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.

Food and Drugs Act

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again in this House to discuss another health bill. Health is a very important subject to me. I am particularly interested in it because I know just how important and necessary health is to living with dignity.

Although Bill C-51 is very important and long overdue, although we have been calling on the government to review the whole issue of medicines, drugs and therapeutic devices for a long time, and although we have called on the government to do so a number of times, we will vote to send this bill to committee to be thoroughly examined. As my colleague said earlier, and as our other colleague who worked on the health file a long time said, this is much too important to let a few people decide the fate of thousands of human beings, Canadians and Quebeckers, who will rely on our decisions to keep them in good health.

A few things in this bill, or at least the draft we received, worry me. I am almost positive that some things worry a number of my colleagues as well. For example, the bill states that the Minister of Health would have the authority to pre-approve health products that have not yet received final approval. That worries me. It gives a lot of power to a minister, to one individual.

Bill C-28, which was passed a few years ago, had the same provisions for other products, such as pesticides. I do not know what became of that act, if the Minister of Health has had the opportunity to grant special permission to companies to put pesticides on the market before they should be. However, recently, pesticides have been found to be very hazardous to our health, to the health of our children and young people, whom we thought were safe playing outside during the summer. We thought that Health Canada had taken all the precautions to ensure the products were healthy, safe, and harmless.

If we are going to give the Minister of Health that much power, we have to make sure that we provide a strong framework for exercising that power in this bill. We have been hearing about amending the terms. These days, with so many advances in biotechnology and life sciences, we agree that we need to ensure that our health and health products legislation reflects these new realities. People with specific needs, such as those with HIV, might benefit from new experimental drugs. These drugs should be made available to them as quickly as possible, because in many cases, it is a matter of life or death.

Although we recognize the importance of reviewing the entire Food and Drugs Act, we want to be absolutely sure that the act contains provisions to ensure that the health of our fellow citizens will be taken into account responsibly.

There are some other things about this bill that bother me, and once again, I am sure that my colleagues from Québec and Verchères—Les Patriotes will see to it that these things are considered and debated by the Standing Committee on Health and that the people who have something to say about it will be invited to testify before the committee.

There is more to this than inviting experts in pharmaceuticals, doctors, parliamentarians, and departmental officials to debate this bill. The people this will affect—groups representing patients, hospitals and pharmacists—must be involved and consulted to develop the most comprehensive bill possible for health and therapeutic products.

There is something else in this bill that I am worried about. As my colleague said earlier, “therapeutic product” means

(a) a drug,

(b) a device,

(c) cells, tissues or organs that are distributed or represented for use in

(i) the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of a disease, disorder or abnormal physical state, or its symptoms, in human beings or animals, or

(ii) restoring, correcting or modifying the body structure of human beings or animals or the functioning of parts of the bodies of human beings or animals, or

(d) a combination of two or more of the things referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c);

A few years ago, there was an epic battle over breast implants. At the time, breast implants fell into the category of specialized medical devices. Now they are in with therapeutic products. It was already very complicated and we did not have much information on the ingredients and the safety of breast implants. Now they are being put in with all therapeutic products or devices.

When they talk about cells, are they talking about stem cells? What are they talking about? When they talk about tissue, are they talking about the new grafts that can be made with one’s own tissue? There clearly need to be a lot of very apposite, very transparent rules on this.

I think that the health minister would have far too much power. The bill says that the health minister would have the power to modify the regulations. That is saying a lot because all the definitions in this bill are basically regulations. The health minister would have the ability, therefore, to change the regulations without coming before Parliament. That is very serious and we should be very worried about it.

There are also things that the minister could change not just in the regulations but also in regard to product labelling, purity standards, the way in which clinical trials are conducted, and the exemption of various products from the legislation.

I think that this means giving a tremendous amount of power to the man or woman holding the position of health minister. It means giving an awful lot of power to someone when we know we do not presently have a health minister who is very far to the left or very suited to making such decisions. After all, what is at stake here are the lives of our fellow citizens.

I am very concerned when I see a Minister of Health rise to vote against a motion asking Canada to recognize and abide by its commitment, as it has always done, to people sentenced to death in other countries. I am still very concerned about that. I thought that health ministers were supposed to be worried about the health of people and their survival.

It makes me wonder when I see that and then see a bill giving these people so much power. As a citizen, first of all, and as a user of medications and therapeutic products, I have a right and duty to wonder about these things. Do we really want to give one person the authority to approve a medication that has not been proven so that it can be marketed more quickly because it supposedly has more benefits than adverse side effects?

We saw this with Celebrex. It is still on the market because it supposedly has a greater upside than downside. However, people died of it before we knew why. We often see that. We did not use to see any advertising for drugs in Quebec and Canada. Under this legislation, though, there are some grey areas, some aspects that are incredibly hazy, and we could see more and more advertising. I am also very concerned about that.

To relax, we probably all watch television in the evening when we get home. In the course of the evening—in the space of maybe two hours—we will see at least two or three ads for Viagra or Cialis. That is what we see. To my way of thinking, these are drugs. Why is it that we see these ads when they are supposed to be prohibited? Various television stations agree to run them because Health Canada does not do any monitoring to determine whether various companies' and pharmaceutical firms' ads meet the criteria, which are, or were, clearly set out.

Now, with this new bill, the criteria would be much less clear. Pharmaceutical firms would have much more freedom and latitude to promote their products. This worries me. Many people are influenced by advertising messages. Our Conservative friends keep telling us that we are wrong, we are crazy, we are not listening, we do not understand, we will never accomplish anything, we are impotent. They know that repeating a message drives it home. In the same way, people who watch television are influenced by repeated messages: “Cialis will make you happy”, “Alesse will make you happy”, “This will make you happy”. We come to believe these statements and we ask our doctor for a prescription, even if we do not need the drug. We ask for the drug because it looks so wonderful to be able to skip down the street singing and arrive home to be greeted by our smiling wife. We want the same treatment.

We will have to be very careful about the decisions we make regarding this bill. While we agree that it should be referred to committee, I can assure the House that we will do our duty responsibly and make every effort to amend the clauses that could result in harm to the health of Quebeckers and Canadians.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

moved that Bill C-378, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations (drug export restrictions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to discuss with my colleagues from all parties Bill C-378, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations (drug export restrictions), although I wish that I did not have to do this bill again. It would have been very simple for the government to deal with this during the prorogation and actually make this bill unnecessary, but it still refused to act.

My bill is aimed at controlling the cross-border trade in prescription drugs and vaccines. The bill would amend the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit the export of drugs set out in schedules D and F to the Food and Drug Regulations, vaccines and prescription drugs, except as permitted under the regulations.

The bill would make it an offence under the Food and Drugs Act to export prescription drugs in prohibited circumstances. By amending the Food and Drugs Act, the legislation will protect Canadians.

My bill is constructed to protect the Canadian pharmaceutical supply from being bulk-exported south of the border. There is such a large price differential between American and Canadian pharmaceutical prices that there is great pressure on the U.S. at this time to import cheaper drugs from Canada.

With over 35 million members, AARP is the leading non-profit, non-partisan membership organization for people aged 50 and over in the United States. It wields an enormous amount of power and is at this time launching a very major communication initiative.

However, during my meeting with the organization in Washington in the spring, it was clear that its real intention was not to import pills from Canada but to import prices from Canada and to make Americans very angry that they were paying too much for brand name prescription drugs.

Let me put it plainly: Canada cannot become America's discount drug store. Canada needs to protect itself from the dramatic expansion of importation by the U.S. of drugs intended for our patients.

The prospect of the U.S. legalizing large-scale purchases from our domestic supply is real. In fact, every Democratic Party presidential candidate is in favour of importation legislation.

The threat to Canada's drug supply increased on January 10 of this year after some U.S. politicians stepped up their efforts to facilitate bulk imports of prescription drugs from Canada with the introduction of the pharmaceutical market access and drug safety act of 2007.

The legislation was introduced by Senators Dorgan and Snowe and Representatives Emanuel and Emerson, who are co-sponsoring the companion house legislation. The legislation, which has the backing of key U.S. Democrats and Republicans, would allow individuals to directly order medications from outside the U.S. It would allow U.S. licensed pharmacists and wholesalers to import FDA-approved medications from a number of countries, including Canada.

In May, senators both approved the measure and then voted to require U.S. health authorities to certify drug imports were safe. Since the U.S. federal drug administration already had made it clear that it would not provide certification, the bill was dead on arrival.

However, on Wednesday, the U.S. Senate adopted U.S. Senator David Vitter's drug reimportation amendment to the U.S. Senate labor, health and human services and education department appropriations bill. In addition to foot traffic, Vitter's amendments would also allow mail order and Internet importation for Canada.

Several steps remain in the U.S. Congress before such a bill is signed into law, but influential lawmakers are on the march on this issue. It is like a voodoo from a video game: it just will not be killed.

In addition, the House budget office has recently completed a budgetary impact analysis demonstrating the savings that would follow the adoption of importation legislation. The announcements will give additional incentives to pass legislation in the context of the budget negotiations.

Any of these measures pose an imminent and serious threat to the security and integrity of Canada's drug supply and a genuine threat to the health of Canadians. It may have been good short term politics, but it is terrible long term policy.

American seniors are rightfully outraged by the high prices of pharmaceuticals in their country, but outsourcing price controls is not a responsible approach. In Canada, we have addressed price control with the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which regulates drug prices to ensure that the prices of patent-protected brand name drugs are not excessive.

Canada has regulated drug prices for the past 15 years. The United States does not have a similar control mechanism and the problem is exacerbated by U.S. drug companies spending millions of dollars every year to defend their higher prices.

Every year U.S. drug companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on political influence, including lobbying, campaign donations, and extensive ad campaigns to defend their high prices and fight against price control. The American drug industry employs over 600 lobbyists in Washington alone, more than one for every member of Congress. This system drives U.S. prices even higher.

Another important difference between the Canadian and American systems is the regulation of advertising.

Prescription drug advertising is one of the most controversial practices in the American pharmaceutical industry. During the first nine months of 2002, American pharmaceutical companies spent over $6 billion promoting their products to physicians and consumers. This kind of advertising drives prices up and is prohibited in nearly all other western countries.

In Canada, the therapeutic products directorate strictly regulates prescription drug advertising.

I would also like to discuss how drug importation legislation represents a threat to American patients by allowing relinquishment of necessary community-based medication monitoring and management at increasing risk for potential counterfeit drugs.

The incidence of counterfeit drugs is small, but is growing in developed nations. The recent tragic death of a British Columbia resident, determined by a coroner to have been caused by counterfeit medicine in her possession, serves as a reminder that North America is not immune from this global phenomenon.

The counterfeiting of medicines is an issue that threatens the quality and integrity of Canada's drug supply, a problem that will be greatly exacerbated if U.S. drug importation legislation is passed into law without a clear and effective Canadian prohibition on bulk drug exportation.

I was pleased to see the public safety committee's report, entitled “Counterfeit Goods in Canada--A Threat to Public Safety”, which included this recommendation:

--that the Government of Canada institute a campaign to raise awareness of counterfeit and pirated goods to make the public aware of the economic and social costs associated with this scourge, and emphasize the public health and safety hazards they represent. The campaign should also raise Canadians' awareness of the involvement of organized crime in the counterfeiting and piracy of goods.

Internationally, the WHO is very concerned about counterfeit drugs. The WHO has struck the international medical products anti-counterfeiting task force, tasked with increasing international collaboration to combat counterfeiting.

I would also like to point out that allowing bulk prescription drug imports would not significantly reduce U.S. prescription prices for very long.

Even a recent University of Texas study concluded, based on the worst case scenario, that Canada's stocks of prescription drugs would amount to about a 38-day supply for the United States, assuming all U.S. medications were Canadian sourced. Once U.S. demand depletes Canadian stocks, prices will almost certainly rise, narrowing or even possibly eliminating the difference between U.S. and Canadian pharmaceutical prices.

Some may argue that Canadians should just increase manufacturing of pharmaceuticals to meet the U.S. demand.

Canada's innovation-focused pharmaceutical industry develops, manufactures and distributes drugs designed to meet the needs of Canadian patients and the Canadian market. It bases its production on the size of the population and the incidence of the illness or condition to be treated.

Manufacturers produce sufficient prescription drugs to meet the expected national demand. Consequently, if one country imports its prescription drugs from another, it diminishes the exporting country's stock of drugs to meet the needs of patients in that country.

Labelling regulations also differ from country to country. As a result, prescription drugs produced for the American or South American markets cannot just be sent to Canada to meet an unexpected need.

Given the complexity of calculating annual estimates of the needs of Canadian patients, not to mention the management by drug companies of their inventory to respond to patients' needs, it is unrealistic to think that products manufactured for Canada could meet American demand.

Cross-border trade is not only detrimental from a public policy perspective, it is almost virtually impossible to do. I would like to underline again that Canada cannot meet the prescription drug needs of approximately 280 million Americans without putting our own supply at risk.

Take, for example, the events during the fall of 2005, when in November Roche Canada took the unprecedented step of suspending sales of Tamiflu to the Canadian market. There were reports that Internet pharmacies were busily filling foreign prescriptions at a significant profit. One B.C. pharmacy alone was reported filling 400 orders a day from the U.S. That is a significant number, when according to the Canadian Pharmacists Association only 4,000 Canadians received that drug that September. Another Internet pharmacy in Montreal issued news releases promoting to U.S. customers its Tamiflu stocks.

The Canadian Pharmacists Association reacted to the Tamiflu incident by saying that the government should have acted to protect the country's supply of the drug. Again, when supply gets siphoned off to the U.S., it is Canadians who come up short.

This situation is a perfect example of the types of scenarios Canadian patients will face if Canadian governments continue to allow drugs to be diverted to the U.S.

