Bill C-28 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act

This enactment would amend the Food and Drugs Act to provide the Minister of Health with the authority to issue interim marketing authorizations for foods that contain certain substances at specified levels, and to exempt the foods from the applicable requirements of that Act and its regulations relating to the sale of those foods.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I understand from the member's question that he was obviously not at the last opposition House leaders' meeting where the entire agenda up to December 15 was laid out, including the seven opposition days to which he has referred.

In terms of background, I might also suggest to the hon. member that back in 1973 when there was a minority Parliament, the House opened on January 4 and all seven opposition days were held between March 5 and March 26. Back in 1979, when the House opened on October 9, opposition days started November 6. Opposition days clearly are the purview of the government to schedule. We have scheduled all of them for the opposition parties.

The House will continue this afternoon with the second reading of Bill C-54, the first nations oil and gas bill, followed by second reading of Bill S-38, respecting trade in spirits, and report stage and third reading of Bill C-28, the food and drugs bill.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-28 and if it is completed, we will proceed with second reading of Bill S-37, respecting the Hague Convention and Bill S-36, respecting diamonds.

Next week is the Thanksgiving break week and I wish all hon. members a very happy Thanksgiving.

When the House returns on October 17, we will consider second reading of Bill C-63, respecting the registration of political parties, followed by report stage and third reading of Bill C-49, the human trafficking bill, second reading of Bill C-65, the street racing bill, Bill C-64, the vehicle registration legislation, and report stage of Bill C-37, the do not call bill.

As the week continues, we will add to the list reference to committee before second reading of Bill C-50, respecting the cruelty to animals, Bill C-44, the transportation legislation, Bill C-47, respecting Air Canada, the reference before second reading of Bill C-46, the correctional services bill, and by the end of the week we hope to begin debate on the energy and surplus bills that are being introduced this week. There is also ongoing discussions about a take note debate that week.

As members can see, there is a heavy agenda and important legislation. As I said and as I laid out to the opposition House leaders at our previous meeting, in the post-Remembrance Day segment of this sitting, we will consider the business of supply and we hope to be in a position to deal with the final stages of many of these very important bills before the end of the year.

Bank Act

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague for his applause. But I would rather he held off until l am done with my presentation, in case he did not feel like applauding at all by then.

I also thank my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George for his excellent presentation. I will not repeat all the points he made about the government's mismanagement. He has covered the issue extensively. A government can hardly have the necessary credibility to impose new, stricter control rules on directors of public corporations when it is faced with all these scandals.

On the face of it, my colleagues and myself think that Bill C-57 is a good bill. It responds to a need. In 2001, if memory serves, this House passed Bill S-11, which dealt precisely with clarity and new rules for proper management and accountability by both shareholders and directors of public corporations.

At the time, we omitted to include certain financial institutions, such as banks, cooperative credit associations and insurance companies, as part of the federally chartered institutions. Now, Bill C-57 is completing the process by reforming the governance of federally chartered institutions. But it is not making any changes to monitoring rules.

I was listening to my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party who, together with other Conservative and Bloc members, has worked very hard on the Standing Committee on Finance to develop these new rules. I heard him suggest that this bill would shield us against Enron and WorldCom-type scandals. I do not think so, because the new rules govern the accountability of directors. No new rules were imposed to monitor the statements and corporations concerned. If there is one improvement that should be made following the work done at the finance committee, it is in that respect that it should be made. As far as we are concerned, we are not shielded in any way against Enron or WorldCom-type scandals.

The bill has its good points. It also relaxes the regulations on the exchange of information and on proxies, which is a very onerous procedure for banks, particularly cooperative credit associations and insurance companies. Furthermore, companies and shareholders are now allowed to do something they could not do before, which is communicate electronically and exchange information on the Internet. We must adapt to the new era of communication and this bill does just that.

The process by which information is disclosed to policyholders is also strengthened. I think this is a good thing. By doing so, we are making the underwriting of public companies more transparent.

The bill also attempts to increase director liability. We have questions about this. We will ask them during consideration in the Standing Committee on Finance and before the expert witnesses we intend to call. Since such bills are extremely technical, we need to call upon people in the field who worked under the old provisions and who may have an opinion about the new ones.

With regard to director liability, when such directors are taken to court, for example, there is a new defence. Previously, there was the defence of acting in good faith. A director was able to say, “Given what we were told, I made my decisions according to the information I had available”. Now, we want to adopt a new type of defence for directors, which is called due diligence.

We do not know just how far this new defence for directors can go. I think that it would be worthwhile to examine this issue in greater depth, particularly since there are strong hints of scandals every week. We saw it in Quebec, among other places, with the Norbourg affair. In order to protect shareholders, we need much more than a potentially meaningless concept, such as due diligence. We need directors who are liable and audit methods that prevent scandals similar to those we have seen in recent years and now.

These involve insider transactions, on which we can never be too vigilant or severe. This is a provision that could improve our control over such offences.

Then there is the matter of public holder requirement, which requires institutions with equity holdings between $1 billion and $5 billion to make at least 35% of their voting shares available for trading on the public stock exchange. We have a number of questions on exemptions from this provision as it relates to public financial institutions. Among other things, we are going to clarify the situation with the cooperatives, but it does seem a positive change.

If we have to work on this bill—as we will do with all possible seriousness in the Standing Committee on Finance—there are some questions we will assign importance to, including the need for clarifications on the amendments relating to insider trading. Will this really help to catch the guilty parties?

As well, we have some questions on the consequences of broadening the possible defences for directors, as I have said, under this new concept of due diligence rather than the former good faith. Not that the latter is being done away with, but due diligence is being added as a defence when directors come before the courts.

We also have some questions on the consequences of opening up the criteria for application for exemption from the requirement to float 35% of voting shares on a stock exchange. That was our objection four years ago in connection with Bill S-11 and it still is today: the bill gives no consideration whatsoever to small shareholders. We will try to improve this bill so that small shareholders have a say in decisions made by the directors and will be better treated than they are at present. It is, for instance, my intention to personally invite Mr. Michaud, dubbed “the Robin Hood of banking”, who is engaged in a pitched battle for those rights.

We are in favour of the bill in principle at second reading. We will be making some improvements and some clarifications during its examination in the Standing Committee on Finance.

Like my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, when he said that, as a public administrator, the government should set itself strict guidelines on liability, I remembered a debate that we have been having since 1994 and that may well reach its apex in the coming weeks, during an extraordinary session of the Standing Committee on Finance. Furthermore, we will have a debate this evening on a motion by my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier to abolish various corporate income tax regulations as they relate to the tax treaty with Barbados.

The state must be viewed as a big democratic company. This big democratic company has millions of shareholders: the taxpayers and citizens of Quebec and Canada. They are all shareholders in the state. If we draw a parallel between the public and democratic company called Canada and the regulations before us today, we see that some directors are not subject to the same rules that we want to impose upon the directors of crown corporations under Bill C-57. I am thinking, for example, of individuals who are in good position to apply double standards when it comes to calls for strict guidelines, liability, accountability, the elimination of conflicts of interest, and so forth. Some people who have worked for the Canadian state for a long time have used their status to get the governor in council and cabinet to amend tax laws and regulations so they can fill their pockets, as we say in Quebec. This was the case with the former finance minister and current Prime Minister.

