Debates of March 30th, 2004

Food and Drugs Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I will add the intervention made by the hon. member for Scarborough Southwest to the one supplied by the member for Saanich--Gulf Islands and will advise the House as to what should be done.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-398. I am also pleased that the bill may be going to committee. That is the proper place for the bill to be dealt with.

I must say that I had not really looked at the bill. I do not sit on the health committee. However, as I look at the bill I like what I see. I am pleased that the bill may end up at the health committee and be reported back by the end of September.

As I read the bill, its objectives include the requirement that large chain restaurants, and we are not talking about mom and pop restaurants as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands would have listeners believe, post the number of calories on menu items, together with the saturated and trans fats and sodium contents. In addition, all fresh meat, poultry and seafood would need to be disclosed with full nutritional information. As I further read the bill, it seems to me that with the federal government database available this would be relatively easy for restaurants to include on their menus.

With regard to prepackaged items, multi-ingredient foods would show the percentage by weight of key ingredients, especially with specific relevance to health added items, such as sugars, fruits and vegetables.

A lot of money is being expended in this country, particularly by provinces, to ensure that we have a healthy population. A poor diet contributes significantly to the costs of maintaining good health. The estimates are in the magnitude of $5 billion or $6 billion a year in additional health spending. Unchecked it will result in higher drug costs, higher rates of obesity, diabetes and the like.

The Auditor General has looked at preventive health activities and estimated that, depending on the item, it is somewhere between six and 45 times more effective to deal with health problems before they become problems, to deal with them in a preventive way rather than after the fact. That is why a number of years ago provinces such as Saskatchewan incorporated wellness programs, to try and deal with the rising costs of health care.

Twenty-five thousand deaths annually are related to diet related disease in Canada, including cardiovascular disease, cancers and diabetes. It is predicted that a new mandatory nutritional label would reduce health care costs and reduce premature deaths and disabilities. That would be a significant return to the economy and that ought to be of concern to members, including the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I listened with some interest when the member was speaking about going upstairs to the parliamentary restaurant. It is nice that members of the Conservative Party are now taking advantage of the parliamentary restaurant because when they were members of the reform party of course they would not do that. The restaurant does have heart healthy choices, but what does that mean? We do not know what necessarily that entails.

It was interesting for me to read the background material to this bill and to note the difference between the amount of saturated fat in a three ounce top sirloin steak versus a shoulder pork blade steak. The fact is there is four times as much saturated fat in the latter than in the former.

Those are things the average consumer would not be aware of, such as the fact that a small McDonald's milkshake has four times as many calories as a fruit or vegetable shake. These are things that perhaps would make a difference to people when ordering--

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

It is four times as good.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Yes, but people might be interested to know and they might change their order if they were aware of what the caloric intake was for option A versus option B.

We went through this at the agriculture committee. We discussed labelling and heard the arguments from restaurateurs and some who are opposed to similar labels on food that we are going to have this enormous list of labels. I simply do not buy it. To add the amount of calories that would be in a hamburger with cheese would be relatively easy and certainly relatively inexpensive to do.

Nutritionists and scientists know that fruits and vegetables result in a lower risk of cancer, fewer stroke results and reduced blood pressure, but two-thirds of Canadians do not consume the 5 to 10 servings of fruits and vegetables daily that is recommended by the guides. Many processed foods which indicate that they contain fruits and vegetables may only contain traces thereof and this does not really serve the purpose that is required.

I will not go on at length, but I think that food labelling and food menus that contain nutritional information are a cost effective means to help Canadians reduce the risk of diet related diseases. This is a good bill and I am glad that it appears to be pointed in the direction of going to the health committee for further review and study.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-398. The first thing I would like to do is congratulate the member for Scarborough Southwest for getting his bill to this stage. I know what it is like. My Bill C-212 on user fees passed on Friday. It took a couple of years and it was a long and bumpy road. I know what he is going through and I congratulate him for taking this initiative.

The bill has some very laudable objectives. For Canadians to understand better what they are eating, what is in the food they are eating is something we should strive for. I think I can support sending the bill to the health committee as subject matter for study, but the problems that I see with the bill are practical in nature. Implementing the bill will cause a lot of difficulties for restaurant owners and I am not sure that at the end of the day Canadian customers will get what they want either.

The food and restaurant industry is a major employer across Canada. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about tens of thousands, but in fact it was a year ago that we reached the over one million threshold of Canadians who work in the food and restaurant industry, many of them young people. Many of them create a lot of economic activity in Canada.