This is not an issue unique to North America. In April of this year the European Union passed resolution 31 stating:

Is concerned about the intention of the US Congress to authorise parallel imports of medicines from the EU Member States, that may create obstacles to the EU patients' supply and favour counterfeiting of medicines; asks the EU, therefore, to raise this issue at the forthcoming Summit;

I would also like to take the opportunity to commend my colleague, the member for Vancouver South, who in 2005, when he was health minister, anticipated this problem and put forward legislation, Bill C-28, in order to reach consensus in the House. Unfortunately, an election was called before the bill went forward.

Current Canadian policy is to use only reactive measures and seek to manage shortages once they have already occurred. This is not enough and it may well be too late.

The issue of bulk exports to other countries of medicines and vaccines destined to Canadians should be an issue of concern to all of us. It is of particular interest to the Canadian Pharmacists Association and the Ontario Pharmacists Association.

I believe the passage of Bill C-378 is essential to protect the supply and integrity of prescription drugs here in Canada and will send a strong message to our American colleagues of the futility of their shortsighted legislative initiative.

I urge all colleagues to support my private member's bill, Bill C-378, or to call upon the government to make it unnecessary.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

moved that Bill C-378, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations (drug export restrictions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to discuss with my colleagues from all parties Bill C-378, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations (drug export restrictions).

My bill is aimed at controlling the cross-border trade in prescription drugs and vaccines. The bill would amend the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit the export of drugs set out in schedules D and F to the Food and Drug Regulations, Vaccines and Prescription Drugs, except as permitted under the regulations.

The bill would make it an offence under the Food and Drugs Act to export prescription drugs in prohibited circumstances. By amending the Food and Drugs Act, the legislation will protect Canadians.

My bill is constructed to protect the Canadian pharmaceutical supply from being bulk exported south of the border. There is such a large price differential between American and Canadian pharmaceutical prices that there is great pressure on the U.S. at this time to import cheaper drugs from Canada.

With over 35 million members, AARP is the leading non-profit, non-partisan membership organization for people age 50 and over in the United States. It wields an enormous amount of power and is at this time launching a very major communication initiative.

However, during my meeting with the organization in Washington during the break week, it was clear that its real intention was not to import pills from Canada, but to import prices from Canada and to make Americans very angry that they were paying too much for brand name prescription drugs.

Let me put it plainly. Canada cannot become America's discount drug store. Canada needs to protect itself from dramatic expansion of importation by the U.S. of drugs intended for our patients. The prospect of the U.S. legalizing large scale purchases from our domestic supply is real.

The threat to Canada's drug supply increased on January 10, after some U.S. politicians stepped up their efforts to facilitate bulk imports of prescription drugs from Canada with the introduction of the pharmaceutical market access and drug safety act of 2007. The legislation was introduced by Senators Dorgan and Snowe and Representatives Emanuel and Emerson, who are co-sponsoring the companion house legislation.

The legislation, which has the backing of key U.S. Democrats and Republicans, would allow individuals to directly order medications from outside the U.S. It would also allow U.S. licensed pharmacists and wholesalers to import FDA approved medications from a number of countries, including Canada.

In May senators both approved the measure and then voted to require U.S. health authorities to certify drug imports were safe. Since the U.S. federal drug administration has already made it clear that it will not provide certification, the bill was dead on arrival. The House of Representatives is set to debate a similar measure soon, but few expect things to change.

However, Representative Emerson has stated that she is committed to finding a way to make this legislation happen. Because it is unlikely the legislation will get through the house and energy committee, we believe she is looking to attach drug importation to another bill. Furthermore, dozens of U.S. jurisdictions at state and local levels continue to introduce measures designed to help local citizens, government employees, retirees and others buy Canadian drugs.

Any of these measures pose an imminent and serious threat to the security and integrity of Canada's drug supply, and a genuine threat to the health of Canadians. It may have been good short-term politics, but it is terrible long term policy.

American seniors are rightfully outraged by the high prices of pharmaceuticals in their country, but outsourcing price controls is not a responsible approach.

In Canada we have addressed price control with the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which regulates drug prices to ensure that the prices of patent protected brand name drugs are not excessive. Canada has regulated drug prices for the past 15 years.

The United States does not have a similar control mechanism, and the problem is exacerbated by U.S. drug companies spending millions of dollars every year to defend their higher prices. Every year, U.S. drug companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on political influence, including lobbying, campaign donations and extensive ad campaigns to defend their high prices and fight against price control. The American drug industry employs over 600 lobbyists in Washington alone, more than one for every member of congress. This system drives U.S. prices even higher.

Another important difference between the Canadian and American system is the regulation of advertising.

Prescription drug advertising is one of the most controversial practices in the American pharmaceutical industry. During the first nine months of 2002, American pharmaceutical companies spent over $16 billion promoting their products to physicians and consumers. This kind of advertising drives prices up and is prohibited in nearly all other western countries.

In Canada, the Therapeutic Products Directorate strictly regulates prescription drug advertising.

I would also like to discuss how drug importation legislation represents a threat to American patients by allowing relinquishment of necessary community based medication monitoring and management at increasing risk from potential counterfeit drugs.

The incidence of counterfeit medicines is small but is growing in developed nations. The recent tragic death of a British Columbia resident, determined by a coroner to have been caused by counterfeit medicines in her possession, serves as a reminder that North America is not immune from the global phenomenon.

The counterfeiting of medicines is an issue that threatens the quality and integrity of Canada's drug supply, a problem that will be greatly exacerbated if U.S. drug importation legislation is passed into law without a clear and effective Canadian prohibition on bulk drug exportation.

I was pleased to see the public safety committee's report entitled “Counterfeit Goods in Canada — A Threat to Public Safety” which included this recommendation:

--the Government of Canada institute a campaign to raise awareness of counterfeit and pirated goods to make the public aware of the economic and social costs associated with this scourge, and emphasize the public health and safety hazards they represent. The campaign should also raise Canadians' awareness of the involvement of organized crime in the counterfeiting and piracy of goods.

Internationally the WHO is very concerned about counterfeit drugs. The WHO has struck the International Medical Products Anti-Counterfeiting Taskforce, tasked with increasing international collaboration to combat counterfeiting.

I would also like to point out that allowing bulk prescription drug imports would not significantly reduce U.S. prescription prices for very long. Even a recent University of Texas study concluded that based on the worst case scenario, Canada's stocks of prescription drugs would amount to about a 38 day supply for the United States, assuming all U.S. medications were Canadian sourced. Once U.S. demand depletes Canadian stocks, prices will almost certainly rise, narrowing or even possibly eliminating the difference between U.S. and Canadian pharmaceutical prices.

Some may argue that Canada should just increase manufacturing of pharmaceuticals to meet U.S. demand.

However, Canada's innovation-focused pharmaceutical industry develops, manufactures and distributes drugs designed to meet the needs of Canadian patients and the Canadian market. It bases its production on the size of the population and the incidence of the illness or condition to be treated.

Manufacturers produce sufficient prescription drugs to meet the expected national demand. Consequently, if one country imports its prescription drugs from another, it diminishes the exporting country's stock of drugs to meet the expected needs of patients in that country.

Labelling regulations also differ from country to country. As a result, prescription drugs produced for the American or South American markets cannot just be sent to Canada to meet an unexpected need.

Given the complexity of calculating annual estimates of the needs of Canadian patients, together with the detailed methods used by drug companies to manage their inventory and respond to patients' needs, it is unrealistic to think that products manufactured for Canada could meet American demand.

Cross-border trade is not only detrimental from a public policy perspective, it is also virtually impossible to do.

I would like to underline again that Canada cannot meet the prescription drug needs of approximately 280 million Americans without putting our own supply at risk.

Take for example the events of the fall of 2005. In November 2005 when Roche Canada took the unprecedented step of suspending sales of Tamiflu to the Canadian market, there were reports that Internet pharmacies were busily filling foreign prescriptions at a significant profit. One B.C. pharmacy alone was reportedly filling 400 orders a day from the U.S. That is a significant number when according to the Canadian Pharmacists Association only 4,000 Canadians received the drug that September. Another Internet pharmacy in Montreal issued news releases promoting to U.S. customers its Tamiflu stocks.

The Canadian Pharmacists Association reacted to the Tamiflu incident by saying that the government should have acted to protect the country's supply of the drug. Again, when supply gets siphoned off to the U.S., it is Canadians who come up short.

This situation is a perfect example of the types of scenarios Canadian patients will face if Canadian governments continue to allow drugs to be diverted to the U.S.

This is not an issue unique to North America. In April of this year the European Union passed resolution 31 stating:

Is concerned about the intention of the US Congress to authorise parallel imports of medicines from the EU Member States, that may create obstacles to the EU patients' supply and favour counterfeiting of medicines; asks the EU, therefore, to raise this issue at the forthcoming Summit--

I would also like to take the opportunity to commend my colleague, the member for Vancouver South who in 2005 when he was health minister anticipated this problem and put forward legislation, Bill C-28 to consensus in the House. Unfortunately, an election was called before the bill went forward.

Current Canadian policy is to use only reactive measures and seek to manage shortages once they have already occurred. This is not enough and it may well be too late.

The issue of bulk exports to other countries of medicines and vaccines destined to Canadians should be an issue of concern to all of us. It is of particular interest to the Canadian Pharmacists Association and the Ontario Pharmacists Association.

I believe the passage of Bill C-378 is essential to protect the supply and integrity of prescription drugs here in Canada and will send a strong message to our American colleagues of the futility of their short-sighted legislative initiative.

I urge all colleagues to support my private member's bill, Bill C-378.

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

November 24, 2005

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 24th day of November, 2005, at 3:47 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Uteck

The Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S-37, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Cultural Property Export and Import Act--chapter 40; Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (promotion of English and French)--chapter 41; and Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act--chapter 42.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Food and Drugs Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-28.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) to further defer the recorded division just requested on Bill C-28 until Tuesday, October 18, at the end of government orders.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel obligated to stand and correct the member. I was listening to the question posed earlier by a member of the Bloc and the answer from the NDP.

While I cannot disagree with any of the facts that they are raising, they are completely outside the scope of Bill C-28. This bill does not discuss the adoption of new products. The bill does not circumvent or shorten the regulatory system. This is a question of how to deal with intelligent regulations, the health of Canadians, the security of our food supply, and at the same time ensure the competitiveness of our agricultural sector by our food services industry.

We say in this bill that if there are products that are added to foods that have already been approved, that it is a new use or new combination, perhaps a cereal with a vitamin, and both have already been approved, that the minister, after it has gone through the proper scientific evaluation process and while it is going through its regulatory process, may give an interim use authorization.

This procedure is already happening and is nothing new. There was a concern by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations that the proper authorization under the act was not there for the delegation of authority by the minister to a deputy minister, or an associate deputy minister or an assistant deputy minister. It merely corrects that aspect.

The other side of this is the question of pest control products in use that have gone through the proper regulatory scientific evaluation process. For example, we currently work with the United States to have a harmonized process. Often we will have a product that will replace another pest control product on the market that is deemed by users to be often safer and a lot better for our food system.

We look at the maximum residue levels that may remain in the food. After that proper joint evaluation, while it is going through the regulatory process, and after the advice has been received that it is safe and safer than other products that we use and that the residue limit is better than what we are presently using, then the minister can give an interim marketing authorization. The product can then be used while it is going through the regulatory system, the gazetting and all those other procedures.

We are not circumventing and not shortening the process. It is an intelligent way of doing regulations. As a result safer products can come on the market more quickly and Canadian consumers can benefit from new advances while never risking the health and security of our food system.

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my NDP colleague from Winnipeg Centre. He is an experienced member and not one to talk through his hat. He has a great deal of experience in terms of his research.

When he spoke on Bill C-28 to amend the Food and Drugs Act, he raised various concerns that I too understand. They relate to the use of a particular pesticide. In English, he was talking about 2,4-D. If I understood correctly, this pesticide was an ingredient in the famous agent orange used at Gagetown. So we can understand his concern.

However, my concerns are also understandable. I want to know how, when it comes to herbicide use, we can reconcile the need for health and safety with the way people sometimes artificially beautify their lawns, which I find quite frivolous.

Was this the meaning of his remarks, when he said that we may be starting down a slippery slope by allowing the use of this type of product and that the legislation fails to provide adequate protection in order to prevent such risks? I would like him to expand on this.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the NDP caucus to share our views on Bill C-28, entitled an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. I note that the purpose of Bill C-28 is to provide the Minister of Health with 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.

That sums up our reservations about the bill. The very definition of the bill gives rise to the concerns that I have, and which my caucus tried to outline in its representations made on this bill before, in that it really does put more authority into the judgments by the Minister of Health.

I note, for example, that a judgment by the Minister of Health pertaining to trans fatty acids came into question recently. It is a serious public health concern that was debated and dealt with in the House of Commons. Bill C-28 contemplates putting more authority into the hands of the minister to make these judgments without the regulatory process for products that are already in the Food and Drugs Act. The example of trans fatty acids would in fact fit into that category.

Without the regulatory oversight that exists currently for what should and should not be in our food products, the bill contemplates giving more authority, as I understand it, to the Minister of Health.

Another aspect of the bill deals with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Pest Control Products Act, which deals with pesticides in an agricultural setting or in other settings. The NDP notes with some concern that recently the Pest Management Regulatory Agency sent out a press release saying that the pesticide 2,4-D could be used safely, even though the Pest Control Products Act limits the language of advertising by pesticide companies, whereas they have been fined in the past for claiming that their product is safe. It is worrisome to us within the regime of pesticide control and pest management control when a product like 2,4-D, which even a lay person like me knows is a genuine health hazard and that it should be treated in the most severe category in terms of usage, has been found that there are safe applications of the pesticide.