I am often told, “Your approach is overly aggressive. You are always on the Prime Minister's back because of his shipping company, but it no longer belongs to him. It belongs to his children”. It is still a family business. And this is not aggression, but rather merely concern that all taxpayers be treated fairly.

What shareholders and company directors are being asked to do in this bill, the Prime Minister has not required of himself since 1994, not since he was named Minister of Finance and not since he became Prime Minister. He changed the rules of the game for international shipping corporations operating in international waters. The headquarters of Canada Steamship Lines International has been in Barbados since 1994, in other words since the tax regulations and related legislation were changed. At that time, an exception was made in the tax treaty with Barbados so that Canada Steamship Lines International would not have to pay taxes to Canada. The current Prime Minister changed the rules, taking advantage of his position as finance minister.

I would like to return to my example of Quebec, which is a large democratic corporation in which everyone is a shareholder. The Prime Minister has managed to save more than $100 million in taxes since 1998, thanks to provisions that he himself had passed. It was he who introduced Bill C-28 in 1998. And in 1994 there was the change to the tax regulations.

So he built a gilded cage for himself in order to fleece the shareholders in the democratic country of Canada. As a result, he has not paid more than $100 million in taxes since 1998. That hurts all the other shareholders, to draw a connection with Bill C-57. When they do not pay their taxes—he and other corporations that are structured similarly, that is to say, a consortium of shipping companies or other corporations headquartered in countries considered tax havens, especially Barbados—it is all the other shareholders who pay for the poorer returns of the democratic corporation known as Canada.

This evening we will have an opportunity to remind ourselves of this with the motion of my colleague from Portneuf. We are going to have a special session in November when we will fully expose the machinations of the current Prime Minister at the time he was Minister of Finance and built a gilded cage for himself. He made sure that Canada Steamship Lines and other similar companies, his friends, could take advantage of these tax loopholes. As a result, we are still paying taxes to Canada while he fleeced the Government of Canada out of about $100 million.

We are speaking about the responsibility of all citizens of this country. All the citizens are shareholders or company directors and should feel a certain amount of responsibility. For starters, when a person is Prime Minister and was finance minister for years, he or she should set an example. I think he set the wrong example. And we are going to prove it over the next few weeks.

I repeat that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill in principle. However, we are going to make some improvements to it. In regard to the other matter of the large democratic corporation in which we are all shareholders, we will be keeping an eye out and will shed light on the allegations that I have made.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay out the business for the next week.

We will continue this afternoon with Bill C-55, which is the wage earner protection program. Then we will proceed to the second reading of Bill C-57, the financial institutions bill, followed by second reading of Bill C-54, which is the first nations oil and gas and moneys management act.

Tomorrow we will consider report stage and, if possible, third reading of Bill C-25 respecting Radarsat. I understand as well that there are some ongoing discussions about the disposal of Bill C-63, amending the Canada Elections Act. We would also like to deal with Bill S-38 respecting the spirits trade and Bill S-31 respecting autoroute 30.

On Monday we propose to commence report stage of Bill C-11, which is the whistleblower bill. We would like to give this bill priority all week in the hope of completing all of the remaining stages.

We would then return to any business left over from this week and, if there is time, begin consideration of Bill C-44, the transport bill; Bill C-28, the food and drug legislation; Bill S-37, respecting the Hague convention; Bill S-36, the diamonds bill; and Bill C-52, the fisheries bill.

With respect to the business of supply during the present period, Mr. Speaker, I will reconfirm that you confirmed to the House that there will be seven allotted days during this period. In response directly to the opposition House leader's question, as per our discussion at the House leader's meeting this past Tuesday, we understood we would schedule the supply days after the Thanksgiving break.

In any event, it will be a topic that I look forward to discussing with House leaders at our meeting this coming Tuesday, so that we can in fact schedule all the required opposition days.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our principal legislative objectives continue to be Bill C-43, the third reading vote of which will take place after question period, and Bill C-48. The government believes these bills reflect public interest and the enactment of both of these bills is required before the House adjourns for the summer. As the hon. member mentioned, if the House does not pass Bill C-48, we will be here in July and August. Consequently, we will continue to give these bills priority until they are disposed of.

We will then consider report stage of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill; Bill C-25; Bill C-28; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act; Bill C-47; Bill C-53; Bill C-55, the bankruptcy bill; and Bill C-37, the do not call legislation.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion. I wish to designate Tuesday, June 14 as an allotted day, which means that the main estimates shall be dealt with that day.

Tomorrow we will begin report stage of Bill C-43, which is the first budget bill. This bill will be our priority until it is disposed of. When Bill C-48, the second budget bill, is reported from committee, it, too, shall be given our top priority.

There are discussions among the parties concerning the early disposal of Bill C-2, the child protection legislation; Bill C-53, the bill respecting proceeds of crime; and possibly Bill C-56, the Labrador-Inuit legislation.

The other pieces of legislation that we can anticipate debating in the next week are: Bill C-26, the border services bill; Bill S-18, the census legislation; Bill C-25, RADARSAT; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act amendment; Bill C-28, the Food and Drugs Act amendments; Bill C-37, the do not call legislation; Bill C-44, the transport legislation; and Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the weekly business statement, I said at that time that I would begin to schedule opposition days before the end of May and that is exactly what I have done. There are a number more to schedule.

Today and tomorrow, of course, are allotted days. I also wish to designate next Tuesday and next Thursday as allotted days.

When the budget bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 are reported from committee, they will certainly become our highest priority.

In the meantime, we will proceed with third reading of Bill C-22, the social development bill; report stage and third reading of Bill C-26, the border services legislation; second reading of Bill S-18, respecting the census; and Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act amendment.

We will then turn to report stage and third reading of bills that have been or are soon to be reported from committee. These include Bill C-25 respecting RADARSAT; Bill C-37, the do not call bill; Bill C-28, the food and drug legislation; and Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. If there is time during the next three weeks, we will also start to debate the legislation that has been introduced during the last few weeks.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member was attempting to show some civility. He has great difficulty in doing that.

After completing the debate on the budget bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, the House will take up third reading of Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill; Bill C-23, the human resources legislation; Bill C-22, the social development bill; and Bill C-26, the border services legislation.

We would also like to deal with the census bill, Bill S-18 and the RADARSAT bill, Bill C-25. If there is time, we would start Bill C-46, the corrections and conditional release bill; Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill; and Bill C-28, the food and drugs bill.

This list of legislation will carry the House well into the week of May 30, the week in which we return from the break.