My riding of Etobicoke North is near the airport. It is near the major intersections of the 401 and the 427. There are many restaurants and hotels and they are concerned about this bill.

I would like to read some comments from various restaurateurs who have written to me to highlight some of their concerns. One is the issue around customization. Customization means customers looking at the menu and saying instead of this, they would like that. That creates some very real challenges for restaurateurs.

Mr. Adrian Whitfield of Jack Astor's Bar and Grill in Etobicoke said:

If I have to undertake a detailed analysis of every item on my menu, you will be forcing me to reduce the number of items I carry and to stop customizing meals to meet individual preferences.

I have a letter stating that Pizza Pizza makes its pizzas to the individual specifications of its customers. Variations on a product are endless. For example, a very basic pizza such as pepperoni can be changed as follows: regular crust, thin crust, thick crust, regular sauce, easy on the sauce, extra sauce, regular cheese, extra cheese, double cheese, no cheese, light on the cheese, cheese on one half only, regular pepperoni, double pepperoni, pepperoni on one half only. Some of our customers will enhance their pepperoni pizza with olive oil and oregano. Each of these variations impacts the calorie, salt and fat content. Those are the variations on a single topping pizza. Pizza Pizza states that the average number of toppings is three, so that is a problem it sees with respect to customization.

Here is another concern raised by ABC Country Restaurants, a chain located in British Columbia:

Here is one breakfast selection: bacon and eggs, with toast or pancakes? Will that be multi-grain, white or rye toast? No butter? Strawberry preserves or peanut butter and honey? Pancakes with syrup and butter? Instead of hash browns would you like to substitute fresh fruit? There are five different fresh fruits in our fruit bowl. It changes seasonally. Today we have grapes, bananas, strawberries, pineapple and cantaloupe. Tomorrow it may be honeydew, grapefruit and oranges with bananas and strawberries.

I am getting hungry just talking about it. It goes on, “I forgot to ask about the eggs. Fried, boiled or poached? One egg instead of two? No problem”. These all affect the calorie count and other aspects.

Another letter is from Cara OPerations Limited, a big operation across Canada located in Mississauga. Mr. Barlow, whom I know very well, said:

We serve one million guests per week thru our 350 restaurants utilizing the talents of more than 8000 teammates. Our menu offers many choices from burgers and chicken to salads and soft drinks including milk and fruit-based beverages.

It has Harvey's as part of its operation. It has offered customers all these various side orders. Fairmont Hotels & Resorts also have a problem with the customization. This is the big hotel chain across Canada, and indeed around the world. It wrote:

How often do your customers order off the menu or customize their orders?

In our experience 15% of our clients will order something that is not on our menus, especially with the loyal clientele we have who feel very comfortable ordering whatever they like. For example, salads with the addition of seafood or chicken. Choosing a different style of fish than the menu, herb butter sauce, thermidor glaze, etc. We get requests for vegetarian, no lacto, no garlic, no oils. We also get requests for special meat dishes with additions of salsa or chutneys to replace sauces.

All these changes have an impact on what is disclosed on the menu or the calorie intake of these various factors.

Ho-Lee-Chow, in the Danforth, is a big Chinese food restaurant. Mr. Garner wrote:

We currently have 129 different items on our menu, not counting combos. To add this information for each item would double the size of our menu. As we specialize in home delivery, our menu is also our direct mail vehicle. We produce some four million menus a year and mail them out. The size increase required will significantly increase both production and mailing costs.

That has to do with the size of the menu. That is another issue. The Spectra Group of Great Restaurants said:

All menu items would have to be analyzed by outside labs for accurate nutritional information. We have multiple concepts and each concept would have no fewer than 100 menu items that would need to be analyzed. Most labs now charge anywhere between $600 to $1,000 per item to do a thorough nutritional analysis. Getting set up initially would be an astronomical cost.

The Bay said:

[It would have to] source and hire a qualified professional dietician to analyze approximately 1,200 menu items to start, and on a continuous basis new items.

Van Houtte says:

Not all the information is available, and obtaining it would cost our small and medium businesses a fortune.

St. Hubert also had some concerns.

Jean-Pierre Léger said:

In fact, providing mandatory printed nutrition information is nonsensical in the restaurant business. No restaurateur could bear the costs of it, or the time it would take. There are too many uncontrollable variables.

These are household names. We all know about Dairy Queen as well. Doug White from Dairy Queen wrote:

As a grassroots, community-based company, we help fund many adult and children's recreational programs. We want to be part of the solution and we believe there is a need to create avenues for people to expend energy...Bill C-398 does not address this issue in totality.