I would rather see the Government of Canada going the other way. I would rather see the Government of Canada making bold statements about banning the cosmetic use of pesticides altogether, not finding safe applications for chemicals that we know to be hazardous.

I am concerned that Bill C-28 takes us down a road that we do not want to be going. In fact, it takes us down a road that may be 180 degrees opposite. We opposed the bill at committee because we did not believe that the Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency was doing its job properly in its evaluation of pesticides.

Canada is littered, polluted and contaminated with pesticides. I just heard a moving presentation in the last year from a 21-year-old man from Quebec who grew up surrounded by five golf courses. I cannot remember the name of the small community in which he was raised but there were five golf courses within the specific region. The incidence of brain cancer among he and his friends has motivated him to the point where he has dedicated his life to trying to eradicate the irresponsible rampant use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes and for unnecessary purposes like keeping a golf course's grass perfect for golfing. There is no agricultural justification for this.

The young man who gave us this moving and powerful speech, told us that both he and his best friend had been diagnosed with brain cancer at the same time when they were 14 years old. Their community represented a cluster of brain cancer caused by chemical exposure that is almost unprecedented. He and his best friend made a pact that if one or both survived they would continue to inform Canadians about the dangers of the irresponsible use of these chemicals. Unfortunately, one young man succumbed to his disease.

I want to debate bills in the House that talk about getting these toxins out of our food chain and out of our agricultural system. I do not want to talk about enabling the minister to have more arbitrary direction and control over the application of these known hazards.

I will not dwell on trans fats. We won a motion in the House of Commons to study trans fats more seriously. A task force was set up, chaired jointly by the Heart and Stroke Foundation and Health Canada, to bring back recommendations but we are concerned about the interim report of that trans fat task force.

The Minister of Health is already making statements that perhaps labelling is the way to go or perhaps the government should help industry voluntarily reduce trans fats in their products but that is not the language we want to hear. It gives me no optimism whatsoever that the Minister of Health is taking concrete steps toward eliminating known health concerns within our food chain or that he will apply the type of scrutiny, direction and control that we expect in the food and drug administration in evaluating new products.

The chair of the Standing Committee on Health took on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and asked when it would issue a press release retracting the statement that there might be a safe way to apply 2,4-D. We did not want to send the wrong impression out to the general public.

Thousands of garages at the back of homes all over the country have a container of old 2,4-D sitting on their shelves. All people need to hear is some regulatory authority changing its mind and telling people that 2,4-D is not so bad after all and that they should continue to go after the dandelions with this incredibly hazardous material. People who already possess tonnes of that product and who should be advised to take it to a hazardous waste site and have it treated properly as a health hazard, may get the false idea that there is a safe way of doing this.

I do not think I need to remind people in the House of Commons about agent orange and agent purple at CFB Gagetown which showed chemicals can remain in the environment for years. Some people may not be aware of the fact that 2,4-D is a component of both agent orange and agent purple.

At the same time as members of Parliament are seized with the issue of contamination at Gagetown by the experimental use of agent orange and agent purple in the post-war year which put our armed forces personnel at risk, it is ironic that 2,4-D, one of the main ingredients in those cancer causing agents, is being contemplated for safe application again. That is as crazy as saying there is a safe application for asbestos. Canada is full of these contradictions.

How can we in all good conscience say that there is a safe application for asbestos when asbestos contamination is all around us to where we have polluted the entire country with asbestos? It can be found in every school, hospital and government building. Even our own House of Commons is contaminated with it. We seem to be adopting this same cavalier, user beware approach to harmful chemicals like 2,4-D.

The Sierra Club of Canada has spearheaded a public campaign questioning why the Pest Management Regulatory Agency claimed that 2,4-D could be used safely but its questions are not being answered.

If we are dismantling or, in any way, altering or affecting the regulatory process now, which would rely on outside expertise and authorities other than our own researchers with Health Canada, et cetera, then we are really concerned and critical of it.

We should point out that Health Canada does not actually do its own original research. It only gathers up the empirical evidence. It gathers up studies that have been done by others, often by the manufacturer of the very product that it is studying, and it assesses the risk based on the research available. This was made clear at the whistleblowing hearings where three Health Canada officials were fired for blowing the whistle on health hazards associated with bovine growth hormone.

Dr. Shiv Chopra made it clear when he said, “Everybody thinks we did this research and that we are advising Canadians about the hazards of bovine growth hormone”. He went on to say that he wished Health Canada could do its own research but that it did not have the laboratory or the budget to do the original research and that it had to rely on what has been done by others, which, hopefully, was done independently and peer tested. Sometimes it is the type of study that is done by the industry because it is the only one willing to fund the research on a product and in that way that research could be tainted or biased. That is certainly the case in many known food additives and chemicals that have been later found to be hazardous.

Asbestos is not the only one. Let us face it, most of the work on asbestos in the country today was done by an institute that was funded by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. It was concerned that it could not underwrite asbestos workers any more because of the extraordinary incidence of occupational disease related to people handling that product, so it funded its own research laboratory, published the reports that were pro asbestos and never published the reports that were anti-asbestos.

I want to get back to Bill C-28. Some of the issues involved include the study of chlorinated dioxins. I think everyone knows dioxins are enormous cancer causing agents and no one is saying that dioxins are necessarily present in 2,4-D, but the dioxins are in fact a byproduct in the manufacture of 2,4-D. If we are adopting a more casual approach to 2,4-D and saying that there are safe applications of it, we will be stimulating the production of it and, in acknowledging the production of it, we will, inadvertently or in a secondary way, also have to acknowledge that there will be the greater production of dioxins stemming from the production of 2,4-D.

The most toxic form of 2,4-D containing DEA was excluded from the evaluation. Even though the Pest Management Regulatory Agency ruled that there may be safe applications of 2,4-D, it did not even look at the most extremely hazardous toxic form of 2,4-D which contains this dioxin DEA, although it did say that it would examine it later, which is small comfort.

We are concerned that Bill C-28 would augment the authority of the Minister of Health to regulate food products, supplements or additives to the food and drug regime. It is in keeping with a motif that we have noticed in so many pieces of legislation introduced by the Liberal government. It is a trend. It seems to be a recognizable motif to augment the arbitrary authority of the minister and to dismantle or erode the regulatory authority of independent voices and bodies. We cannot tolerate that lightly and we have to speak out about it.

When this bill was introduced into the House of Commons on November 29, 2004, it was introduced with no advanced indication as to what it was designed to accomplish. That is rare for a bill. It was featured at a technical bill, a bill that was really just a housekeeping matter. It was only upon our own investigation and examination that some of these concerns rose to the surface and came to our attention within the NDP caucus.

The debate at second reading is where some of this information started to come up. Cautionary notes were raised about preventive measures, preventive health concerns and dietary issues. Some speakers at second reading articulated their concern that we emphasized too much of our health care resources toward treating the sick and not enough of our resources toward preventing illness.

Some people say that the title of Minister of Health should really be changed to the minister of managing illness, because our Minister of Health really has very little to do with making Canadians healthier or putting forward initiatives or legislation that might actually lead to a healthier population.

We are all aware of the preventable illnesses and that we could take steps to lessen the burden on our much taxed health care system. This is certainly one area where we expect our Minister of Health to be more proactive.

We are concerned when a bill like this comes along and does not really speak to the general public health concerns that we all share, but speaks more to streamlining a regulatory process to make it easier for the Minister of Health to give the yea or the nay about a food additive or a food product that is currently within the food chain or the drug system.

I acknowledge and take the parliamentary secretary's point that the bill does not apply to new chemicals being introduced or new additives. Those will still be subject to the full process of which we are all aware, but we are talking about existing products, chemicals and additives that may be in the existing food product list or in the existing drug regime that Canadians consume with the confidence that there are safety measures put in place to ensure that their health is key and paramount.

I cannot help but think that the industry would be quite interested in this new development which takes the regulatory authority away from the regime we are used to and hands it back to the minister.

If I can use trans fats as an example again, it is a product that is fully entrenched in the food chain currently. It is generally acknowledged across the country that this stuff is bad for us. Scientists use the word “toxic” when they make reference to trans fats because it meets the scientific definition of toxins. Our bodies cannot process it; our bodies reject it.

In fact, our bodies do not acknowledge trans fat as food. They see it as some foreign substance, which it is, to be stored elsewhere, and they store it in the form of fat within our circulo-vascular system and builds our cholesterol. This is the problem with trans fatty acids. We want them out of our food supply system.

However, as more and more of this regulatory authority goes directly to the minister, I am not sure that I trust this minister, or any subsequent minister of health, to put the best interests of Canadians first with such a bold step because there is some push back from industry. It will be awkward. It will be inconvenient to reformulate the products to get trans fat out of cookies.

If it ever comes down to the shelf life of doughnuts and the shelf life of Canadians, I would hope that the Minister of Health would err on the side of promoting the shelf life of humans. All that trans fats are good for is for making oil solid at room temperature and adding to the shelf life of some of these products. Using that as an example and using 2,4-D as an example, we have some legitimate concerns about Bill C-28.

This is one of those bills that comes to us, as I say, without a lot of fanfare. It sort of flew under the radar when it was first introduced in the House of Commons.

Throughout the debate, I actually learned a great deal. I have read some of the debate at second reading in Hansard , where my own colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, and also my colleague from the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, raised serious reservations about how the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations would in fact have its work undermined somewhat, or would be surrendering and forfeiting some of the authority that it currently enjoys, in transferring that power and authority to the minister.

We should all be cautious when we enhance the arbitrary powers of a minister at the cost of the democratic authority of the House of Commons. This is giving power to the executive that we currently enjoy within Parliament and we should be very careful.

Market authorizations have been made regularly by the current regulatory process. It is not as onerous as some would have us believe, and fast-tracking it by putting that authority into the minister's hands scares me, frankly, when it comes to the public health of Canadians.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-28. In doing so, I will try to warn members of this House, particularly those on the government side, about certain aspects of this bill which we think introduce some safety concerns in the Food and Drug Act.

First I would like to repeat the purpose of this bill to put this debate in the proper context. Bill C-28 is designed 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 the Food and Drug Act and its regulations relating to the sale of those foods.

That is already a problem for us. We are talking about exempting certain foods from the applicable requirements relating to the sale of those foods. The substances involved are agricultural chemicals or their components or derivatives, food additives, veterinary drugs, and pest control products. Our understanding is that, based on numerous scientific studies, these products are used on various crops and in the production of foods and drugs. As was mentioned earlier, we all overwhelmingly recognize that this is no problem. But it is important that these scientific studies exist, in order to ensure that there is no risk.

Admittedly, the proposed amendments, in part, are in response to concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations regarding an administrative process put in place by Health Canada, and I quote:

—to allow Canadians faster access to safe and nutritious food products in specific circumstances.

That has been a source of concern for the Bloc Québécois for quite some time. And one of the main questions we ask ourselves is: Why is it that, at times, Health Canada appears to be unable to resist the pressure from major pharmaceutical and food companies which are in hurry to have their new products approved? Far from alleviating this concern, Bill C-28 exacerbates it by effectively enabling the minister to issue interim authorizations.

What is worrisome to the public in this bill is that Health Canada is increasing the examples of negligence. For instance, in the late 1990s, Health Canada caused an outcry when it wanted to authorize a recombinant bovine growth hormone despite opposition from scientists. In the end, the product's use was not approved.

We could easily have been in the same situation this morning had Bill C-28 passed, which begs the question: if it had passed, would the minister have authorized this product or would he have waited? We do not have the answer to that question, but Bill C-28 would have allowed him to do so. Who knows what the consequences would have been?

Preferring to take risks rather than precautions, the government is agreeing to approve drugs or food products without obtaining all the scientific data required by law. As a result, it is running great risks to the public. This is very important. In order to ensure human food safety, all the scientific data must be obtained. We know that far too often, when it comes to food and drugs, there are unanticipated long-term effects. We have seen this happen. That is why it is important to conduct a thorough scientific assessment of the products put on the market.

Accordingly, the Bloc Québécois has long wanted Canada to follow the European example of taking precaution on food products, drugs and pesticides. If such a principle were in place, GMOs would be labelled and the use of products with unknown consequences would be eliminated.

In our opinion, this bill gives the minister a lot of power. It is as if we were playing Russian roulette with products that could have extremely harmful effects on human health not only in the short and medium terms, but also in the long term.

Understandably, we have two major objections with Bill C-28. As I mentioned a couple of times since the beginning of my presentation, our first objection relates to the power given to the minister which is, as I understand it, a discretionary power to some extent. While this legislation does indeed give to the minister the power to issue interim marketing authorizations, the minister must base his decisions on scientific criteria. He cannot make such a decision merely because of the pressure put on him by a given industry or marketing sector.

The criterion to the effect that the food must not be harmful to the health of the purchaser or consumer, as stated in clause 30.2(1) of the bill, leaves a lot of room for interpretation, and we feel it would be important to set limits in this regard.

Of course, we are talking here about public confidence, not only in the government's regulations on food and drugs, but also in the food that ends up on the table. Indeed, the public must have total confidence in the food that it consumes on a regular basis, but also in drugs and pharmaceutical products. The latter are supposed to be beneficial to people who need them for the relief of various symptoms, or to deal with various diseases. Should these products worsen these people's condition, this would result in a loss of confidence that would be very hard to regain.

This is why it is important to reassure Quebeckers and Canadians on the safety and quality of the food that they consume. The minister should be required to inform the public of the reasons why he agrees to issue an interim marketing authorization. As I mentioned earlier, Bill C-28 would allow the minister to issue such authorizations by relying on criteria that leave a lot of room for interpretation.