In addition, three days that week shall be allotted days, namely May 31, June 2 and June 3. On May 31 the House will go into committee of the whole to consider the estimates of the Minister of Social Development.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the House because I know, and all members know, it is in the interests of Canadians to get this Parliament working on the issues that are important to them.

Committees of the House

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in, both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Health. Your committee has studied Bill C-28, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and has agreed to report it to the House without amendment.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and address this amendment to Bill C-30.

On January 12, 2001, a commission chaired by the Hon. Ed Lumley was appointed to study and make recommendations on compensation for members of Parliament. The Lumley commission tabled its report on May 29, 2001, and from that report came Bill C-28 which implemented the proposals in the report. In the report the commission remarked:

Parliamentarians' salaries are important, not just to the members of Parliament themselves but to all citizens; certainly, how we compensate members of Parliament can influence the ability to attract good candidates. Our democracy is based on Parliament's ability to mirror society's basic values and to respond to the needs of Canadians. In turn, Canadians ought to understand that parliamentarians need to be compensated fairly.

The commission recommended a number of changes and established stipends for members who take on certain parliamentary responsibilities, such as chairmen of committees and vice-chairs of those same standing committees. This amendment that we are discussing today reflects and is consistent with the recommendations from the Lumley commission's report.

Before adopting the recommendations from the commission's report, compensation for members who perform certain caucus roles, such as House leader, whip and leader of recognized parties, were already established. However, while there was compensation for the deputy whip of the official opposition, there was no compensation for the deputy House leader for the official opposition.

The reason for forgetting about the deputy House leader may be due to the fact that it is a fairly new position. Before the second world war there was no House leader, let alone a deputy House leader. At that time the Prime Minister managed the business of the House. The outbreak of the second world war caused the Prime Minister to be absent from the House, so he delegated the responsibility of managing the business of the House to one of his ministers, who did the job in addition to his other responsibilities.

As government became more complex, the job of government House leader likewise became more involved. That is why today we have a full time minister responsible for managing the affairs of the House, and that is why he has a deputy House leader and a parliamentary secretary to ably assist him. He is shadowed by me, the official opposition House leader, and I too am assisted by a deputy, currently the member for Calgary Southeast.

The senior House leader positions on the opposition benches evolved with compensation, but the deputy positions did not. Unlike the opposition whip and his deputy, which are positions that go back to the early days of the parliamentary system, the deputy House leader is a relatively new caucus officer. This amendment that we are debating today proposes to correct that omission, and to recognize the position and the hard work of the deputy House leader.

This amendment also recognizes the reality of the multiparty system that we have today in this chamber. We have the Bloc Québécois with 54 members and the New Democratic Party with 19. As much as some of us would like them to go away, they have not. Maybe some day, but until then they also have whips and House leaders, and their deputies should be recognized as well. However, if the Bloc Québécois is insistent and in fact opposed to this amendment that we are discussing today, then I feel that it would naturally follow that its deputy House leader, deputy whip and caucus chairperson will obviously refuse this extra stipend that was revealed in the amendment that is under debate. I would assume that since they are voting against it.

We also have a situation where chairmen of standing committees now receive compensation, but the caucus chairmen do not receive any extra compensation and we should be consistent. To be consistent, this amendment applies the salaries of existing positions to the ones covered by the amendment.

For example, the deputy opposition House leader would get the same compensation as a parliamentary secretary under this amendment. Deputies for the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party would receive the same compensation as vice-chairs of the standing committees. Caucus chairs for the government and the official opposition would receive the same as the chairs of standing committees of the House, and caucus chairmen of the other two parties would receive the same as vice-chairs of the standing committees. This is a straightforward and a defensible proposal.

My party will be supporting this amendment and the bill. Why will be supporting this legislation? Throughout my 12 years in the House of Commons, I have always maintained that members of Parliament should not be placed in the natural conflict of interest that arises when we have to debate and vote on our own personal remuneration. I am not aware of anywhere else where this happens. I have had many jobs in the private sector and in none of those jobs did I have the advantage of setting my own remuneration or my own perks such as my pension benefits. There is no defensible reason why we would have that here in the House of Commons.

That is why I support the government's initiative to tie any future increases in our salary to a cost of living index that would reflect the average increase received in the private sector, in the real world outside of the chamber. That is a commendable goal of the legislation.

As I said before, the Bloc Québécois does have a valid point. There is more than a touch of irony here. This same government made some very impassioned arguments a couple of years ago about why we needed to link our salary increases to something so that we did not have to set them. We were in agreement with that. The government chose to link them to increases given to judges. As the deputy leader and the House leader for the Bloc Québécois have already stated, there is more than a touch of irony here in the fact that the government did this a couple of years ago and is now arguing against it.

While I support the bill and the amendment, as I said in my question to the parliamentary secretary, I have always maintained that it is incumbent upon the government to defend why two years ago it felt our salary had to be linked to judges and now is being linked to this index in Bill C-30, which is a fairer system and much more defensible.

By extension, I believe that we should watch very carefully when the government brings forward legislation to enact an increase for judges. If an increase of say 1%, to reflect the cost of living index and the average increase that is reflected in the private sector, is good enough for members of Parliament then it should be good enough for judges. We will be watching that very closely.

I take the parliamentary secretary at his word that the government will bring this legislation forward. My predecessor and I have been calling upon the government to do this. We hoped it would bring Bill C-30 and the amendments to the Judges Act forward at the same time so that we could have seen both and seen that they were compatible.

That has not happened. The government has not seen fit to bring that forward at this time. I am looking forward to that when the time comes. I am also looking forward to the debate that will take place hopefully soon on third reading of Bill C-30 when I can once again express the official opposition's support for this legislation.

Civil Marriage Act

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak on this subject.

On February 1 the government tabled the civil marriage act in the House of Commons to extend the right to civil marriage to same sex couples and reaffirm the independence of religious institutions.

We began this process by acknowledging that this is a difficult issue for many Canadians, one involving personal beliefs and religious convictions. Canadians have responded overwhelmingly to the legislation, both in support and in opposition. They have asked many important questions that will inform the debate and I commend them for joining in the dialogue, for contributing their opinions and, of course, their concerns.

While I am personally predisposed to support a bill that provides equal access to civil marriage for all Canadians, I cannot do it if it fails to uphold religious freedom. We must ensure that the rights of the church are protected and, as I have said in the past, I will not extend my unequivocal support to a piece of legislation without first hearing the concerns of my constituents and participating in a constructive debate to address these concerns.

I trust that this process will allow us to discuss the bill's provisions for upholding religious freedom. I want to assure my constituents that the government has done all it can to protect and uphold these rights, and I am confident to move forward on this important issue.

One of the greatest challenges of being a member of Parliament is facilitating an agreement between groups with seemingly opposing points of view, all of which are fighting for the best interests of those concerned. This is the essence of democracy and the beauty of the Canadian way. We are a country that is defined by a plurality of cultures, beliefs and ideas, a country that has entrenched the principle of equality in our constitution and a country that is guided by these values.

It is my responsibility to uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in my work on behalf of the people of West Nova and all Canadians.