Sylvie Paradis, of la Cage aux sports, wrote:

Although I do not have exact figures, the cost would certainly be very high. Outside laboratories would have to be used, as well as specialized consultants. In addition, the time required for this extra task would raise prices considerably.

McDonald's is expressing some concern about space on the menu board, as well as The Keg. These are serious business people employing a lot of Canadians. They are talking about regional differences of supply. How do they deal with that on their unified national menu? New York Fries has some concerns as well as Dixie Lee and White Spot Restaurants. I could go on.

I respect the member's objective here, but there are some very serious practical issues. Perhaps the subject matter can be reviewed at the health committee. It is important for Canadians to know what they are eating, but we have to arrive at a practical solution to this, not put something in place that is going to cost a lot of Canadians their jobs.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I should have ruled on the amendment that was presented a while ago. Indeed, the amendment is in order, as there were some precedents in the past.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents, many of whom are restaurateurs, to speak to Bill C-398. Many have said that the objectives of the bill are worthy. I would tend to agree.

As a veteran of the battle of the bulge myself, I appreciate restaurants that provide nutritional information so that I can make more healthy choices when I dine out, which is very frequently given our job. Many of us are veteran customers and consumers of restaurant and food services. I certainly am and I resemble that remark as well.

I believe that there is a good and worthwhile intent for restaurateurs to provide more complete information. The fact of the matter is that it is already happening. One can go down Bank Street to the local Subway franchise and get a brochure filled with nutritional information on the various choices that it offers.

However, it is information that is provided in a way that is plausible for that company. The problem with the bill, as with all similar efforts to impose massive government regulation on a free market economy, is that it would have enormous unintended consequences, and huge additional costs that would be borne by entrepreneurs and ultimately consumers.

My colleague across has pointed out that the food and restaurant business in Canada is one of the largest and most dynamic employers in the country now employing over a million Canadians. Thousands of Canadians have invested their life savings in starting restaurants that have become successful, growing them into chains and becoming franchises.

These are business people who have created wealth, jobs and opportunity for millions of young Canadians, particularly, to get their first rung up the labour market ladder in their work experience for their entire careers. This is an industry which we must support and not burden through unnecessary regulation, the likes of which is contemplated in the bill.

The cost of performing a full nutritional analysis of a menu item could be up to $500 for one item. Restaurants offer dozens of choices and all would have to be outsourced to a lab for testing and analysis. This would present an immediate cost to all restaurants of tens of thousands of dollars.

Furthermore, every time a new special comes in, it would need to be analyzed if an ingredient were switched. A new analysis would need to be performed. This burden would quickly become unbearable for restaurant and franchise owners across the country.

There are other costs as well that are implicit in the bill. Consider the cost of reprinting menus with the specified nutritional information. Adding in the required details to the existing menus would result in doubling their size. This could cost thousands of dollars, not to mention the additional cost of reprinting if an ingredient is substituted or a recipe modified.

Large restaurant chains would be forced to manufacture new and bigger menu boards that include calorie counts. This would be an investment for each outlet of tens of thousands of dollars or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. The return on this investment of course would be zero. Presumably, the nutrition police would stop the harassment, but there is no other tangible benefit for the restaurant.

The restaurant owners are already in a tough marketplace. Why would we want to burden them with this ridiculous extra cost?

The effects of the bill on the food services industry would be detrimental to consumers. Instead of providing them with extra helpful information, Bill C-398 would only serve to limit the choices available to consumers. Daily specials would be too costly for restaurants to introduce. Restaurant owners and managers would have to think twice before adding to the menu. Substitutions and combos would be a huge headache for both the consumers and restaurant staff. Overall, would consumers really benefit from this legislation? I doubt it.

Besides being inefficient, the bill is also inequitable. The regulations imposed by the bill apply only to restaurants with over $10 million in annual revenues. This unfairly discriminates against the owners of franchise restaurants that have branches all over the country. The bill penalizes one group of business people over another without any justification. It picks winners and losers and the government should not do that.

Even if we ignore all the flaws that I have mentioned, the bill is completely unworkable and impossible to implement. Let us think about the regulations for just a second. The bill would force restaurants to list the number of calories in a menu item next to its price on the menu board.

Consider for example a pizza store. Hon. members should imagine they would like to order a medium pizza, but first they have to choose their toppings. Would they like mushrooms, green peppers, onions, double cheese, or tomatoes? The combinations are endless.