Not only would it be absolutely essential that the minister base his decision on sound scientific studies, as I was saying earlier, but should he not do so, he should be required to explain the reasons for issuing these interim marketing authorizations and to specify which lobbies approached him regarding a particular product. This is necessary to ensure public confidence in food safety. That is why it is so important.

People's perceptions weigh very heavily in matters where safety and confidence are an issue. I would certainly not want to presume—and I certainly do not want to give that impression—that the minister would make decisions without proper consideration. I would never imply such a thing. We can only presume that an individual who is responsible for making such decisions will act in good faith.

However, we know full well that some people can be very convincing for all sorts of reasons. Before becoming a member of Parliament, I worked as a sales representative, as some of my colleagues may have done also. I would have never dared lie to one of my clients, but I certainly did my best to point out the positive aspects of the products I was selling.

This discretionary power granted to the minister needs to be properly framed. Unfortunately, Bill C-28 does not give any assurances in that regard.

While it is indeed unfortunate, it is also very typical of this government. It often offers us half-measures or expeditious measures. Surprisingly, on a certain number of issues, it does not seem to be able to take all the necessary precautions or make the necessary decisions, but in other cases, it is overzealous.

I must take a minute here to remind members briefly of a speech I made yesterday.

Yesterday, in my speech about tax havens, I clearly demonstrated how, over the years, the concerted action of the government has brought us to a point where a number of businesses are not paying their fair share of taxes. This situation was brought about by a number of very specific measures.

Unfortunately, in some ways, Bill C-28 is only a half measure and of no reassurance to the Canadian public. It opens the door to certain almost arbitrary decisions which might—though we hope not—endanger the health of our fellow citizens.

That is why, having analyzed the proposed mechanism and heard what civil society organizations have had to say, we will be opposing Bill C-28. We in the Bloc Québécois—and this is a deep-seated conviction—are of the opinion that consumer confidence is an essential component of food marketing. The advantages of an interim marketing authorization process like the one proposed in Bill C-28 are likely to be outweighed by the concerns it raises.

In an area like this one, where the safety of our fellow citizens is concerned, it seems to me that prudence must be the watchword, not speed. Any error could have very unfortunate consequences, and the health of those we purport to serve could suffer seriously as a result.

Extreme precaution is in order. Unfortunately, Health Canada has not addressed all the concerns relating to new product approvals. A mechanism such as this, which involves risk management rather than the principle of precaution, is liable to make consumers more wary. That is the situation. Instead of taking precautions to ensure all the necessary scientific studies have been done, it is a matter of risk management.

I will not, thank the Lord, ever be health minister. I would never want to have to manage that risk. As I said earlier, we can only assume the right decisions will be reached. What we need to do is to ensure they are, based on all necessary scientific studies. The opinion of one individual cannot be relied on, no matter how well-intentioned that individual may be.

The first objective of the Food and Drug Act is to ensure the quality of food and that it does not represent health risks. The health of Quebeckers and Canadians is paramount. Any authorization of new products should be done under the precautionary principle. Unfortunately, Bill C-28 does not include this principle.

This week, the government made a number of announcements. To be indulgent, I would say that these are an election ploy. Today, third reading of Bill C-28 raises deep concerns among us. Let us simply imagine what the reaction would be if the minister did not have all the data at his disposal and made a mistake that would put the health of our citizens at risk. I would not want to carry this burden on my shoulders. I would not want to have to make such a decision.

It is incredible—I was mentioning this earlier during question and comment period—to see that our colleagues from the Conservative Party support this bill, when they regularly defend good citizenship and safety. Yet, in Bill C-28, we find exactly the opposite of many principles that they normally support. I have to tell you that I was a little astounded earlier to hear them say they would support Bill C-28. I still have hope, since our NDP colleagues will certainly speak soon on this bill.

I hope that they will see the risks associated with the bill. If they do not, I invite them to talk to us. That goes for my Liberal and Conservative colleagues as well. I invite them to meet with me or with my colleague from Hochelaga who, I must say, knows the bill a lot better than I do, having spent many hours studying it in detail.

I was saying that the bill does not meet many of our concerns and that it seemed to be an amalgamation of half measures. That is unfortunate but not really surprising since the government is an expert in half measures. That is too often how it responds to situations.

The government has just introduced a federal assistance plan to alleviate the effects of high oil prices. We were very happy since it borrowed large parts of the package we proposed only a few weeks ago when the Minister of Transport was saying the government could not do anything. Only two weeks later, we see him using major parts of what we proposed. Unfortunately, the plan is full of half measures because it does not reach the right persons. There is nothing in it for taxi drivers, farmers and truckers. I know that this is not the object of our debate, but I thought it was important to give it as an example of half measures too often introduced by this government.

So Bill C-28, far from improving our fellow citizens' security, gives rise to concerns. How can we guarantee that a new product is perfectly safe for consumers? In the end, people will have to trust the good judgment of the Minister of Health. But I do not think that that is enough even though that minister does his best and acts in good faith. We think that Bill C-28 should be defeated. Let us say that the status quo would be better than the new regime proposed in Bill C-28.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed to hear our Conservative colleagues say that they will be supporting Bill C-28. There has been a lot of talk this morning about the importance of food safety.

Is there not some concern that, under pressure, the government may be tempted to expedite the process in some cases so that certain products can be marketed more quickly? I understand that the need to ensure the health and safety of consumers is mentioned in the bill, but scientific studies are sort of being put aside. Is that not cause for concern?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-28, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

Regulations that have no basis in legislation are a constant problem that only recently have 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 in creating regulations results in regulations that are technically not legal. Powers that have not been confirmed 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 to simple mistakes, others are deliberate attempts to ignore the intent and alter the outcome of legislation. Thanks to the rare passage of a private member's bill, Bill C-205 in 2003, which I might add was the result of much hard work by its sponsor, the Conservative member for Newton—North Delta, Parliament now has greater powers to ensure that law by regulation is curtailed.

This bill is a direct result of five years of pressure by the Standing Joint Committee on 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 this bill forward.

The bill is an amendment to the Food and Drugs Act. Currently, a regulation allows the director, in this case the deputy minister of health responsible for health products, to issue notices of interim market authorizations. This 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. This bill seeks to correct this discrepancy.

The regulation was created in 1997. Since that time, 82 interim market authorizations have been made, but because the regulation violates the legislation to which it applies, all of 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 these safe levels of substances can be sold because their sale poses no harm to consumers.

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. The bill is not creating from scratch a new practice, but simply is 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 intent of the law should not be tolerated. Any action that eliminates irregularities should be encouraged. We also support writing into law the 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 a specified safe level.

These measures allow Canadian food producers and manufacturers to quickly bring their products to market, increasing their availability 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 businesses, 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, that 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 marketing authorizations are necessary and welcome, but must be used only when it is known beyond doubt that whatever substance is in a food product is at or below the approved safe level.

In summary, Bill C-28 is a corrective measure to bring an existing regulation in line with the legislation to which it applies. We want to reduce the number of regulations that contradict the authority of legislation. This will take years, but it is a necessary undertaking and is worth the effort. We support this change as a small step toward making better law and law making.

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

Mr. Speaker, following the report of the Standing Committee on Health on its review of Bill C-28, I am pleased to speak on the bill, which proposes two amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. The amendments would provide the Minister of Health with the authority to allow Canadians faster access to a wider variety of safe and nutritious food products.

I would like to take the opportunity to reiterate the reasons why this bill was introduced. The proposed amendments are in part in response to the concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations regarding an administrative process put in place by Health Canada to allow Canadians faster access to safe and nutritious food products in specific circumstances.

This administrative process permitted the issuance of notices of interim marketing authorizations under the Food and Drugs Act regulations. These notices allowed the director, defined as the assistant deputy minister of the Health Products and Food Branch of Health Canada, to exempt certain foods from application of the regulations after a thorough safety assessment had concluded their consumption would not harm human health. By doing so, the director was able to allow the sale of certain foods by manufacturers and producers while the regulations were amended to formalize the authorization.

Essentially, the Joint Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations maintains that the regulations authorizing the issuance of notices of interim marketing authorizations go beyond the scope of the Food and Drugs Act.

This bill ensures that the scope of these regulations authorizing the issuance of notices of interim marketing authorizations can continue to be used by Health Canada in order to allow Canadians faster access to a wider variety of safe and nutritious food products.

Since these regulations on interim marketing authorizations have been in place, consumers have had quicker access to new and safe food products. For example, foods to which vitamins or mineral nutrients were added to increase their nutritional value were offered more quickly on the market. Moreover, the notices of interim marketing authorizations allowed for the quicker sale of foods from cultures that were treated with agricultural chemicals, including safe and effective pest control products.

As I have noted, the bill addresses the concerns of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, but it also ensures that we maintain this useful smart regulation approach.

The first proposed amendment would address the concerns of the standing joint committee by providing the Minister of Health with the authority to exempt some food products from the application, in whole or in part, of the Food and Drugs Act and the applicable requirements of the food and drug regulations.

The minister would do this by issuing an interim marketing authorization, which would allow the immediate sale of some food products for which scientific assessment has established that there is a reasonable certainty no harm would result from their consumption, pending completion of the full regulatory process to amend the regulations.

In other words, the products would not pose undue risks to human health. The science would have been completed, just not the lengthy regulatory amendment process, which would continue to be applied.

To underscore this latter point, I repeat that the issuance of the interim marketing authorization would not affect or circumvent the conduct of a thorough safety assessment prior to the availability of these food products on the market. Interim marketing authorizations could only be issued for food additives, veterinary drugs and agricultural chemicals that have already been subject to a thorough safety assessment before being listed in the regulations.

Health Canada would only give consideration to issuing an interim marketing authorization if it has concluded that the sale of the food products containing the substance in question would not pose a hazard to the health of the consumer.

This limited scope of application of the interim marketing authorization mechanism in the bill is exactly the same as the current regulatory mechanism that was reviewed by the standing joint committee. The only significant difference introduced by this bill is that it clearly specifies that the authority in the Food and Drugs Act is in the hands of the Minister of Health.

The second part of Bill C-28 deals with pest control products and their regulation pursuant to the provisions of the new Pest Control Products Act and the Food and Drug Regulations. The new Pest Control Products Act, which was given royal assent in December of 2002, empowers the minister to specify maximum residue limits for the product or for its components or derivatives in food. When specifying maximum residue limits, the minister must evaluate the health risks of the product or its components or derivatives and determine if they are acceptable.

To that end, he must determine with reasonable certainty that no harm to human health will result from consuming a food item containing a residue level of a specific pest control product no greater that the specified maximum limit.

However, the adulteration provisions in the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations state that foods are adulterated if they contain residues of pest control products above levels set out in the regulations. Therefore, foods containing residues of pest control products at or below the maximum residue limit specified by the minister under the Pest Control Products Act cannot be sold until the specified maximum residue limit is established in the food and drug regulations.

Currently it can take up to two years from the time that the regulatory evaluation has been completed to the time when the food potentially containing the residues is permitted for sale under the Food and Drugs Act.

The proposed amendment to the Food and Drugs Act to recognize maximum residue limits specified under the new Pest Control Products Act for Food and Drugs Act purposes would result in administrative efficiencies and would also benefit consumers, by providing timely access to safe foods, and the agricultural industry, by allowing faster access to improved pest control products for use on food crops.

Bill C-28 builds on the October 2004 Speech from the Throne objective of providing a “predictable regulatory system that accomplishes public policy objectives efficiently while eliminating unintended impacts”.

The proposed amendments are also in line with the ongoing intent of the Government of Canada's smart regulation initiative and the recommendations from the external advisory committee on smart regulation, which aim, in part, to provide access to safe products in a more timely fashion and remove possible restrictions on international trade.

In addition, the proposed amendments will support ongoing work under the North American Free Trade Agreement technical working group on pesticides, through which Health Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency have accelerated bilateral harmonization in the registration of pest control products in order to provide faster and simultaneous access to a wider range of newer, safer pest control tools in both countries.

In conclusion, I wish to express my gratitude for the hard work of the Standing Committee on Health in its consideration of this bill. Bill C-28 contributes to maintaining the safety of the food supply and offers advantages to the consumer and to the food and agricultural industries. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, for the Minister of Health]

moved that Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, be read the third time and passed.

Amendment to Income Tax Act Regulations

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend the Income Tax Act regulations so that they do not override certain provisions of the tax agreement between Canada and Barbados allowing Canadian businesses to use their subsidiary in Barbados to avoid paying taxes in Canada.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to speak to this issue that is so important to the integrity our country's tax base. It must be shown how the current Prime Minister, sometimes through his inaction but mostly through very specific measures he took when he was finance minister, managed to arrange things so a good number of businesses, particularly in the shipping industry, avoid paying taxes.

First I will read the motion, which is as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend the Income Tax Act regulations so that they do not override certain provisions of the tax agreement between Canada and Barbados allowing Canadian businesses to use their subsidiary in Barbados to avoid paying taxes in Canada.

The purpose of this motion is to amend the income tax regulations so that they do not override certain provisions of the tax agreement between Canada and Barbados. These regulations currently allow Canadian businesses to repatriate income without paying taxes in Canada, which is a serious threat to our country's tax base. Moreover, this violates the spirit of these tax agreements, the purpose of which is to avoid double taxation. It so happens that in tax havens like Barbados, where the tax rate applied to foreign businesses is ridiculously low, not only do these businesses avoid double taxation, but they avoid taxation altogether.

As members of the House, we cannot turn a blind eye and ignore this reality when our constituents pay taxes and some businesses avoid doing so by using tax havens.

The necessity to look into this issue right now has to be put into perspective. Various measures taken by the current Prime Minister, especially when he was finance minister, are now allowing a number of businesses in the shipping industry, among others, not to pay their fair share, whereas the vast majority of taxpayers do pay their fair share of taxes.