The charter states explicitly, “every individual is equal before and under the law”. Each and every Canadian, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law. The legislation would respect and defend the rights of all Canadians. We cannot be indiscriminate in our use of the law, choosing to protect the rights of some groups and failing to protect the rights of others.

Furthermore, we must abide by the charter to protect the rights of minority groups. One example that has been cited by my colleagues effectively demonstrates the progress that has been made to advance equality in the country. Until 1929, women were not considered persons under the law and were denied the right to vote. The Persons case is an example of the efforts of Canadians to achieve equality and justice for a group that was not formally recognized under the law. Times have changed, our beliefs have evolved and our laws must reflect significant changes in Canadian society, otherwise we undermine the values of our entire system.

Bill C-38 is based on draft legislation that was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada on July 17, 2003. In December the court expressed that the matter of fundamental equality under the Charter of Rights of Freedoms, same sex couples have the same right to civil marriage as do opposite sex couples.

The reference to the court reflects the government's view that we must allow for the broadest discussion possible, especially since we are talking about a proposed change to a significant social institution. Ultimately, Parliament has the final say on the issue, but the ruling of the court has determined the legal parameters by which our discussions must be guided and has ultimately allowed for a fully informed debate in the House.

We must agree, understand and express to Canadians that the only way we can do it in a meaningful way is to use the notwithstanding clause, if that is what we choose to do.

In my opinion, it is not a matter of using the notwithstanding clause to take away or diminish the rights of any individual but rather to uphold rights.

Many Canadians argue that we should, instead, pursue the option of civil union. However the Supreme Court recognized same sex civil marriage as constitutional and declared “civil unions are relationships short of marriage”. While civil unions would allow same sex couples many of the rights of a wedded couple, it is not marriage and is therefore less than equal. Only equal access to civil marriage will fully comply with charter equality guarantees.

The Supreme Court's ruling mirrored court decisions in Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Yukon. In these provinces and territories, the highest courts ruled that restricting civil marriage to opposite sex couples was unconstitutional under the equality provisions of the charter.

Therefore, Bill C-38 would make universal across Canada a right that is already accepted as law in eight jurisdictions, including Nova Scotia.

On September 24, 2003, Justice Heather Robertson of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ruled that the current law governing marriage in the province was unconstitutional and changed the common law definition of marriage to the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. This ruling has not been challenged. It has been 18 months and Nova Scotia has had no social upheaval , no change to the family and men are not becoming pregnant.

As a result of the court's ruling, the government moved forward and introduced the civil marriage act in the House. A non-marriage option, such as a civil union, would eventually be overturned by the court. Where we stand, we can either proceed with what we believe to be just and equitable or we can overrule the courts by using the notwithstanding clause and continue to do this every five years.

The Prime Minister has clearly stated that he will not use the notwithstanding clause. He will not deny Canadians their charter rights because we have worked too hard to build a modern, progressive nation that is respected around the world. We will never achieve a tolerant, inclusive society if we fall back on our values. This government believes in the charter and we will do all we can to defend it.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, my work as a member of Parliament is guided by our Constitution, of which the Charter of Rights is an integral part. I believe in the equality rights of Canadians and I want to ensure that this legislation fully protects the rights and freedoms of our religious institutions.

Of those who oppose Bill C-38, many do so in accordance with their religious beliefs and are fearful that the new bill may trump the rights of religious officials and institutions. I respect the opinion of those who oppose this legislation for religious reasons. We hold diversity in the highest regard and respect and tolerance are the glue that binds Canadian society. Out of respect for my constituents and for the position that I hold, I want to be certain that this legislation will uphold religious freedom.

In its response to the government, the Supreme Court declared “the guarantee of religious freedom in section 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs”. The government has stated, explicitly, that Bill C-38 respects the charter.

The Government of Canada is guided by the Constitution and the charter, and the church is guided by beliefs in tradition. The government's proposed legislation is about civil marriage as a legal institution and not religious marriage. To reiterate, the bill provides for equal access to civil marriage and preserves the rights of churches to decide who has access to religious marriage.

Therefore we have a guarantee that the bill would not affect religious freedoms and that no church, synagogue, mosque or temple can be forced to perform a marriage that goes against its religious beliefs. However we cannot stop there. We need to look beyond the guarantees and to consider the practical implications of this legislation.

Canadians want assurances that religious freedom will be protected. There is the concern that religious groups will be forced to rent spaces for the celebration of same sex marriages. Currently there is a case before the B.C. human rights tribunal in which a lesbian couple is claiming discrimination against a Catholic organization over its refusal to rent out the hall for a marriage reception. Some religious groups fear that if Bill C-28 passes there will be many more such cases.

The government has acknowledged that most situations involving religious freedoms would fall within provincial or territorial human rights legislation. As such, the outcome would depend on the specifics of the case. However the Supreme Court was clear that religious freedom is fully protected by the charter and that human rights tribunals must also consider how to protect fundamental freedoms.

The Supreme Court has stated that this ruling applies to other concerns of religious groups, such as being forced to rent sacred spaces for the celebration of same marriages and religious officials being forced to celebrate civil marriages.

In conclusion, I must say that, as both an Acadian and a francophone, when I am asked to use the notwithstanding clause to take rights away, I cannot. I would do so if it was to preserve the rights of our religious institutions.

I encourage all members of this House to support this bill, if only to refer it to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, which will hear testimony from the general public.

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2004

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Joliette on his excellent presentation. I have had the honour of working with him in recent years, in his capacity as the Bloc Québécois critic on finance. I can say that he has probably become—in spite of himself—an expert on tax havens. Still, unlike some other members of this House, he has never used them for tax evasion purposes.

As my colleague states, we are in complete agreement with Bill S-17, an act to implement an agreement, conventions and protocols concluded between Canada and Gabon, Ireland, Armenia, Oman and Azerbaijan for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion.

In fact, we are in favour of tax conventions with countries which have taxation systems similar to Canada's and Quebec's. That is the case with the conventions covered by Bill S-17.

But the same income must not be taxed twice, once when it is earned and a second time in the taxpayer's country of residence. That is only natural. Many tax conventions signed by Canada respect this principle.

The problems arise when Canada signs a tax convention with a tax haven. At that time, the tax convention makes it possible to avoid taxation entirely, and that is tax evasion. Believe it or not, Canada has signed such an agreement with Barbados, a recognized tax haven. As my colleague said, it has only 272,000 inhabitants but has become the third most popular destination for Canadian capital, behind the United States and Great Britain. This is no surprise when one sees the tax rates applied in Barbados.

In 1994, financial transfers from Canada to Barbados totalled $5 billion, a hefty sum. Less than 10 years later, in 2002, this amount stood at nearly $24 billion. That is nothing short of a 369% increase. The previous Auditor General, always ready to sniff out something fishy, and his successor both quite rightly denounced the danger tax havens pose to the Canadian tax base. Let us can take a closer look at this.