Using simple mathematics it is possible to calculate that the number of different possible combinations for Pizza Pizza, for example, which carries 28 different toppings, would mean 268,435,455 different options for pizza toppings. Can hon. members imagine a menu board with 268 million entries? That is ridiculous.

A simple sandwich store with five possible toppings would imply 120 combinations which would require specific posted information. A Subway store with 10 toppings has 3.628 million possible total combinations. That is why the bill is not workable.

If we go down to the local Subway store, it will give us information that is practical and responds to the market demand in an efficient way. It provides the information with a market advantage over its competitors who are not providing that basic information. However, if we pass this law, we will require them to post 3.6 million caloric entries on a menu board.

This is not just a problem for pizza stores. It is a problem for fast food outlets and for virtually every kind of food service. I would urge all of my colleagues to vote against this ill-conceived bill. The economic effects would be far reaching and there is really no discernible benefit.

I would like to second the view of my colleague. I received dozens of letters from restaurateurs across the country who were very concerned about the bill.

For example, Jean-Pierre Léger, president of St. Hubert Bar-BQ, a Quebec restaurant chain, wrote:

We feel that Bill C-398 is neither realistic nor applicable to the food service industry, and would not help educate the consumer about better food choices.

Stéphane Breault, president of the Van Houtte cafe-bistro division, in Quebec, wrote:

Promoting healthy eating habits and a healthy lifestyle is a big job. Choices have to be made, but one has to count on the consumer's ability to decide what he or she wants to eat. As restaurateurs, we have to adjust to changes when they originate with the customer. Our survival depends on it.

Patty Jameson, vice-president of Tim Hortons, wrote:

We are also concerned about the inequities apparent in this bill. Our store owners are independent franchised operators who have put their life savings into their Tim Hortons operations, the same as most “Mom & Pop” type operators do. This bill would create an uneven playing field by dictating that our store owners comply with these regulations, while at the same time exempting the “Mom & Pop” operators.

Joan Overin, from ABC Country Restaurants, wrote:

Sure hope the government does not take the heart out of this business by making unreasonable, poorly thought out demands on the restaurant industry. That is what I would call this bill to force some restaurants, (not all) to label the caloric content of their products on menu boards and menus.

Serge Simard of Fairmont Hotels and Resorts wrote:

--introducing such a process would not only be extremely costly, but operationally short of impossible.

I know the sponsor of the bill has been furnished with these and dozens of other letters by the hardworking business people who risk their capital, who work hard to create wealth, and employ hundreds of thousands, over a million Canadians. I wish he would listen to what these people had to say about how the bill is completely unworkable and would take the heart out of businesses of tens of thousands of restaurateurs in this country.

In closing, they need our support through tax relief, lower payroll taxes, and more efficient labour practices. They do not need government imposing yet more burdensome, job killing regulations on a vital Canadian industry.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that I also received a number of letters from restaurateurs and I recognize that there is concern within the industry that this type of bill would make it too costly to operate.

I do not want to suggest that this happened because it was all men reading the letters, but as I listened to the comments being made by my colleagues about the numerous choices for pizza or whatever item was being ordered, all I could think of was that it was pretty simple. We would have so many ounces that would have so many calories and we would just figure that out. They would only have to show how much each ounce had and we could work it out. We would not have to have the two mile long menu board.

I think we are taking the right tact by referring the bill to committee where we can have discussions and we can listen to the concerns of the restaurant industry to see if there are ways to alleviate their concerns. At the same time, we would be responding to the need that Canadians have to find out what is in the food they are eating. As responsible politicians we should be promoting a healthy lifestyle and we should be providing people with the opportunity to meet that healthy lifestyle while still supporting restaurants.

My colleague from Calgary Southeast mentioned Subway. When I go to a Subway it has it marked how much things are, which is great. As a result, I have a greater tendency to go there. Harvey's was mentioned. Harvey's offers a grilled chicken and people can substitute the salad for the fries.

Restaurants are making efforts because they recognize that Canadians want to live a healthy lifestyle. I think this bill is the extra incentive to provide a bit more information that will benefit all Canadians.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my bill is to provide information to Canadians that they can use to make healthy food choices. During the bill's hour of debate on a previous occasion a number of speakers pointed out the various organizations and citizens groups that do support the bill in its current form, never mind with any improvements.