The Office of the Auditor General has provided various opinions on this matter over the past 10 years or more. Since then, instead of getting better, things have gotten worse in many regards.

As early as 1992, the Auditor General brought to the attention of the public the problem posed by tax havens. In chapter 2 of his report, he wrote, and I quote:

Tax arrangements for foreign affiliates are costing Canada hundreds of millions of dollars in lost tax revenues

Avoidance mechanisms also have a negative effect on the equity and integrity of the tax system and on public attitudes toward voluntary compliance. Access to such mechanisms is usually limited to those who can afford expensive advice. Those who cannot, therefore, may be denied equitable or even-handed treatment.

In 1993, when the Standing Committee on Public Accounts presented its 12th report to the House, it reiterated a number of the recommendations originally made by the Office of the Auditor General. The committee said, among other things, that:

—care must also be taken to keep the tax system fair and equitable, and that there is no reason, in our tax regime, why income earned in a tax haven should be given preferential treatment over income earned in Canada and subject to Canadian tax.

What happened in the 13 intervening years? The current Prime Minister has not simply been remiss in implementing the recommendations the Auditor General has repeatedly made to him over more than a decade, but we have seen carried out a long-planned measure to foster the use of Barbados as a tax haven.

Backtracking a bit, we have found a great example to illustrate what we mean: a shipping company by the name of CSL. In 1992, CSL created CSL International, which was at that time nothing but a shell company incorporated in Liberia and responsible on paper for all of CSL's international activities. CSL International is involved in very little actual shipping. It is a holding company that owns other companies, and it is those companies that are involved in shipping. It is important to make it clear that, at that time, it was possible to bring back to Canada, tax-free, the profits generated by a Liberian subsidiary of a Canadian company.

As I have said, in 1992 the Auditor General brought the problem of tax havens to public attention for the first time.

What was the Finance Minister's reaction in 1994? To bring down his first budget and to state in it that he intended to put an end to the use of those havens. Such a noble intention.

However, the budget implementation bill and the regulations that came into effect in 1995 left one loophole available, and it is easy to guess where it was: Barbados.

That bill, in clause 5907 of section 11.2, renders inoperable the section of the tax convention which excluded “international business companies”, by setting out a series of criteria by which a company could be considered non-resident in Canada and thus not subject to taxation by Canada.

So that was in 1994, and the legislation was enacted in 1995. Just by pure chance, 1995 was the year CSL moved to Barbados. What an odd coincidence. The Auditor General's office did not let this go unnoticed. In 1996 he again sounded the alarm on tax havens, for a second time.

This is what he said:

The results of Revenue Canada's program to combat it indicate that avoidance continues to pose a serious threat to the tax base.

So the Minister of Finance of the day responded to the report by stating the government's intent to implement these recommendations promptly and in their entirety.

But far from trying to counter the exodus of capital to Barbados by terminating its convention with this tax haven, Canada encouraged it by signing an agreement to promote and protect foreign investment with Barbados in 1996.

What I am trying to present today is a series of events that will help us understand what we are talking about.

In 1998, the Minister of Finance introduced Bill C-28, the Budget Implementation Bill. One of the clauses in the bill concerned shipping. Henceforth, holding companies incorporated abroad and owning companies involved in international shipping would be considered as involved themselves in international shipping. In this way, they would be exempt from Canadian taxes, even when their profits were repatriated. This clause applied retroactively to 1995, the year when, as if by chance of course, CSL International set up shop in Barbados.

This bill affected only a small number of taxpayers. At the time, the Canadian Shipowners Association had only 11 members, of whom at most eight were involved in international shipping, including CSL. By the way, when he appeared before the Finance Committee on February 10, 1998, the director general of the Tax Legislation Division of the Department of Finance suggested that Bill C-28 could once again apply to a company like CSL International.

Still in 1998, the Auditor General was concerned for a third time. He said:

—the increasing use of tax havens and the growing number of bilateral income tax conventions mean that ... 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.

It is apparent, therefore, that between 1992 and 1998, the Office of the Auditor General was already paying the necessary attention to this matter, something that the Minister of Finance at the time was not doing.

Let us advance a little in time to 2001. The Auditor General raised the issue for the fourth time in his report in February 2001, saying that:

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

How did the Minister of Finance respond? In 2002, the government introduced Bill S-2, the Tax Conventions Implementation Act. Far from terminating the 1980 tax convention between Canada and Barbados, Bill S-2 simply renewed it by amending its schedules in 2002.

The Office of the Auditor General took up the issue for the fifth time.

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 1998 to $23.3 billion in 2001—over a 3,600 percent increase—

In 2001, investment reached the modest amount of $23.3 billion.

Barbados must be an extraordinary place to invest in. I am sure that economic activity there is rolling along at breakneck speed.

According to data from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, in 2000, Canadian corporations received $1.5 billion in dividends from corporations in Barbados.

As you can see, Barbados is of great concern to the government. The question is whether the then finance minister and current Prime Minister is concerned for the right reasons.

Barbados is not a tax haven as such. Both citizens and companies pay 40% in income tax.

Tax laws in Barbados include a special section for International Business Corporations, or IBC. An IBC is a company registered in Barbados that conducts most of its business activities abroad. There are very few conditions to meet: the company must be registered in Barbados, have its headquarters there, hold its board of directors meetings there—a conference call will suffice—keep its board meeting minutes there and make a Barbadian one of its directors. This director may, however, by unanimous decision of the shareholders, have no powers. Registration fees are U.S $390, plus $250 annually.

These companies are then subject to a regressive tax, from 2.5% down to 1%, depending on revenues. They are exempted from tax on capital, from exchange controls, and from tax on transactions.

Fifteen minutes to discuss this issue is excessively short. Therefore, I will conclude quickly by saying that the government must not only review the terms of the Canada-Barbados tax convention but also prevent companies from using dummy companies abroad to avoid paying taxes here.

CSL, for example, must pay its taxes to Quebec and Canada. It must pay its fair share; it must not jeopardize Canada's fiscal balance; and it must not use the power of the government to favour certain specific businesses.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, today and tomorrow we will continue third reading of Bill C-29, the Patent Act. This will be followed by second reading of Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, respecting international trade and foreign affairs.

We will then proceed to second reading of Bill C-28, which amends the Food and Drugs Act; report stage of Bill C-8, the public service bill; report stage of Bill C-3, the Coast Guard bill; and report stage of Bill S-17, respecting tax treaties.

On Monday we will begin with report stage and third reading of Bill C-24, the equalization bill. If this is completed, we will then return to the previous list where we left off.

Tuesday and Thursday of next week shall be allotted days.

Next Wednesday we will commence second reading of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill.

With respect to the question on the Judges Act, that will be forthcoming in due course.

Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, we even have friends among the Liberals, who believe that we do serious work, not only in terms of criticism, but also in terms of the suggestions that we make to the government. In fact, the ultimate goal of any opposition party is to make much better governments. I think that, since September, the opposition, whether we are talking about the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois or the New Democratic Party, has made this government govern somewhat better than it had over the previous 11 years.

I think that this bill includes measures that are a big step in the right direction, but they fall totally short. There are a lot of missed opportunities that the government could have seized to really improve things. Here is just one example. In Bill C-33, they talk about reducing the air traveller security charge. This is the airport tax that has been imposed since the September 2001 events in the United States.

Right from the start—and the government does not want to admit it—having an airport security tax is an extremely bad idea. Not that security is a bad idea, but funding security by taxing travellers, in various airports in Canada, compromises the competitiveness of this sector. Since this tax was introduced, all the representatives of the airline industry and related sectors, at various levels, have stated that repeatedly. It must be eliminated.

A reduction has been proposed, and this is a good step forward, but the tax must be eliminated. Small regional airports must collect this tax and follow extreme security measures. I think that this tax and security issue has been exaggerated, particularly in small airports in a number of rural regions in Quebec and Canada. This airport tax must be eliminated. I hope that, in the next budget, the Minister of Finance will see that good old common sense must prevail in his decisions, especially with regard to such a tax.

I want to take this opportunity to address another point. We have just finished pre-budgetary consultations. There was a consensus everywhere, be it in Quebec—the Bloc Québécois held its own pre-budgetary consultations across Quebec—or in the Standing Committee on Finance across Canada, where representatives came to see us in Ottawa. There is one tax needs to be reviewed and that is the fee immigrants must pay to enter Canada.

It is not normal for immigrants, who are experiencing socio-economic problems in their country of origin, to have to pay an entry fee that represents a fortune to them. The entry fees should be reduced; keep them but scale them according to the socio-economic situation in the country of origin.

It is not normal for a refugee, who is fleeing a country where civil liberties do not exist and where there is extreme poverty, to arrive in their new country and have to pay this fee. Immigration is essential. It is not a gift we are giving them. Given our declining population, we need immigrants and we need to welcome them. We should not impose a tax on them. I am taking this opportunity to stress this point.

Bill C-33 contains a hypocritical provision. It always looks good when, in the throne speech and the various budgets, persons with disabilities are mentioned. Is the government ever compassionate. It is great how it wears its heart on its sleeve.

There is a problem with how persons with disabilities are treated in Quebec and in Canada. The tax legislation passed in this place is not even enforced. I am talking about the disability tax credit. I notice my colleagues around me, the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead in particular, and all the new members who were sent here following the June 28 election.

My colleagues and I are all aware of the problems persons with disabilities are facing with respect to the disability tax credit they had been receiving for years. The year they visited us, the revenue agency had decided to audit them, asking that they provide pretty incredible proof of their disability. In some cases, these are totally degenerative diseases. They cannot get better, yet these people are asked to provide more documentation from the doctor proving that they still have a disability, when that is obvious.

We have heard horror stories. One person who was really disabled in every way, who could not walk, even the length of a short desk, was instructed to go back to her doctor's office to get papers filled again.

They even disputed money that had been paid in past years. It is total nonsense to hassle people whose lives are already difficult enough, often horrendously difficult.

Now we find ourselves with a proposal for a special deduction for products and services for the disabled. I am no different than anyone else here in my desire to improve things for the disabled, but we need to start by properly respecting the credits available under the federal Income Tax Act and properly applying its provisions.

We are still being treated to all the government's flowery speeches about the disabled, as we have been since 1993. When the lack of investment in the social housing sector is being discussed, they always forget that this issue includes the component of adapted housing for the disabled. There has not been one red cent for that since 1993. It is all very fine to talk about this measure or that, but the government's decisions never include what is really essential.

We hope that the government, in the person of the Minister of Finance, will be a bit more attuned to the situation of the disabled when he tables his next budget. A major surplus will be generated during the next fiscal year, regardless of all his creative calculations, all his fancy manoeuvres, up to and including a triple flip if he so desires. I think it would therefore be a good idea to keep the disabled in mind on an ongoing basis.

In connection with the disabled, according to a Finance Department study, for the fiscal year 2002-03, 148,000 of them were unable to benefit from the tax credit because they had no taxable income. It would be a good thing for this credit to be converted into a refundable tax credit for the disabled who have low incomes and therefore cannot benefit from it. SInce it is not refundable, the only way to benefit from this credit is to pay taxes to the federal government.

Another missed opportunity involves a review of personal income tax, especially income tax for low income earners. I am referring to low income families. The federal government has huge surpluses. I think the cumulative surplus over the past eight years is roughly $63 billion. Again this year, the surplus will be $9.1 billion when they estimated it would be $1.9 billion. Is it normal in such a budgetary context that the federal government does not even think about reviewing personal income tax, especially for low income families? Is it normal that among the G-7 nations, Canada most readily taxes the earnings of low income families?

They talk about a zero tax threshold, which seems to be a rather complicated phrase. It is the point at which taxpayers start to pay tax. For the federal government, the zero tax threshold here in Canada is $8,200. Unless I am mistaken, this is far below the poverty line or the low income cutoff. Experts go to great lengths to try to be more politically correct and use gentler terms than “poverty line”. That is too harsh, so they talk about “low income cutoff” instead.

The poverty line is well above the taxable income amount of $8,200, in terms of federal income tax. Among the G-7 nations, the Canadian government is the one that most readily taxes the earnings of personal and family incomes. The last budget—which was the premise for Bill C-33—was a good opportunity for the government to review personal income tax.

If memory serves me correctly, in 1996 the Bloc Québécois had presented a series of measures to make the personal income tax system more equitable. We had done this for businesses as well. I remember that the then Minister of Finance, the current Prime Minister, rose in this House to congratulate the Bloc Québécois for having conducted such a comprehensive study. However, since that time there has not been any true taxation reform in order to include some tax equity in the federal system.

Aberrations like a zero tax threshold of $8,200 for individuals and approximately $10,000 for families still exist. That makes no sense. Do hon. members know who the first victims of such inefficiency are? Single mothers with one or more dependent children. With $9 billion in surplus, possibly up to $10 billion or $12 billion for the current year ending on March 31, 2005, why is it so difficult for the government to see exactly what we are seeing and to take measures accordingly? It always comes up with half measures, producing alarming statistics. For example, since 1993, the number of children living in poverty in Canada has not decreased in real terms. We still have 1.2 million children living in poverty. And children live in poverty because their parents live in poverty. In this respect, taxation can do a lot. Taxation is a major determinant of the relative wealth or poverty of citizens.

Measures can be taken to improve the situation somewhat in terms of the management of the tax conventions signed between Canada and various countries considered by the OECD to be tax havens, that is, countries or regions which provide undue benefits with respect to taxation. In Barbados, for instance, the tax rate on corporate dividends is between 1.5% and 2.5%, while it is around 28% or 29% in Canada. So, we are talking about countries that do not have transparency as a watchword, be it concerning bank accounts, or banking and industrial activities of Canadian or other foreign subsidiaries established in Barbados or elsewhere, in Fiji, for example.

These are often countries where money is laundered, making them veritable laundry machines, which the OECD denounces every year. But, except for a handful of European countries, no one has really taken any drastic measures to put an end to the tax evasion made possible because tax havens exist.

At present, there are two measures in this bill that affect tax agreements. They are positive measures, but they do not tackle the heart of the problem. The heart of the problem stands on two feet: he was elected Prime Minister on June 28, 2004. We cannot set an example for businesses who invest in tax havens and send their billions every year to tax havens. We cannot set an example here, because our Prime Minister does not set an example.

I have mentioned the tax agreement with Barbados because it is the worst example of tax avoidance and the flight of capital to countries considered tax havens. Businesses are taxed at a ridiculously low level on their profits, and when they return their money here, they are exempt from taxes in Canada. Barbados is one of the worst tax havens identified by the OECD. The Prime Minister, the former finance minister, owns a family business called CSL International. It is an international marine shipping company that has an office—not called a head office or headquarters and I will explain that in a moment—in Barbados. He himself profits from the existence of a tax agreement.

When one looks at the tax agreement itself, it seems fine. But we have been analyzing it for a long time now, and denouncing it, too. It appears proper. There are even clauses stipulating that businesses paying only 1.5% or 2.5% as Barbadian income tax, when they return their profits to Canadian subsidiaries, will be taxed on the difference between normal Canadian tax they would pay if their business were in Canada and what they have paid in Barbados.

But a few years ago the government adopted tax regulations. Regulations do not go through the House of Commons, but are defined by the executive. We analyze the bills that become law, but there are regulations to go with the laws.

However, paragraph 5907(11.2)( c ) of the income tax regulations allows businesses such as CSL International, and the major Canadian banks—nearly two weeks ago, a study was made public by a university professor who said that the banks had benefited from this kind of tax evasion—to proceed in a way that, when they pay tax once in Barbados, they circumvent the provision in the tax treaty with Barbados that states that they still have to pay tax here.

Under a regulation adopted by this government, not this Parliament, an exception is made for companies that pay Barbados an initial tax of 1.5% or 2.5%, depending on the type of business. When these profits are repatriated, the federal regulation adopted by the government, by the governor in council, and not put before parliament, ensures that this company does not pay taxes twice.

So, they are taxed once at 1.5% or 2.5% of profits or dividends. When this money comes back here, it is not subject to the federal Income Tax Act. This is not normal. An exception was created by a regulation voted by the executive, and the Minister of Finance, the current Prime Minister, was there when this regulation was passed.

This is not normal. We must abolish this regulation to ensure that all businesses, be it CSL International, the Prime Minister's family business, or the major Canadian banks, pay their fair share of taxes. Billions of dollars are not going into federal and provincial coffers because of a regulation adopted by the governor in council, meaning the government, because the regulations are not subject to approval by parliament but are determined by the governor in council.

Worse still—members will say I am exaggerating, but I am not, because these are facts—I was here in 1998. The finance minister at the time, the current Prime Minister, introduced omnibus legislation containing various measures, a bit like Bill C-33. There were small and big measures, things that were clear and things that were not, because it was extremely technical at times.

However, there was a small paragraph at the end of the bill that said, “And we are amending the Income Tax Act for international shipping corporations”. This statement was followed by references to all sorts of things. Of course, that got my attention. I began reading this omnibus bill from the end of it and discovered that the Prime Minister had tabled, when he was the Minister of Finance, through Bill C-28, provisions that benefited his own company, which has since become a family business, since he supposedly gave it to his children.

What did Bill C-28 say? It added more things. Not only did we have regulations, so that companies would not have to pay taxes twice, even though tax rates were ridiculously low compared to the North American average and to those that apply to us, but there was also an additional exception that applied strictly to international shipping corporations. There are eight of those in Canada and he is involved in all of them.

What was contained in this somewhat technical provision with the incredible impact? It said that even dormant corporations, that is companies that are not directly involved in international shipping, but that are part of conglomerates, can benefit from the tax provisions found in the regulations to avoid double taxation, even if the first tax rate is very low.

In other words, the then Minister of Finance and current Prime Minister introduced an act that was custom made for his own company to avoid having to pay deferred tax here, and to ensure that his type of corporation could benefit from the tax provision, even though it does not qualify.

Worse still—and some might think I am exaggerating, but I am not—in order to benefit from a tax convention, a Canadian corporation that has a subsidiary abroad, such as in Barbados for example, must be a business whose mind and management are located in that country. In other words, all the managerial and administrative decisions must be made in that country.

A CBC broadcast aired several months ago indicated that a reporter had tried to get answers about CSL International in Barbados, but was referred to CSL in Montreal. This means that the management and planning of CSL International is not even located in Barbados, but in Montreal.

So, the first condition is not met to be able to benefit from such a tax treatment, according to the federal income legislation for corporations. This is serious. These are missed opportunities, but now we know why.

Food and Drugs Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta and the official opposition of Canada to participate in the debate on Bill C-28, 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 authorization for foods that contain substances at specified levels, and to exempt those foods from the applicable requirement of the act and its regulation relating to their sale.

The proposed amendments are in response to concerns raised by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations regarding an administrative process put in place by Health Canada under the regulations of the Food and Drugs Act to allow Canadians faster access to food products under specific circumstances. All members of the House want our food supply to be safe, efficient and effective.

The bill proposes to amend the Food and Drugs Act to achieve two purposes. First, to provide the Minister of Health with the authority to issue an interim marketing authorization for the early sale of safe food and safe food products that contain certain substances; and second, exempt any food that contains an agricultural chemical, at or below the maximum residue limit specified by the minister under the new Pest Control Products Act, from the prohibition in the Food and Drugs Act of the sale of foods containing these residues because the sale of these foods would not pose harm to consumers. We are talking about safety.

The bill would give the minister authority to issue interim marketing authorization for food products wishing to enter the market earlier or that have previously entered the market and have added or modified contents since initially approved by Health Canada.

Currently, the deputy minister of health responsible for health products has the authority to issue interim marketing authorization, IMA. The minister is arguing that the authority to issue the IMA is a power of Parliament granted by the Crown and therefore the responsibility for the IMA should rest with the minister.

The bill would also allow for food products which contain pesticides, veterinary pharmaceuticals or added vitamins, minerals or amino acids at or below the maximum residue limit to be exempt from the FDA regulations while in the approval process.

Briefing material provided by Health Canada argues that Canadian companies are currently at a great disadvantage because of the lengthy approval time for new or modified food products. Canadian companies are not on a level playing field with their trading partners, particularly in the American market. This is because the U.S. government allows food products in the approval stage to be marketed, given that they are not harmful and not restricted by any other law or legislation.

The amendment that we are debating would put Canada on a par with the United States and give our food producers a level playing field when it comes to new products entering the market.

We would not be here today were it not for the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. Bill C-28 is a direct consequence of concerns first raised by that committee in April 1999. At that time, over five years ago, the committee identified the regulations of the Food and Drugs Act permitting interim marketing authorization as illegal. In other words, it was not supported by legislation.

Much of the law that affects Canadians is not found in the statutes of Canada, but in the thousands of regulations made pursuant to powers granted by acts of Parliament. Each year the federal government introduces about 1,200 new regulations. Since 1975 the federal government introduced over 28,000 regulations. That is 122,000 pages of regulations. About 20% of the laws in the country stem from legislation debated and passed in this legislature. The remaining 80% of the laws that we see are made up of regulations; just 20% is what we passionately debate in the House.

After a debate, we vote yea or nay, depending on the merit of the proposed law. The media and the general public focus on the 20% component. However, the 80%, which is coming through the back door by way of regulations, is not debated nor are other parliamentary democracy principles applied to those regulations.

Regulations on the other hand, receive virtually no debate in the House or even the other place, no public policy input, no studies or media scrutiny. This is an affront to democracy. Under parliamentary reform, this is the one the main issues at which we must look.

My private member's Bill C-205 passed in the House. I thank all members for their support. What will the bill do? We all know the government rules, but does not govern through the complete parliamentary democracy and practice. Some 80% of the regulations, which comprise the law, are made under the authority of Parliament. Various agencies, bodies or quasi-government organizations are delegated the authority to make regulations. However, when they make regulations, Parliament does not have the authority to scrutinize or review those regulations.

Therefore, a big chunk of our laws have been completely ignored. There is a big black hole in accountability and democracy which has been ignored for so long until Bill C-205 passed. With the passing of the bill, Parliament now has the authority to review regulations of those agencies through the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations. They will now be scrutinized and if need be, disallowed.

My bill restored some of that democracy. It was a huge step in parliamentary reform. We talk a lot about reform, but little action is taken.

The Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations does the only scrutiny. Very limited scrutiny of regulations is done in Parliament. Our new regulations are permanently referred to the committee pursuant to the provisions of section 26 of the Statutory Instruments Act. Members of Parliament and Senators are on the committee. Legal counsel and staff work diligently, scouring through thousands of papers on dry, technical, legal subject matter as part of their thankless task of reviewing regulations.

This committee is generally misunderstood and ignored. This committee is considered to be not a very high profile committee, despite the hard work it does. In fact, talking about parliamentary democracy, this committee should be considered a very important one. It is an essential watchdog, protecting democracy, controlling bureaucracy and holding the government to account.

The standing joint committee does not judge regulations on the basis of policy measures, general merit, or necessity. Its study of regulations is instead limited to the questions of validity and legality. Members follow uniform and clearly defined criteria in their examinations. Compared to most committees, this committee is non-partisan and we build consensus in the committee.

The committee judges whether or not an statutory instrument: is not authorized by the enbabling legislation or is not in compliance with the conditions set forth in the legislation; does not conform with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Canadian Bill of Rights; purports to have retroactive effect without express authority being provided by the enabling legislation; imposes a charge on public revenues, imposes a fine or imprisonment without express authority; excludes the jurisdiction of courts; has not complied with the Statutory Instruments Act with respect to transmission, registration or publication; appears to infringe on the rule of law, trespasses unduly on rights and liberties, make rights and liberties unduly dependent on legislative discretion, makes some unusual or unexpected use of powers conferred by the enabling legislation; amounts to the exercise of power that should properly be the subject of parliamentary enactment; and is defective in its drafting, including the translation.

These criteria deal with matters of legality and procedural aspects of regulation, not the merits of the regulations or policy.

The committee works meticulously, and with the complex nature of its undertaking, work proceeds at a slow pace. The long delays in dealing with particular items are largely related to the large number of regulations which the committee has to review relative to the number of meetings it can hold each year. All this considered, the committee, with the able assistance of its long-time legal counsel, Mr. Francois Bernier, is remarkably productive. Consider that over the period from November 7, 1997 to December 6, 2001, the committee dealt with 1,133 pieces of subordinate legislation in the course of 45 meetings.

I am a seven term co-chair of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations, representing all members of the House and I speak from personal experience. The work of the committee members can be extremely frustrating. We in effect hold ministers accountable for the legality of subordinate legislation, primarily regulations, sponsored by their departments.

However, this task is at times almost impossible. When the scrutiny of regulations committee finds a regulation that it deems in conflict with the legislation, our first step is to inform the respective department in writing. It should be a simple process. We identify a problem regulation, inform the department and then it fixes it. Instead, what we usually encounter is foot-dragging that can carry on for years or even decades.

The Food and Drugs Act regulations are an example of this foot-dragging. For five years, the department argued that there was nothing wrong with the regulations concerning the notice for interim marketing authorization. We are debating this today. Finally, after so many years, the department abruptly informed the committee last April that it was proceeding with the legislation before the House today. For over five years, the department has been using illegal regulations. Those are the regulations we are trying to correct today.

In a democracy that prides itself in the rule of law, this is unpardonable, but it is not the least bit unusual. Recently, my committee finally closed another file that had been opened for 27 years, more than a quarter of a century.

The committee's usual practice is to deal with a problem regulations informally by letter to the relevant officials. This allows the minister involved to amend the regulation with minimum fuss. The committee can also prepare and issue a disallowance report, but this is usually done only after the department has failed to address our previously identified concerns. Disallowance reports are very rare.

Let us consider the sequence of events surrounding the Food and Drugs Act regulations concerning interim marketing authorizations. I want to give this example so that the members in the House, the public in general, and our media scrutiny can also understand and comprehend the problems facing this committee.

On April 7, 1999 counsel for the scrutiny of regulations committee wrote to the DIO and questioned the legality of provisions of food and drug regulations that provided for notices of interim marketing authorization. The objection was that these provisions provided for unauthorized exemptions and also involved an illegal sub-delegation of powers.

On November 25, 1999, 232 days later, the department responded that it considered the provisions to be a valid exercise of regulation-making powers conferred by the Food and Drugs Act.

On December 23, 1999, the committee counsel reviewed the arguments put forward by the department and sent a letter countering those arguments, asking for reconsideration.

On March 8, 2000, now 355 days, almost a year after the initial correspondence and over three months since the last letter, the department replied indicating that generally it was committed to the policy, but that it might review the regulatory provisions in question with a view to making a “clarifying amendment.”

Exactly seven months later, on September 28, 2000, the committee was forced to again write to the department to inform it that it wished a detailed response to its letter of December 23, 1999.

Nothing more was heard from the department until October 17, 2001, over one year since the last correspondence, when a comprehensive reply to the letter of December 23, 1999 was finally received by the committee.

On December 12, 2002, the file was re-submitted to the joint committee with a 13 page note on the October 17, 2001 response.

On March 3, 2003, myself, as co-chair of the standing joint committee, wrote to the Minister of Health to restate the committee's position and explain why the response from the department was not accepted.