In 1992, the Auditor General brought the problem of tax havens to public attention for the first time.

A few years later, in 1996, the Auditor General raised the alarm again, stating this time that the results of Revenue Canada's program to combat it indicate that avoidance continues to pose a serious threat to the tax base.

The current Prime Minister, who was the finance minister back in 1996, responded to the report by saying, “the government is proposing to implement those recommendations swiftly and fully”. That was 1996, almost 10 years ago. The Liberal government has not acted on anything in that Auditor General's report.

In 1998, the Auditor General expressed concern for the third time about the growing use of tax havens and increasing number of bilateral income tax conventions. His report reads, and I quote:

—failure to take urgent action on these matters will severely limit Revenue Canada's ability to manage the risks to Canada's tax base that international transactions represent.

In 2001, the Auditor General raised for the fourth time the issue of tax havens. In his report of February 2001, he wrote, and I quote:

One of the biggest threats to the tax base lies in the international activities of Canadian taxpayers, particularly the use of tax havens.

Finally, the issue of tax havens was raised, for the fifth time, by the current Auditor General, who wrote in her December 2002 report:

Although Canada amended its rules in 1995, little has changed. Tax havens continue to attract Canadian money. For example, Statistics Canada reports that Canadian direct investment in Barbados has increased from $628 million in 1988 to $23.3 billion in 2001—over a 3,600 percent increase... Information provided to us by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency shows that in 2000, Canadian corporations received $1.5 billion in dividends from corporations in Barbados.

Another very instructive chronology demonstrates Canada's lack of action and this government's lack of ethics. Let us go back 1992 this time.

My colleague referred to Canada Steamship Lines, which then created CSL International. This is an empty shell that was incorporated in Liberia to take charge, on paper, of all CSL's international operations. CSL International does very little shipping. It is a holding company that owns businesses that do engage in shipping. At the time, it was possible to bring into Canada, tax-free, the profits generated by the Liberian subsidiary of a Canadian company.

In 1994, the current Prime Minister and then finance minister tabled his first budget. The date was February 22, 1994. At the time, he said he wanted to put an end to the use of tax havens, because some Canadian corporations were not paying enough taxes. Therefore, at the time, he wanted to take measures to prevent Canadian based corporations from using foreign affiliates to avoid paying taxes in Canada.

However, the budget implementation bill and the regulations that came into effect in 1995 left one loophole available: Barbados. So, in January 1995, CSL International moved to Barbados. On February 1, 2003, Pierre Préfontaine, the first vice-president of CSL International, confirmed to the CBC that the move had been motivated by the changes made to Canada's taxation rules.

In 1996, far from seeking means to stem the exodus of capital to Barbados by denouncing the convention with that tax haven, Canada encouraged the situation by signing a foreign investment promotion and protection agreement with Barbados on May 29, 1996. In 1996, while he was finance minister, the present Prime Minister introduced Bill C-69, the budget implementation bill proposing more flexible tax treatment for, oddly enough, international shipping companies. That bill died on the order paper when the election was called.

In 1998, the then finance minister and now PM, not having given up, introduced budget implementation Bill C-28, one of the clauses of which addressed shipping.

Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-33, especially since, as you know, it implements certain provisions of the 2004 budget, and this week we were unpleasantly surprised by what was in the 2005 budget. I will quickly address Bill C-33 and then broaden the debate to cover what the government announced both in 2004 and in 2005. We have noticed that, despite the election promises by the Liberals, the Prime Minister, Minister of Transport and other ministers in this government, there was nothing in this budget to address Quebec's concerns.

As I was saying, Bill C-33 implements provisions of the budget tabled on March 23, 2004. This bill is in three parts: one on the air travellers security charges, another on the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act for facilitating fiscal arrangements, and a third on implementing a series of amendments to the Income Tax Act.

I will not go into great detail about the first two parts. I will, however, note in passing that, from day one, we have condemned the air travellers security charge, the purpose of which is still unknown. This tax heavily penalizes the airlines, particularly regional airlines and people in the regions needing to travel by air regularly for business or even to obtain health care. Therefore, in our opinion, this tax was never appropriate. Under Bill C-33, it has been reduced. However, it should have just been axed.

As for the second measure, there is a community in the Charlevoix region that would like to take advantage of this. So, obviously, in keeping with tradition, the Bloc Québécois always supports the demands of the first nations when it is a matter of providing them with the means to ensure their own development. We are convinced that the first nations are able to manage their own destiny, particularly their economic destiny. So this will not pose a problem.

However, I want to mention one point in relation to the third part before I return once again to the main budgetary policies—when I say main, I mean the largest, not necessarily the most intelligent ones—in the recent budget.

I want to come back to the general anti-avoidance rule set out in the Income Tax Act, which targets misuse or abuse of the income tax regulations, tax treaties and all other federal legislation.

We are being led to believe that Bill C-33 closes an important loophole identified by the Auditor General with regard to tax evasion. In other words, the capacity of some taxpayers—be it a corporate citizen or an individual—to avoid paying taxes in Canada.

At first glance, this measure seems positive. It was a minimum. However, we are missing the main point, which is that, since the Liberals came to power, the Canadian government has constantly promoted tax havens, particularly its own, which is Barbados.

Since the Liberals came to power, direct investments by Canadians in Barbados has increased 400%. This is a small island of 270,000 inhabitants, which receives approximately $24 billion in direct investments from Canada each year. I wonder what kind of services or goods are produced in Barbados that require that level of direct investments.

I remind the House that Barbados is now the third destination in terms of Canadian direct investments, after the United States and Great Britain. It is strange that an island of 270,000 inhabitants is able to absorb $23 billion to $24 billion in Canadian direct investments. We are no fools. To a large degree, it is simply money sent to Barbados to avoid the responsibilities of all citizens in a democratic country, that of paying taxes to fund our collective tools.

Barbados is now Canada's tax haven. I think particularly of the business held by the sons of the Prime Minister, who greatly benefits from this. Last Spring, on Enjeux , we saw a program on CSL Inc. It was quite interesting to see, when cameramen and the reporter arrived at the headquarters of CSL, that it was a law firm with about 130 names of other companies. In fact, it is an empty shell that benefits from good tax treatment in Barbados, because it must be recognized as an international business corporation .

In this context, it pays 1% to 2.5% in taxes. What is very interesting in Barbados is that, contrary to all logic, the tax is regressive. For example, if your volume of business and your revenues are low, you will pay a 2.5% tax. However, the higher your volume of business and your revenues, the lower is your tax rate. Beyond a certain amount, your tax is only 1%.

Let us do an exercise here and assume that CSL International pays a 1.5% tax rate on its income, which is more or less the average, between 1% and 2.5%. Let us not forget that it is the holding company that owns the companies which, in turn, own the CSL ships that sail the seas. By figuring out, based on the information available to us, the sales that CSL International must make, that is a profit rate equivalent to the average for that industry, we were able to calculate that, over the five-year period from 1997 to 2002, CSL International saved over $100 million in taxes by using this scheme, namely the tax treaty between Canada and Barbados.

These savings of $100 million by CSL International were covered by the average taxpayers, by those who cannot escape their fiscal responsibilities. This scheme results in a heavier tax burden for the middle class. I gave the example of CSL International. As I said, at least $23 billion are invested in Barbados every year.

Banks also benefit significantly from this convention. Recently, I read a small paragraph in the Bank of Montreal's report to the effect that the bank had saved $500 million in taxes. As we know, this is one of the five major banks. Therefore, it is easy to assume that, together, Canada's major banks saved $2.5 billion in taxes. These figures are from the bank's annual report; I am not making them up.

This additional burden lands on the middle class. It explains, to a large extent, why we are being overtaxed by the federal government.

Under the tax treaty between Barbados and Canada, once CSL International has paid its taxes to Barbados, at a rate of 1.5%, it can take its revenues back to Canada without having to pay tax on them here in Canada.

There was a slight problem, though. Since 1972, if my memory serves me right, we have had regulations on what is called passive income, in other words income generated by investments that are not used for concrete economic activity. For example, if you put money in the bank, earned interest is an income that is taxable in Canada, just like dividends, even if it has been earned in Barbados. This was a problem for CSL International, because this corporation is a holding company which does not own ships, but owns companies who are the owners of ships. Thus, the dividends paid by these companies to CSL International were taxable in Canada, under the Income Tax Act because this was a passive income.

This government has been quite creative in finding a way for CSL International and a few other companies that benefited from this taxation amendment—there were only eight of them, I think—to bring their income back to Canada after paying taxes in Barbados and not to pay taxes in Canada. Section 5907(11.2)( c ) of the Income Tax Act was amended so that, in the international shipping industry, the airline industry and another industry I cannot remember right now, holding companies would be considered as the owners and operators of their subsidiaries.

In this case, the scheme went like this: CSL would be the operator of the ships that generate the income and profits of the subsidiaries, so that it could get the dividends from these companies without having to pay taxes.

The Income Tax Act was amended to meet the requirements of a few taxpayers, including CSL International which has, I would remind you, been under the ownership of the Prime Minister's son since 2003. What is rather incredible, however—everyone alive must know this by now—is that the sponsor of the changes, the sponsor of Bill C-28, is none other than the Prime Minister, finance minister at the time. It is pretty incredible, in a country presented as an exemplary democracy, for there to be such a blatant conflict of interest and for this government and the governing party not to be more scandalized by it.

We have spoken out on numerous occasions about it, and have been accused of demagoguery and everything else under the sun, but one fact remains: the present Prime Minister is the one who amended the Income Tax Act in order to enable a handful of taxpayers, eight or so, to benefit from a change allowing them to bring back their profits from Barbados, thanks to the tax law in that country and the tax convention Canada has with it, and to pay no Canadian income tax. That needs to be mentioned.

There is another really juicy tidbit, if I can call it that. When the Prime Minister was in the finance portfolio , he had to move CSL International's headquarters, which had been in Liberia, because there was U.S. government pressure after Bill Clinton was elected to tighten up the rules on tax havens. Overnight, Liberia lost its status as a jurisdiction with all manner of tax advantages.

So then the Prime Minister moved CSL International's headquarters from Liberia to Barbados. That was in 1995. In 1996, the then Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-28, although that was not its title at the time, with the provision I have referred to. It stipulated that a shipping holding company is considered to be the direct operator of the ships of its subsidiaries.

However, along came the 1997 election. We know that during Mr. Chrétien's time the mandates were very short. I was not here at the time; they say they were about three years. In 1997 we had an election, and the bill died automatically. The finance minister at the time, who is now Prime Minister, came back with the same Bill C-28 after the election. That was in 1998. At that point, there was a little problem. What about the years from 1995 to 1998? Those three years fell through the cracks. That could not be, so they made the law retroactive to 1995, the date CSL International moved to Barbados.

We are not fooled. While the general anti-avoidance rule is a step in the right direction, it is not the solution to the problem. If the government had a bare minimum of ethics, I think this situation could be corrected once and for all. It would improve the reputations of the Prime Minister, the Liberal Party and Canadian democracy as a whole. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding why this essential amendment is still being resisted.

However, as you know, the Standing Committee on Finance, spurred on by our two representatives on it, will begin studying this issue of the tax treaty with Barbados. I believe this debate is far from over. Let up hope that common sense prevails and that all taxpayers assume an equitable share of their responsibilities for financing of our collective tools.

I am coming to the budget introduced this week, on Wednesday in fact, by the Minister of Finance. Unfortunately, he has not corrected any of the elements missing from the 2004 budget. There is not one word about tax havens. I will not say any more about it. I think I have been sufficiently eloquent.

What was particularly shocking on Wednesday, and it was pointed out by a number of political observers, was that not only have the legitimate demands of the Bloc Québécois concerning the issues the budget should address been brushed aside, but the needs of Quebec have been completely ignored, as well.

The first thing the Bloc Québécois asked the government to correct was the fiscal imbalance. People are well aware of that. Some may call it financial pressures on the provinces, but the fact remains that the Speech from the Throne recognized there was a problem financially for the provinces. We would therefore have expected corrective measures from the government. Yet, there is nothing more than what was negotiated or imposed by this government in the past few months.

Let me give the example of Quebec for the current year. As hon. members know, the governing party in Quebec is a federalist party. So, I do not think that anyone will question the objectivity of the numbers.

The Government of Quebec has estimated at $3.3. billion the shortfall caused this year by the fiscal imbalance, from too much tax paid to Ottawa compared with its responsibilities and not enough fiscal room for Quebec compared with its responsibilities.

At the time the health accord was signed, in September, Quebec's share resulting from the negotiations was $500 million. This has to be put into perspective. Quebec's health budget is $20 billion. That is to say that $500 million is the cost of operating this system for just a few days. It is no great hardship, but that is what was agreed on in September.

Following the imposition of the equalization formula by this government before budget 2004 and the October meeting, Quebec will end up with an extra $300 million this year. So, for Quebec, this year, what was agreed on in September and what was imposed in October adds up to $800 million.

We need $3.3 billion. The shortfall for this year is $2.5 billion. These agreements have done little to correct the fiscal imbalance.

Given the multi-billion dollar federal surplus, we would have expected the government to do a little more, in its latest budget, towards correcting the fiscal imbalance. The Bloc Quebecois never asked for it to be corrected completely. We struck a committee, presided by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, to find solutions. It should have a report ready by June. We would have liked to see some kind of political effort to alleviate the financial pressures felt by the provinces.

But there is none. The government, sticking close to the books, gave $800 million to Quebec, instead of the $3.3 billion it needed.

We have been told there will be an $11 billion surplus for the coming years. What does the Minster of Finance do? Exactly what Mr. Manley did before him, and what the Prime Minister did when he was finance minister. He does a little arithmetic . He says he'll put $3 billion in the contingency reserve, and $1 billion in the economic prudence reserve. I have already asked Mr. Manley what the difference is between those two reserves. There is none. They are exactly the same. Their sole purpose is to hide the federal government's surplus.

As surpluses will keep increasing, $3 billion will be maintained for the contingency reserve and, over the years, the reserve for prudence will be beefed up by $2 billion, and then $3 billion, $4 billion, etc.

The result is that we are being told that for the next three years, there will be a $15 billion surplus. Where does that surplus come from? Three plus one equals four; three plus two equals five; three plus three equals six. If you remember your arithmetic, that totals 15. It is not any more complicated than that. This is a wholly arbitrary assessment.

Actually, it will be at least double that figure and these are numbers that come from private sector forecasters whom the Standing Committee on Finance heard. In fact, a summary assessment foresees $34 billion to $35 billion over the next few years. So the trick which has been used by this government for many years, when the Prime Minister was Minister of Finance, when Mr. Manley was there and now, with the current Minister of Finance, remains.

The real financial situation of the federal government is being covered up so as not to meet the needs of provinces, to financially strangle Quebec. This is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois, just as it is unacceptable to the Government of Quebec and to Quebeckers. Indeed, the latter issued a reminder to the Liberals last June 28. They will never accept a federal government continuing to strangle them like that.

I would have liked to talk about employment insurance, but I will have an opportunity to come back to that issue, hopefully, in the debate on the budget. I would have liked also to speak to social housing, for which there is absolutely nothing. As to tax cuts, it makes no sense at all. It is utterly absurd.

In closing, let me state again that if Quebec were sovereign, we would be able to collect all of our taxes, to make our laws, to make choices and to sign international treaties, and we would no longer talk about fiscal imbalance. That would be settled once and for all.

Food and Drugs Act

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, regulations that have no basis in legislation are a constant problem that only recently has been addressed in any significant way.

Often when legislation is made, the regulations that allow for the implementation and enforcement of the law are made after the fact, by the relevant department or ministry. Essentially, Parliament confers upon the minister the power to create regulations, provided they do not exceed the parameters of the legislation. What often happens, however, is that the lengthy and convoluted process required creating regulations results in regulations that are technically not legal. Powers that have not been conferred by law are given through regulation to the minister.

Not only does this situation violate the supremacy of Parliament, it effectively allows law to be made without any accountability or oversight. While some irregularities are due simply mistakes, others are deliberate attempts to ignore the intent and alter the outcome of legislation.

The Standing Joint Committee of Scrutiny of Regulations is responsible for the line by line analysis of regulations. It is charged with the often thankless and tedious task of ensuring that regulations made outside of Parliament adhere to the intention and letter of the legislation made by members of Parliament.

Thanks to the rare passage of a private member's bill, Bill C-205, in 2003, which may I add, was the result of the hard work of its sponsor, the Conservative member from Newton—North Delta, Parliament now has greater powers to ensure that law by regulation is curtailed.

The Standing Joint Committee of Scrutiny of Regulations was given the power to disallow any regulations made pursuant to authority delegated by Parliament. Canada's elected officials now have a greater ability to ensure that Parliament, and not unelected bureaucrats, have the ultimate law-making authority. Democracy has been strengthened.

The bill is the direct result of five years of pressure by the Standing Joint Committee of Scrutiny of Regulations on Health Canada. The irregularity of the regulation was first pointed out in 1999, and it is only now, after years of resistance, that the department has finally brought the bill forward.

The bill is an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act. Currently, a regulation allows the direct, in this case the deputy minister of health responsible for health products, to issue notices of interim market authorizations. The regulation gives the director administrative discretion that exceeds the legislative authority granted by Parliament to the governor in council. In other words, the regulation contradicts the authority of the original legislation. The bill seeks to correct this discrepancy.

The regulation was created in 1997, and since that time 82 interim market authorizations have been made. Because the regulation violates the legislation to which it applies, all these authorizations have technically been illegal.

The amendment seeks to fix this irregularity by giving the minister the authority to make interim market authorizations. The bill also seeks to exempt any food that contains an agricultural chemical at or below a limit specified under the new Pest Control Products Act. Those foods containing safe levels of substances can be sold because their sale poses no harm to consumers.

Interim market authorizations are made to allow, by providing exemptions from the Food and Drug Act's requirements, the sale of foods that contain substances at or below specified levels. This will allow Canadians faster access to food products. The bill applies to the immediate sale of food products that contain pesticides, veterinary pharmaceuticals, added vitamins, minerals and amino acids at or below the specified maximum limit.

This bill is not creating from scratch a new practice, but is simply making legal or enshrining in law a practice that has been taking place for years.

The Conservative Party supports this amendment because regulations that violate the letter and/or the intent of the law should not be tolerated. Any action that eliminates irregularities should be encouraged.

We also support the writing into law of interim market authorizations. As long as the safety of Canadians is accounted for, there is no reason that food and other products should not be allowed for sale if the substances they contain do not exceed the specified safety levels.

These measures allow Canadian food producers and manufacturers to quickly bring their products to market, increasing their ability to compete. Canadian consumers also benefit by gaining quicker access to new and modified products.

Like other smart regulations, interim market authorization creates a level playing field for Canadian business especially within the U.S. market. Currently the U.S. government allows food products in the approval stage to be marketed, given that they are not harmful or restricted by other laws.

That being said, caution is needed. Although interim market authorizations have been common practice since 1997 supposedly without incident, this is not to say that unsafe food products have not been prematurely authorized for sale. Not only might their sale pose a health risk, but the government may be liable for damages in the event of unsafe food causing problems.

Interim market authorizations are necessary and welcome, but must be used only when it is known beyond a doubt that whatever substance is in a food product is at or below an already approved safe level.

In summary, Bill C-28 is a corrective measure to bring an existing regulation into line with the legislation to which it applies.

We want to reduce the number of regulations that contradict the authority of the legislation. This will take years, but it is a necessary undertaking worth the effort. We support this change as a small step toward better laws and better law making.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, as my colleague from Halifax has said so aptly, the government argued at the time that the drug companies could monitor the drugs themselves.

Even more ridiculous was the suggestion that the universities could do it, even though they were not given any resources to do the task. That was all just a charade. In the end, no one took up the job of the bureau that was closed down in 1997. Since that time, we have had a steady onslaught of other developments that have put us on a path of destruction of our health protection system.

Let us look at the developments around the food research laboratory and the treatment of some of the scientists who raised concerns in that area. Let us look at the veterinarian drug research bureau and the abuse scientists took when they raised concerns. At every step, whenever concerns were raised about the safety of any of these products, rather than accepting that advice and further investigating the problem, the government got rid of the scientists and shut them down.

I am sure members will remember Shiv Chopra and Margaret Hayden, two outspoken scientists. What happened to them? The government got rid of them because they were a thorn in its side. Whenever there are obstacles put in front of a government that is determined to off-load responsibility and move toward to a self-regulating model on the part of the industry, it gets rids of the obstacles, the problems and the barriers.

Scientists have been threatened and intimidated. Some have been fired and demoted. There has been a steadfast erosion of the essential ingredients of a good health protection system.

What we want to know today is why we are not hearing from the government and receiving legislation about its statutory obligations under the Food and Drugs Act to protect the health and well-being of Canadians beyond a reasonable doubt. Why are we not hearing about its statutory duty to protect health and not to protect the industry?

Why are we dealing with a bill that appears to give power to the minister, which he did not have previously, to give interim market authorizations for products that contain hazards that are believed not to be harmful to human health? What does that mean? Why does the minister need this kind of power? Why has that power been removed from the normal workings of the department's responsibility, which is to uphold the Food and Drugs Act?

Why are we moving this power from the bureaucratic level, the level of public service scrutiny, to the minister and political oversight? What does that mean? What is the real agenda here? Does it give the government more power to intervene when lobbied and pressured to approve a certain product? Does it take us a step away from objective, scientific surveillance of our food supply? Those are important questions that need to be addressed in the context of the bill.

It is certainly one of the reasons why we in the New Democratic Party are very cautious about giving our support to the bill. At this point we will refrain from supporting it and will be looking for some explanation and accountability over these issues when the bill goes to committee. However, at this point, it would be very foolish for us to support such a bill given the track record of the government and given some of the speculation about the real motives behind it.

If the minister, through the bill, has the power to exempt certain hazards in our food supply from regulation, who does that serve? What is the purpose? Will it help enhance the health of pregnant women? Will it be good for children? From my vantage point, it seems that this kind of move, along with all the others we have seen over the years, means it is something that is only good for agri-business, the chemical industry and the giant food industry. It does not seem to be a move that would help ensure Canadians are further protected from hazardous pesticides and other additives in our food supply and products.

When we opened the paper today, we saw news about another example of problems with our food supply. Surely that would give us all cause to pause and reflect upon the intentions behind Bill C-28 and the interest of the government to take a proactive stance on behalf of Canadians.

My colleague from Elmwood—Transcona raised a question about today's news. It is scary for Canadians, for pregnant woman or women who are breastfeeding their children to hear that basic products we consume every day, such as salmon, ground beef, cheese and butter, are laced with chemical flame-retardants. The fact these filter into the food supply that goes from mother to baby is surely something the government would want to address and act on decisively and immediately.

However, what did we hear from Minister of Health today? It is being studied. They are looking into it. They cannot comment. How many times have we heard that over the last 10 years when the government has been confronted with issue after issue of food toxicity and of hazardous ingredients in our food supply? The list is quite endless.

I can think about dozens of times I stood in the House to ask the health minister about a particular study showing further damaging ingredients in the food supply. I can remember raising the issue of lead in raisins, mercury in fish and honey, contaminated lettuce, recalled hot dogs, imported raspberries, pressure-treated wood, side effects of Propulsid, brain tissue transplants, Carbadox, the reuse of medical devices, adverse drug reactions, Dursban pesticide, phthalates in plastics and when chewed on by babies causes serious problems in development, chronic wasting disease, BSE, GMOs, et cetera. The list is endless.

Every time there has been evidence of serious adverse effects on human health because of one of these products being digested or ingested by human beings is showing a direct link to ill health and serious health problems, the government has said that it will study it. It never comes back and says that it has studied it and fixed the problem, or that it has banned the product, or that it has taken it off the market or has phased it out. It studies and studies but does not nothing about these kinds of issues. That is a symptom of what has happened with the government in terms of the Food and Drugs Act and specifically in terms of the health protection responsibilities of the department.

The government has a criminal responsibility under the Food and Drugs Act to ensure that the food we eat is safe beyond a reasonable doubt. It is legislation that falls under the Criminal Code. It is legislation that requires the government to take it seriously and to act judiciously.

We are very skeptical about the bill and are concerned about the real intentions of the government. We would like some explanation as to why the bill is necessary at this time. We would like to know the long term plans of the government. For many months the government has said that it plans to overhaul the Food and Drugs Act. It has said that we are dealing with antiquated legislation and that it needs to be updated and modernize. Every time we see draft legislation in that regard, we realize this is not about updating old legislation. It is about using that as the excuse to change the very nature of government regulations and government responsibilities in the area of human health and well-being.

Every step of the way the government has found a way and is intent upon finding a way to diminish its responsibilities, to offload them wherever it can and to ensure that it is not held responsible for any wrongdoing or serious problem in our society today pertaining to our food supply. Perhaps that comes from the hepatitis C fiasco. Perhaps the blood scandal and the Krever inquiry have made the government aware of its responsibilities. Perhaps it has chosen to go in the opposite direction of the recommendation of Krever, which is for government to recognize that there is a fundamental role for it. It has a major responsibility to ensure that the food we eat is safe beyond a reasonable doubt.

When there is evidence of an adverse reaction, or of toxicity, or of contaminants, or hurting the health of a baby, or certain foods being adjusted that affect pregnant women, it is the role of government to put on hold the sale of that product or to ban it if the evidence is conclusive. To do nothing is to be negligent, some would say criminally negligent given the Food and Drugs Act. I will use the words negligent and derogation of duty. The Food and Drugs Act is so specific and clear about government's responsibility and roles.

We could argue for weeks on end about what the appropriate role of government is in this modern age, this new era of globalization and rapid technological change. Some will argue that the least government is the best government. However, many of us in the House and across Canada still believe that there is a clear role for government in many areas, none more important than when it comes to human health. We on this side of the House cannot accept any legislation that contributes to an agenda where the role of government in this vital area is diminished and where the authority is passed along the line to industry and individuals to be aware, without much information about what they are eating, drinking and the dangers to their health and well-being.

That is our position today. We are very concerned about Bill C-28 and the overall intentions of the government to carry out its responsibilities for protecting the health of Canadians. We are anxiously awaiting some explanation for the government's actions in the days ahead as the bill proceeds to committee and beyond.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a few minutes to address the contents of Bill C-28 and to raise some concerns that we in the New Democratic Party have with respect to the bill and the general approach of the government.

The Liberals in the House would have us believe that the bill is a very small technical matter that would simply clarify matters with respect to interim marketing authorizations and in dealing with the very specific issue of authority for those authorizations.

It is our view that the bill may represent a step in the direction of further deregulation in the vital area of protecting Canadians from any hazards in our food products.

Some may say that is a bit of a leap and may wonder why we are raising concerns in the context of the bill. The House may be interested to know that the government has been working overtime to dismantle, erode and get rid of the Food and Drugs Act.

How many times have we dealt with issues pertaining to the Food and Drugs Act? How many times have we been faced with decisions by the government that seek to move us in a very questionable area pertaining to the health and protection of Canadians? That is the issue at hand today.

There is a fundamental issue. What is the plan of the government? How does the bill fit in terms of the overall strategy of Liberals to dismantle what used to be considered a very reputable and solid health protection system.