I greatly resent the Chicken Little kind of arguments that have been raised by those who are in opposition to this bill that somehow the sky would fall if this bill were to pass, that somehow millions of Canadians would be thrown out of work because all of a sudden some regulations come in to show that a particular hamburger has 362 calories on a menu board, which is all the bill is about when it talks about fast food restaurants with menu boards only.

I also want to remind those who are listening that it is a gross exaggeration to say that poor old mom and pop restaurants will be put out of business because my bill has nothing to do with small businesses. The minimum threshold is $10 million a year gross sales. What kind of argument is it to say that this bill would put mom and pop restaurants out of business? Those are the arguments of desperate people who cannot come up with valid arguments.

Nonetheless, I have read the letters from the restaurant association people as well and, by the way, none of them have ever approached me to sit down and talk about this. They have simply mounted, as members have heard today, a huge campaign to defeat the bill at second reading. Some of my hon. friends across the way, apparently, do not even want the subject matter discussed at the health committee.

I have worked with the Minister of Health. I understand that the same kinds of arguments were raised by manufacturers when they wanted to put information on prepackaged foods in a voluntary way. They fought it tooth and nail until finally the government indicated that it must be mandatory. It is clear that people read labels. It is clear that people make food choices based on the information or lack of information they have.

Let us take the subject matter to the health committee. Let the health committee call the witnesses. Let the restaurant associations attend. The bill is not designed to cover six trillion possible combinations. It is designed to offer the kind of solution that Subway has offered, which is that if people order a standard Subway sandwich, they will get approximately seven grams of fat and approximately 350 calories. Of course, if someone wants it loaded up with five tablespoons of mayonnaise there will be more fat, but that is the person's choice. It is just so people will have an approximate idea of what they are consuming.

I urge members not to panic in terms of referring the subject matter to the health committee for further study. I have consented to withdraw the bill if the amendment to withdraw the bill passes, so there will not be any legislation. We are simply talking about providing consumers with further information.

How can anybody be against providing consumers with further information? We are not talking about bankrupting restaurants. We are not talking about putting Canadians out of work. We are talking about trying to find a reasonable middle ground to provide nutritional information to consumers when they go out to enjoy all the restaurants that have been named, many of which I have attended and have enjoyed.

Let us get serious and be reasonable. Let us at least study the subject matter. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. We will withdraw the bill and send the subject matter to the committee where everyone will have more than five minutes to offer their views, and there will be considered consideration of the principle.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 6:17 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

The question is on the amendment to the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Accordingly the order is discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Health.

(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Do I have unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 9, 2004, we asked the Prime Minister why he did not let MPs have a free vote on future reductions to expenditures in the firearms program.

The Prime Minister let the government House leader and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform respond for him. Unfortunately, the Minister responsible for Democratic Reform did not answer the question, so that is why I am back here tonight.

The Minister responsible for Democratic Reform said, and I quote, “The firearms registry must continue to exist”.

The minister's response has nothing to do with a free vote on expenditures to the firearms program. I did not ask the Prime Minister for a free vote to scrap the registry, just one on future expenditures for the program.

Why did the Minister responsible for Democratic Reform duck the question? Are free votes only an option for Liberals when it does not threaten a slush fund or one of their prized billion dollar boondoggles?

My question was also consistent with promises made by the Prime Minister in the throne speech, one of which I now will quote:

This will include significantly more free votes, so that Members can represent the views of their constituents as they see fit.

Last November, a JMCK poll showed support for the gun registry at an all time low of 37.7%. For the first time, support for the registry was below 50% in all provinces. Support for the gun registry was lowest in Alberta, with 15% support. Atlantic Canada had 31% support. Saskatchewan and Manitoba had 33%. British Columbia had 38%, Ontario had 41%, and Quebec had 46% support. In February, an Ipsos-Reid poll produced similar results, with only 43% of Canadians supporting the registry. This newest poll showed support for the elimination of the federal gun registry as highest in British Columbia at 64%, with Saskatchewan and Manitoba also at 64%, Atlantic Canada at 61%, and among Albertans, 57%, Quebeckers, 48%, and Ontarians, 45%.

With so much public dissatisfaction with the program, it is understandable why the Prime Minister will not let his backbench MPs represent the wishes of their constituents, yet that is what the new Prime Minister, hauling around 10 years' worth of Mr. Chrétien's battered baggage, promised Canadians. Now he is breaking the promise before the election has even been held.

It is also very odd that the government is so at odds with the views of its own parliamentary secretary for democratic reform, the hon. member for Sarnia--Lambton, who was telling his constituents in January to expect the Prime Minister to allow a free vote when a request for more funding was presented to Parliament in March. His letter stated, and I quote:

Under the reforms being instituted by [the Prime Minister], it may be very well that the firearms program will die of 'financial malnutrition', that is, no money.

Now the hon. member has to go back, unfortunately, and tell his constituents that no matter what they think, no matter what the majority of Canadians think, the Prime Minister's so-called democratic reforms are dead.

Instead of allowing Liberal MPs to vote freely on the wishes of their constituents on highly contentious issues and programs, the Prime Minister is breaking faith with his backbench MPs and the majority of their constituents who elected them to office. How can these voters ever trust the Prime Minister or their Liberal MPs to keep their promises?

Rather than allowing a free vote on future funding for the gun registry, a program that is already $20 million over budget on last year's estimates, the Prime Minister says his review of the firearms program will “remove irritants”. Let me tell the Prime Minister that there are no irritants for criminals in the Firearms Act.

While two million government-licensed firearms owners are required to report their changes of address within 30 days or face up to two years in jail, there are 131,000 convicted criminals who have been prohibited from owning firearms by the courts and who do not have to report to anybody. Why? Because all the bad guys are protected by the Privacy Act. Why? Because the bad guys were left out of the Firearms Act.

No wonder so many Canadians want to get rid of this farce of a firearms program. No wonder the Prime Minister does not want to allow a free vote.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Yorkton--Melville for asking this question. He knows that the two of us are in agreement with respect to the efficacy of the national firearms program.

His question was posed on February 9 and posed in the framework of a free vote on the national firearms program. It is a very important question because it strikes at the heart of what the role of the House of Commons is in approving funds. What are the estimates? What is the deliberative role of the House?

The role of the House of Commons in approving funds is the most basic and ancient right of this chamber. It is a right that came to us in section 18 of the British North America Act. It is that bundle of powers in section 18 that came to us from section 9 of the British Bill of Rights and was included in our Constitution. It is the right of the House of Commons and not the other place to approve funds required by the government.

Second, what are the estimates? The estimates are in a sense the request of departments and ministers for money for operations of departments, of programs and in certain aspects crown corporations. It is the duty of the House of Commons first, through its committees, and second, in this chamber, to examine those requests. The House and its committees have the right to recommend and enforce reductions. We cannot give increases. We can only give reductions to the estimates.

Finally, what is the deliberative role of the House? The deliberative role of the House is collective. Individual members have the right to represent and they also have the right to deliberate in the sense of hearing evidence before them. Do they think or believe that a particular line item in the estimates is necessary and appropriate? Do they want to support it?

The question asked by my friend opposite was about a free vote. I am not quite certain any more what a free vote means in this place. A free vote is a more contemporary term. I would suggest that every vote is a free vote, save and except those that are confidence votes.

I would suggest also that the question asked by the member opposite and in his response is a little premature. He is attacking the Prime Minister for saying that this would not be a free vote when in fact we have not arrived at the estimates process.

As I understand it, there were no supplementary estimates requests for the national firearms program, but they are in the main estimates. Committees will have to deal with that at some point soon. We will see what happens at that point. To suggest that the Prime Minister is not honouring his stated intention of allowing the House to exercise its deliberative role is, at this point, premature.

I am not in disagreement with the efficacy of the national firearms program, as the member has characterized it. He and I are in agreement. However, I am not conceding that the Prime Minister has said that this is a confidence matter.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time in 10 years that I have ever received an answer that was not written by a bureaucrat behind the scenes and then read by a parliamentary secretary. I compliment the member for that. I appreciate the answer he has given. It is too bad we do not have more time because we need more decent debate in the House.

I am also very happy that he acknowledged that the efficacy of the firearms system is not in question at this point. I have studied this thing for eight or nine years now, and I know it is not improving public safety and not helping us. That is why I would like to see a free vote on the funding for this thing because Canadians want to get rid of it. The best and quickest way to get rid of it is to make it dry up by reducing its funding.

I have to read between the lines in his answer, but I hope there is somewhat of a commitment that we will have more free votes on this because that is what Canadians want.

[Roger Gallaway, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend opposite that I would note, as he did, that on December 5, 2002, in regard to the $72 million item request from the Department of Justice for the funding of the firearms program--whether it was withdrawn or lost does not matter--clearly on December 5 a reduction of $72 million was not a confidence matter at that time, and it is really difficult to make the argument that today, tomorrow or next week it would be.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Given that the hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore is not present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice had been given, the notice is deemed to be withdrawn.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:27 p.m.)