Over a year later, on June 24, 2004, the committee was informed that:

It is the intention of the Department to bring forward legislation in the early Fall 2004 that will amend the Food and Drugs Act to allow the Minister of Health to issue NIMAs and provide for a limited power to exempt food products from the application of the Food and Drug Regulations and paragraph 4(d) of the Act.

Finally, on November 29 Bill C-28 was introduced. There was a little over five years between the time the issue was first raised with the department and the introduction of remedial legislation. As I said earlier, when compared to other files that stretch on for decades, this issue was resolved rather quickly. However, five years is still five years. That is far too long for illegal regulations to remain in place.

Departments and their ministers take far too long to respond to concerns of the committee. There is no good reason for the department to go over a year without responding to a letter from the committee. It is an affront to the rule of law, it is an affront to Parliament and it is an affront to democracy. That is why we need Parliament to be reformed, including scrutiny of regulations issues.

I support Bill C-28. The amendments to the Food and Drugs Act are years overdue. I give full credit to the members, the staff and the counsel of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations for identifying the drawbacks in the system, bringing that to the fore, and following and chasing it through until remedial action is taken by the department to correct this parliamentary affront that has been going on so long.

I will conclude by asking members of Parliament to look into the regulatory process so that the regulatory process in this country is fair, efficient and effective.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly where to start in putting my question. The hon. member and Bloc Québécois critic for health started off by saying that he would be brief. By that he meant that he would touch only briefly on the matter at hand and spend all his speaking time on several issues, each more interesting and more important than the other.

He raised all at once clinical trials, horizontal application and Viagra. Bearing in mind the time of day when our proceedings are broadcast on television across the country, perhaps we should be careful with that.

Regarding Bill C-28, I am pleased to see that we can count on cooperation and discussion at committee. The hon. member and all the other hon. members will recognize that the intent is to institutionalize what is already in place, what we have already been doing for the past five or six years, and that we are responding to the request by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. We must therefore make sure that the regulations we apply will not be successfully challenged in court.

I would like to come back briefly to tobacco use. I want to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, who raised the issue. We considered it today at committee and heard testimonies. All members of the committee unanimously approved a report.

It is indeed important to have this discussion today because, this evening, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso will be introducing a bill concerning a deduction for volunteer emergency service workers and the contribution they make to Canada when it comes to curbing among Canadians the risk of fire associated with tobacco use. That is very important.

I would also like to congratulate the hon. member, as well as the hon. members of all stripes who sit on the committee. We have done good work on the quarantine issue. We have moved the issue forward and demonstrated that a minority government can work, take action and count on the cooperation of everyone. These were my comments.

I would like to thank the hon. member for his cooperation with respect to Bill C-28.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief, which is unusual for me, although I do not exclude the possibility of expanding somewhat, if I feel any enthusiasm in this House.

Bill C-28 is a rather technical bill, as the hon. parliamentary secretary very eloquently reminded us. The purpose of Bill C-28 is to provide the Minister of Health with the authority to issue interim marketing authorizations. This is a bill reflecting the full extent of the will shown by the government to review the regulations.

As I said, the purpose is to enable the Minister of Health to issue interim marketing authorizations for foods that contain certain substances at specified levels, which are not hazardous to health, and therefore exempt from certain regulatory requirements for foods that have not yet been commercially approved.

We are not opposed to the principle of this bill. But I will be curious to see how it will be received in committee. In fact, I have just come from the Standing Committee on Health, where we approved a somewhat more controversial bill, on which I was pleased to work in a great spirit of consensus, a bill dealing with the whole issue of fire-safe cigarettes put forward by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

This study was undertaken in the previous Parliament. It is something to realize that, in committee, we have approved regulations drawing from the work of that precedent setting city of New York. In my opinion, it has to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world. l do not know how many hon. members have visited New York City during the Christmas period. Might I add that the people of New York elected their first female senator to the U.S. Congress? That is not the only thing that makes New York City an interesting place.

So, in principle, we support Bill C-28, which seeks to amend the Food and Drug Act. We will see just how far the minister wants to go in issuing interim authorizations. We understand that a number of criteria will have to be met. At first reading, however, we were not convinced that the minister was the best person to issue these interim authorizations. We will see what the Department of Health and the experts have to say in committee. This is a fairly technical bill, but we will do our work in committee as usual.

Personally, if I may say so on our last sitting day, I would have liked there to have been more work this session on the important issue of drug costs. This is an important debate that can create a welcome division of opinions. It is not always about agreeing on everything, since the right to dissent exists.

If I were asked to identify a few measures that this House could agreeably consider, I would spontaneously suggest four. First, it is not really acceptable, as the hon. member for Saint-Lambert knows, for the retail prices of generic drugs to be 30% higher in Canada than in the United States.

The United States is not, we agree, a society that opposes free enterprise. When I think that President Bush, a Republican, who is not a model for anyone in this House, is one of the most right-wing men I have never met, since I was denied access the day he came to the Hill. But it was not the right time to talk.

In my opinion, we must remember that the United States of America limited the scope of the Notice of Compliance, which was adopted in 1984 by the Conservatives, who wanted to establish various provisions to prevent counterfeiting. This was received favourably by some.

I remember, for example, that a man named Bernard Landry tabled a brief before the MacDonald Commission saying that it was important to have a national bio-pharmaceutical R and D industry.

We understood that the conditions were not in place for this industry to emerge when, from 1923 to 1988, anyone wanting to copy a drug—the parliamentary secretary knows this because he is very much on top of this question—could just pay a fee to the innovator. So a generic manufacturer wanting to copy a pharmaceutical product of an innovative manufacturer needed only to pay a royalty to the originator in order to do so.

At that point, there was not a lot of either legislative or regulatory control, but I can assure you that when the regulation was adopted, inspired by the U.S. legislation, the desire was to ensure that counterfeiting of drugs would be impossible.

There was some very real pressure brought to bear, both on the Government of Canada and on the governments of certain provinces, to adopt regulations similar to those in effect in the U.S. The objective of the link regulations was to avoid counterfeiting. While I do not want to stir up any unpleasant memories for anyone here, I would point out that the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney passed a link regulation in 1989.

What was this link regulation that was adopted under the patent legislation? The regulation provided that Health Canada could be blocked in the process of issuing a compliance notice if the same company filed a notification citing reasons to believe that a patent was about to be infringed.

Just to amuse my colleagues, I will take Viagra as my example. Viagra could have eight patents out on it, one for colour, another for the key ingredient, one for the secondary ingredient. So let us assume there is a total of eight patents. The generic company therefore has to go down the whole list of patents and prove that it is not going to infringe upon any of the patents for which a compliance notice has been issued

At the slightest hint of counterfeiting, the company that holds the first patent, generally an innovative company, can gain an injunction for 24 months. We know that, from the legal point of view, an injunction is a pretty potent thing—no bad pun intended there—a pretty serious thing, because the process will be held up for 24 months.

Hon. members need to know that this injunction is issued prima facie, and is a very drastic measure. The slightest allegation can block the process for 24 months.

If it were up to me to propose four measures, let us say, I think that this House should look at a better balance on the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has the same powers as a superior court. It limits the prices set by manufacturers for all patented medicines to ensure they are not excessive. In Canada there is control over medicines, but not a limit on the retail price. That is not what we are talking about. This is control linked to the cost of medicines from the moment the manufacturer puts them on the market until the time the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has a look at them.

Thus, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board Act could be amended to ensure that the generic manufacturers are also subject to it.

Third, in addition to asking questions about the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations, and hoping for changes in the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, I think we all know that Canada is participating in an international conference on data harmonization.

Of course, we can easily imagine how thrilling a quest for learning this must be. Canada is therefore an observer at an international conference where Japan and the European Union are represented. Should we not be looking at mechanisms for making drug approvals easier?

Should we not be asking questions, as parliamentarians, about the way we want the companies to present their clinical data? Let us not forget that there are usually three phases in getting a notice of compliance. In each phase, clinical data must be presented. Naturally, this can cost thousands of dollars.

In short, with respect to the cost of medicines, we must look at the issue of the PM(NOC) Regulations, the role of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, and the way this can be done as quickly as possible. It is in the public interest, so that Canadians and Quebeckers can have access to medicines and know they are safe. It is a matter of health and public safety to make certain that the medicines for which a notice of compliance is issued will not be subject to a recall.

Unfortunately, over the past few weeks there have been three examples of drug recalls. That is not good. There needs to be a good balance between quick and careful registration and there also needs to be mechanisms that give reasonable and solid guarantees on the safety of the drugs.

I know that in the previous budget the government had announced an extra few million dollars to help Health Canada perfect its analysis techniques. When a clinical monograph is submitted it can represent a stack of books from this wall to that wall. I am talking about thousands of pages of information that has to be looked at by examiners, who are often doctors, people who have a doctorate who must fully understand—research drugs are first tested on animals and then humans—the entire framework of the clinical trials.

If the parliamentary secretary does not mind, I will digress a little and talk about something that is at the heart of Bill C-28. The issue of clinical trials in Canada is a bit slack. We looked at this in the parliamentary committee. There are no real regulatory agencies that monitor clinical trials. Health Canada does this a little, somewhat horizontally. This issue of clinical trials is an extremely important one. It poses ethical questions as well as medical questions.

In the parliamentary committee, we presented 15 or so recommendations to the Minister of Health so that Canada could become competitive in terms of the conduct of clinical trials and also so that these trials could be publicly funded. It is unsettling to see that most clinical trials in Canada are conducted at the instigation of the private sector. Very little publicly funded research has been done on clinical trials. One has to wonder: is it good, in a society like Canada's, for the pharmaceutical industry to dictate, in a way, the clinical information program? I am not so sure. I think a solid research infrastructure needs to be implemented.

I want to digress again. We have, of course, the health research institutes. We do have to recognize that their budgets are now over half a billion dollars.

I have very fond memories of the time I spent as R and D critic for my party. The following will recall those fond memories for the House.

The former premier of Quebec, Mr. Bouchard, is a brilliant lawyer and a first-rate litigator. He was a remarkable premier, a strong statesman, who served Quebec very well. I am being, of course, very objective here. Let me remind my hon. colleagues of the brilliant campaign we led in 1993 under Mr. Bouchard, who was the leader of the Bloc Québécois at the time, which turned us into the official opposition.

In a huge fit of generosity, rarely seen in public life, Mr. Bouchard entrusted me with the R and D portfolio. That kind of surprised me. As people close to me know, I am a noble-hearted man, who has a very tough time operating a VCR. So, I was not too familiar with research and development. But I certainly tacked it. I met with people and read a lot of reports.

At the time, there was no department dedicated to research and development. I was very surprised then to read a report from the OECD, which, in a way, is the rich countries club. During the 1990s, the OECD was saying that Canada was next to last in research and development. This is serious. A continental country such as Canada, which had a relatively high GNP, was focussing less on research and development than other nations that had much fewer resources.

At the time, the industry was bitterly complaining about this situation. Some leadership should be assumed through public funds for research and development. We should not think that this is merely the responsibility of the private sector.

I will conclude this digression by saying that we have witnessed the creation of 13 Canadian institutes of health research, which basically replaced the medical research council of Canada.

The council was well known to Quebec researchers. During at least one generation, particularly when Mr. Bureau provided leadership with the health research funds for our province, on average, Quebec researchers were presenting 33% of the applications for funds to the medical research council of Canada. Even though we accounted for only 24% of the country's population, our ratio of researchers was much higher. Consequently, we were hoping to get corresponding funds.

When we examined the research by the Canadian institutes of health, we found out that they were virtual. Consequently, we were funding researchers and infrastructures, but these were not physical locations. We wanted networking for each of the research centres that existed at the time. We had an institute of health research for neurology, another one for cancer, and yet another one for mental health.

Concerning mental health, I want to digress for a moment. In the next years, one Canadian in five will have various degrees of mental health problems. Our relationship with mental health will thus face a major challenge in the next years. In a society where there is a lot of stress, health determinants vary.

It is interesting to ask ourselves why a person may go through life with a healthy attitude, a good mental balance, even a certain joy of living. We realize more and more that it is not medication that contributes to this. Tobacco use, among other things, has some effect on this.

In conclusion, we will study Bill C-28 in committee. It is a technical bill, but we realize that it has a lot of substance. We will be happy to hear representations from officials. We have some concerns over the role that the minister might want to take upon himself in respect of voluntary notices of compliance. We will be vigilant, but we view favourably a bill that I have examined thoroughly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-28 which proposes two amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. These proposed amendments would provide the Minister of Health with the authority to allow Canadians faster access to a wider variety of safe and nutritional food products. Before I speak about the bill, I will provide some context to the reason the bill is being proposed.

The first proposed amendment responds to the concerns of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations on the legal status of regulations that currently permit the issuance of notices of interim marketing authorizations under the food and drugs regulations.

These notices allow the earlier availability of safe foods in the Canadian marketplace while the formal process is undertaken to amend the regulations. That is quite important to a lot of producers, to a lot of consumers and to industry so that we can get these products on the shelves as quickly as possible without undue duress but in a safe manner. I will get to that later.

The amendments introducing this concept into the food and drugs regulations came into effect in July 1997 after thorough consultation and analysis in accordance with the regulations of the federal regulatory process. Members will notice from the dates that we are talking about something we have been exercising since 1997. It does not change the effect of the way we manage these things. It just brings it into the proper regulations according to the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.

These provisions allow the director, defined as the assistant deputy minister of the health products and food branch of Health Canada, to issue a notice of interim marketing authorization to exempt certain foods from the application, in whole or in part, of the regulations after a thorough safety assessment has concluded that no harm will be caused to consumers or users. By doing so, the director can allow the sale of these foods by all manufacturers and producers while the regulations are amended. We do not have to go through this step for every manufacturer and every producer. Once this has been done, these products can go into the marketplace.

In fact, this is the final stage of the federal regulatory process and of the review conducted by the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations made by the governor in council, under the Statutory Instruments Act.

The standing committee examined the provisions on the notices of interim marketing authorizations and expressed concern that the power to exempt some foods from the requirements of the Food and Drug Regulations would give to the director administrative discretion that exceeds the legislative authority granted by Parliament to the governor in council.

Essentially, the standing committee maintains that the regulations authorizing the issuance of notices of interim marketing authorizations go beyond the scope of the Food and Drugs Act.

Since the coming into effect of these regulations, Health Canada has issued 82 such notices without any concerns being raised by consumers or the industry. Consumers have had quicker access to new and safe food products. For example, foods to which vitamins or mineral nutrients were added to increase their nutritional value were offered more quickly on the market.

It is important to understand that the committee's concerns are not related to food safety. Rather, they are technical having to do with the powers of health bureaucrats or personnel, under the act and regulations. This is what we want to correct. They are not making any comments, since this is not their role.

As to whether the system works, we have already issued 82 notices of authorizations without encountering any problems. We have been doing this for a while, following a public discussion process.

Moreover, the notices of interim marketing authorizations allowed for the quicker sale of foods from cultures that were treated with agricultural chemicals, including safe and effective pest control products.

In order to maintain the current mechanism that offers benefits to consumers and industry by allowing the consumer timely access to safe food products, the government has brought forward Bill C-28.

The first proposed amendment would provide the Minister of Health with the authority to exempt the food from the application, in whole or in part, of the Food and Drugs Act and the applicable requirements of the food and drug regulations.

The minister would do this by issuing an interim marketing authorization, which would allow the immediate sale of some food products for which scientific assessment has already established that these products would not pose a hazard to the health of Canadian consumers or users.

The sale of these food products would be allowed while the full regulatory process was undertaken to amend the regulations. It has to be clearly understood that all the questions of safety have already been taken care of and all the testing has been done; then we go through longer term regulatory process and the mechanics, which could take some time.

Just to stress this latter point, I repeat that the issuance of an interim marketing authorization would not affect or circumvent the conduct of a thorough safety assessment prior to the availability of these food products on the market.

These authorizations could only be issued when the scientific evaluation concludes that no harm to consumers would result from the consumption of the food, and Health Canada has made the decision to propose a regulatory amendment for a number of reasons: first, the extension of use of a food additive already permitted to be added in other foods into a new food or the change of a permitted level of use of a particular additive; second, maximum residue limits of an agricultural chemical or veterinary drug in a food where the food and drug regulations already permit these substances in other foods, or the increase in the permitted maximum residue limits; or again, the addition of vitamins, mineral nutrients and/or amino acids at different levels than those listed in the regulations, or to new foods.

This limited scope of application of the interim marketing authorization mechanism in the bill is exactly the same as in the current regulatory mechanism that was reviewed by the standing committee. The only difference is that it clearly specifies the authority in the Food and Drugs Act instead of the regulations.

Again, it is nothing new. It is giving stability to the industry and making sure that Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations is comfortable and confident that what we are doing is within the regulatory powers of the department.

The second part of Bill C-28 deals with pest control products and their regulation pursuant to the provisions of the new Pest Control Products Act and the Food and Drug Regulations.

The new Pest Control Products Act, which was given royal assent in December of 2002, empowers the minister to specify maximum residue limits for the product or for its components or derivatives in food.

When specifying maximum residue limits, the minister shall evaluate the health risks of the product or its components or derivatives and determine if they are acceptable. To that end, he must determine that there is reasonable certainty that no harm to human health will result from use of a food item containing a residue level of a specific pest control product no greater that the maximum limit.

However, under the adulterated food provisions of the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations, a food is adulterated if it contains a residue level of a pest control product greater than the levels stipulated in the regulations.

Therefore, any food with a residue level of a pest control product not greater that the maximum limit set by the minister, under the Pest Control Product Act, cannot be sold until the maximum residue limit is officially set in the Food and Drugs Regulations. The regulatory change process can easily take up to two years.

The proposed amendment to the Food and Drugs Act to recognize maximum residue limits specified under the new Pest Control Products Act, for Food and Drugs Act purposes, would result in administrative efficiencies and would also benefit the agricultural industry by allowing faster access to improved pest control products for use on food crops.

The proposed amendments to the Food and Drug Act support the Speech from the Throne objective of providing a “predictable regulatory system that accomplishes public objectives efficiently while eliminating unintended impacts”.

They are also in line with the ongoing intent of the Government of Canada's smart regulation initiative and the recommendations from the external advisory committee on smart regulation. These aim in part to provide access to safe products in a more timely fashion and remove possible restrictions on international trade.

Finally, the proposed amendments will support ongoing work under the North American Free Trade Agreement technical working group on pesticides, through which Health Canada and the United States Environmental Protection Agency have accelerated bilateral harmonization in the registration of pest control products in order to provide faster and simultaneous access to a wide range of newer, safer pest management tools in both countries.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, for the Minister of Health]

moved that Bill C-28, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Human Resources and Skills Development

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-28, the compassionate care bill, is to be reviewed early in 2005.

Canadians in need have discovered that the bill is seriously flawed. They are humiliated and demoralized at a crucial time when they are desperate to care for their loved ones.

Will the minister set a date for the review and will he open the process to allow all Canadians, including those who are seriously in need and seriously affected, to have input into that review?

Parliament of Canada Act

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we have heard a few times this afternoon, here we go again. For those of us who have been here for more than one term, we have had this discussion before, and it has a ring of familiarity. I guess I am reminded of the statement by J.K. Chesteron that if a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. That is what seems to have happened with this issue.

In 2001 the government brought in Bill C-28. It said that it would solve this situation once and for all. We had a discussion on this issue. The government came forward with legislation that would tie the salaries of MPs to those of the judges, as has been said this afternoon.

I guess the government did not plan at the time that the commission, which reviews the salaries of judges, would come back with a recommendation that those salaries be raised somewhere between 11% and 16%. We heard the minister this afternoon say that it was closer to 16% than 11%. The government did not figured that into the equation.

I appreciated what my Bloc colleague had to say earlier. He said that when the Prime Minister heard the news that had been leaked to the media, he overreacted and said that he would separate himself from anything to do with it. He was one of the people who brought forth the legislation in the first place. We are back again today.

When Bill C-28 came out in 2001, the government was enthusiastic about it. The minister of state and leader of the government in the House at the time, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, issued a press release. It stated, “This bill implements the recommendations made in the report of the independent Commission...The bill makes parliamentary compensation more transparent”, which is ironic given what we have run into over the last couple of months in trying to deal this issue, “and brings it more into line with compensation for comparable groups.” He concluded by saying, “It is a fair and reasonable approach to parliamentary compensation and I invite all parliamentarians to support it”. It was supported, but it turned out that it was not a fair and reasonable package and approach to this situation. We are back dealing with it again.

In the House the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell said:

--parliamentary compensation would be based from here on in on the compensation of the supreme court chief justice. This is not a new idea. Officers of parliament, such as the information commissioner and the chief electoral officer, already receive the same compensation as a federal court judge, so the precedent is there for officers of the House. What we are proposing here is to do the same for parliamentarians.

He went on say that under Bill C-28 the prime minister would receive the same compensation as the chief justice of the Supreme Court, not $1 more. I do not see him here today to defend the previous bill, which he was once so enthusiastic about.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. We have now switched the system for indexing parliamentarians' wages from tying it to the Supreme Court chief justice to using a different system. Rather than tie it to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, it will be tied to the index of the average percentage increase in base rate wages for the calendar year resulting from major settlements negotiated with bargaining units of 500 or more employees in the private sector of Canada.

Does he feel the government is competent enough that we will not be back again dealing with the issue in light of the fact that those settlements may at some point in the future be too extreme for the government to deal with as well? Is he comfortable with the government's approach now? Does he think this is a fair and reasonable way to do it?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, usually when I get up to speak in the House, I say that I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak. Thinking about this particular bill, realistically and honestly, I do not feel like I am pleased to have this opportunity. I am doing it because I am the House leader for the NDP and I am doing it to reflect the position of our caucus. Quite honestly, I am fed up with this issue as are many people. Here we are again in 2004 debating compensation for members of Parliament.

I listened very carefully to what the government House leader had to say. At one point in his remarks he said it was very logical to take this step, that is, Bill C-30. I began to think about that in terms of the logic of what is taking place here today in debating Bill C-30.

I suppose one could argue that it is logical from the government's point of view once the Prime Minister had made his political statements that he was going to undo what Parliament had previously done. From the government's point of view, one could argue that it has some logic. However, in the greater scale of things, it is unfortunate that we are yet again debating what seems to be a perennial issue on the compensation of members of Parliament.

One of my colleagues asked the government House leader why the government wants to have this particular index. The government House leader said the index was based on average wage settlements in the private sector and was a reasonable thing. Why is this index acceptable now, but in 2001 another measure was somehow acceptable? This question was brought up by my colleagues in the Bloc, and is the question we need to ask.

I feel that yet again this issue has become politicized. All members on all sides of the House would agree that we want, what we have been striving for, is a system of deliberation and implementation of pay increases for members of Parliament that is independent, rational, defendable and realistic.

I happen to believe, and I think most members of the House believe, that we get paid very well. I, like other members, work very hard at what I do. I consider it to be an enormous privilege to be a member of Parliament. I consider it to be an enormous privilege to be one of 308 members of Parliament representing the diversity of our ridings across this country. We get paid well for that. We all work hard. All members share in that sort of commonality and solidarity about what this place is about.

I do not want to be here debating our pay increase yet again for politically motivated reasons. Bill C-28, the former bill dealing with pay increases for members of Parliament, was passed in this place on June 7, 2001. I looked at the record and in actual fact the member for LaSalle--Émard voted in favour of third reading of that bill.

House leaders have spoken of the process they went through at that time to establish a sense of independence and rationality when dealing with compensation. I was not a part of that. Our former House leader, the member for Elmwood--Transcona, now the dean of the House, was very much a part of that.

He has put forward the principles of establishing an independent process, and criteria and benchmarks for determining our compensation. We believed that happened in 2001. Presumably the member for LaSalle--Émard believed it also as did other government members because they voted for that bill. All of that has been undone. Here we are today with another version and another index.

I could argue, like other members have, that this index, which is based on Human Resources Development Canada and the average wage index in the private sector, is a reasonable thing. What really gets people's backs up and why we are reacting as we are to the bill today is because of the history that has brought us to this point. The question is still out there and it makes me feel unsettled. How many more times will we have to go through this?

Now we have a new bill, Bill C-30. Now we have another index. Now we are to believe that it will be an independent thing and never more will members of Parliament have to deal with this issue. What assurance and confidence is there that it will happen now that this has been undone again?

That bothers me and I know it bothers other members in our caucus. I have to agree with members from the Bloc Québécois and our member who spoke previously. There is a double standard.

We take all this time debating MP compensation when what we really need to be doing is focusing our time, resources and priorities on why the average wages of Canadians have fallen so far behind. One reason the index is so low is that people are not getting the pay increases that they need and deserve. Most people are working longer hours and more overtime but they have less take home pay now than they did a decade ago.

I invite members to come to my community in east Vancouver to see what it means for working families who are struggling to make ends meet and where both parents are working, sometimes at several jobs, and paying exorbitant child care costs. They are paying 40% or 50% of their income for housing costs. That is the debate we should be grappling with in the House.

Those are things that stick in one's craw when we are here again debating the salary of members of Parliament. It becomes a big controversial issue in the public about how much money we make and how it is decided, and we all get drawn into it.

For me it was the height of cynical and opportunistic politics in the way the Prime Minister dealt with this issue before we came back in the fall. I think that even members in the Liberal caucus were dismayed and rather shocked at how this was dealt with.

The government House leader was correct when he said that it will be the will of Parliament as to what we do. We are a minority Parliament, and yes, theoretically the opposition parties could get together and agree to vote down the bill, make a decision to do whatever in terms of MP compensation and it would carry. However that is not the point. I think we have to stick to the principle, which is that there has to be an independent process.

I have heard a lot of discussion today on what will happen to the Judges Act when it comes before us. As we know the previous increase that would have come forward was linked to the quadrennial report of a judge's increase. I think the feeling now is that if it is not good enough for the MPs why should it be good enough for the judges. Therefore there have been some remarks here today from the Conservative Party that it will not proceed in that manner.

I have to say that the NDP debated this very carefully in our caucus. As much as we do not want to, as much as we detest the politics that got us to this point today, we are prepared to deal with the bill on its merit in terms of the index that is before us. We will agree that it should go to committee.

However in terms of what takes place with another bill that comes forward on the Judges Act, we will deal with it on its merit. We will look at it at that time. We will decide, in terms of implementing those recommendations that the government has accepted on the quadrennial report, as it applies to an increase for judges. At this moment I think we would be further escalating the cynicism that is taking place and the political nature of what takes place if we said that we will just automatically turn down that increase at this point. We should wait until the bill comes forward and look at it on its own merit and on its own standing. That is what we intend to do in the NDP. That is how we will debate it.

The bill will likely go to committee very shortly and we will support that. We will look at the index that is being proposed and we will probably support it.

I think the way it has been handled smacks of the kind of politics that we have come to expect from the Prime Minister. He does not have the kind of backbone to stick with a decision that has been made. If we are talking about what is fair, then let us get to the essence of it.

Let us talk about what is fair for Canadians, particularly those who are struggling in our society because of government cutbacks, the cutbacks made by the Prime Minister when he was finance minister over the last decade. That should be the real politics of what is going on in this place, not MP compensation.

Food and Drugs Act

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Minister of Health]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-28, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

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