Hubert opposes the proposals, and it doesn’t actually come right out and say that “the councillor is being cynically manipulative.”

I think that instead of making any assumptions about the Councillor’s position, I’ll send him an email and see what he’s got to say.

The other one claims that MPs Glen Pearson and Sue Barnes voted against “a Bill which would have provided mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods.” 02

There seems less room for interpretation there. In fact, it seems pretty definitive. So, I’m troubled. But I’ll send them emails asking for some explanation also.

Stay tuned…

Appended 2008/05/14:

This response was received from Councillor Hubert this morning…

Greg

I did not hear the final version so I can only comment on the interview. What I did not support was a ban on drive throughs as we would have to close all types of drive throughs including banks and pharmacies. I congratulated the Council of Canadians for their initiative and ideas which we will evaluate when the drive through report comes to Planning Committee on May 26th and a review of the idling by law comes forward to ETC in the summer. I feel public education and self regulated behaviour change is the most effective. Any by law must be enforcable. A one minute idling by law would be a real challenge. However I was supportive of all city vehicles leading by example.

Paul

Appended 2008/05/22:

This response was actually received from MP Pearson’s office two days ago. Still working on the email backlog, so if you’re waiting for a response don’t despair…

Dear Greg,

Thank you for your correspondence regarding bill C-517, a bill which would have required mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.

The Liberal Party’s rural caucus, of which I am a member, has studied and discussed this bill in great detail. From these discussions, I would like to explain the reasons behind my vote against this bill.

In short, the bill as written would not address the issue of food safety. During debate in the House of Commons, no study which confirms that genetically modified foods pose a threat to human, animal or environmental health was presented. What Bill C-517 would achieve would be to provide the illusion of addressing a supposed concern about human, animal or environmental health that has never been demonstrated to exist. Further to this, the legislation fails to address the issue of how mandatory labelling will be applied to imported foods and food products. How that will be achieved, at whose costs and again if the objective is to address health concerns those concerns have never been demonstrated.

Your concerns about the safety of the food that Canadians eat are warranted and I share these concerns. Bill C-517, however, was not an effective piece of legislation to deal with these issues. The legislation, if passed would serve to only increase costs upon consumers, processors, and farmers, while providing no further assurance of food safety. During these times of rising food costs and an agricultural industry that is struggling to survive, this bill would only add to the financial burden of Canadians without any safety benefit.

Thanks again for sharing your concerns, if you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact my office.

Sincerely,
Glen Pearson, MP
London North Centre

Sources:
01. 2008/05/13 – AltLondon: …Paul Hubert supports…
02. 2008/05/13 – AltLondon: Why did…Glen Pearson…

Other Links:
2008/02/23 – FMBS: Pollution From Traffic Harms Children
2008/04/13 – FMBS: Vehicle Exhaust May Damage Your Brain
2008/05/12 – CoC: ‘Clean Air for Children’

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Reports from Alt-London”

  1. BBS Says:

    Bill C-517 was a Private Members Bill from a BQ member. Private Member’s Bills almost never go anywhere, and certainly not one from the BQ. Right or wrong, that’s the reality in our current system.

  2. Butch McLarty Says:

    Time to change that “reality” and vote on the merits of any Bill. After all, Saint Glen Pearson is always talking about transcending politics to do the right thing.

    Empty rhetoric?

  3. picard102 Says:

    Seems like reasonable responses. It’s a shame coller heads don’t also prevail at some websites atempting to report the news.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: