Jeannot Castonguay

[Food and Drugs Act, April 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I was trying to demonstrate the importance of working together, and I believe that we are now experiencing a particular reality given the SARS situation in Canada.

Local authorities, assisted by the provinces and the federal government, are working around the clock. There are many unknowns at the present time. This situation must be closely monitored; it is essential to collect information as it becomes available and ensure everything is under control.

By cooperating and working together, we will succeed. Fighting and pointing fingers will accomplish nothing; that is not the right approach.

[Food and Drugs Act, April 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for raising an important point.

It must be understood that communication about how services are provided across the country is very often poor. Sometimes we realize that, rather than making clarifications in this House on such matters, people try to throw curve balls. As a result, Canadians do not benefit. I would therefore like to cast some light on this.

Health Canada has worked in conjunction with our provincial and territorial partners in order to ensure that the resources are in place to respond as required to local, provincial or territorial emergencies and outbreaks. This cooperation is—and I stress this point—essential to any intervention during health emergencies. That must be understood. Action cannot be limited to one province, one municipality, or to this level of government; we must work together.

When there is an outbreak of an infectious disease, local municipal health authorities are the first to intervene. If they need assistance, they call upon provincial health authorities. If the province needs more support, it will call upon Health Canada for assistance and such assistance will be immediately forthcoming.

The role of Health Canada in the case of a disease outbreak is, in fact, twofold. First, Health Canada provides proactive assistance to ensure that there is a maximum level of emergency preparedness, both at a provincial and local level.

This is done through a variety of activities, including: ongoing monitoring of diseases, which allows officials to play a role in updating vaccines, planning programs and developing guidelines; training emergency doctors to help them recognize, diagnose and treat biological and chemical agents; developing general guidelines to take charge of the diagnostic and logistic aspects of outbreaks; maintaining lines of communication and an effective planning network with the provinces and territories to ensure that the guidelines are developed together and that there is an honest and ongoing exchange of information.

Health Canada also has stockpiles of drugs, vaccines and other emergency supplies in various locations throughout the country, which can be shipped on request in a matter of hours.

Finally, Health Canada can provide additional support if requested, in order to assist provinces and municipalities or communities to manage the most difficult situations.

Health Canada can provide assistance in many ways, such as offering laboratory diagnostic services at the National Microbiology Lab in Winnipeg; delivering emergency medical supplies, and all the provinces and territories can have direct access to these emergency supplies with a simple phone call; mobilizing federal specialists to help contain an outbreak or trace it back to its source; liaising with the provinces, which might be experiencing similar outbreaks; and coordinating a nation-wide response.

Health Canada also calls upon other departments and non-governmental agencies, when the need arises. Our role is not necessarily to be the first on the scene, but it is important to ensure that those who are the first are prepared to deal with health emergencies. Consequently, cooperation is essential. When provincial health authorities ask us for help, Health Canada does everything in its power to assist.

In particular, Health Canada can mobilize the National Office of Health Emergency Response Teams, or NOHERT, if the provinces so request. NOHERT's all hazards approach encompasses emergency medical response to natural disasters, explosions, or to major chemical, biological or radio-nuclear incidents.

[Food and Drugs Act, April 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, we are here to discuss a private member's bill. As you already know, I am referring to Bill C-398. This bill proposes amendments to the Food and Drugs Act that would make it mandatory to provide labelling of nutritional information for raw meat, poultry, fish and seafood.

More specifically, Bill C-398 would prohibit the importing or packaging of meat, poultry, fish or seafood for retail sale unless the labelling indicates, in both official languages, and in the manner stipulated, portion size, the number of calories, and the quantities of 13 nutritional elements that are found in the nutrition information panel.

I would like to make a few comments regarding the enormous amount of work that has been done in the area of food labelling.

On January 1 of this year, changes to food and drug regulations came into force. The new regulations require that most labels for prepackaged foods provide a nutrition information panel containing information on calories and the 13 essential nutritional elements contained in a specific portion size.

January 1, 2003, also marked the culmination of a four-year process as a result of the recommendations contained in the National Plan of Action for Nutrition. The purpose of this plan was to improve the effectiveness of nutritional labelling by providing more nutritional information and providing more information to the public as to how to use it.

An external advisory board was responsible for the process, which included research into consumer needs, as well as indepth consultations with all sectors, including consumers and the health and food industry sectors. It was a massive undertaking.

The nutrition information panel is an important way to help Canadians learn more about the foods they consume. This is important. The current nutritional labelling, combined with effective information, provides a significant opportunity to improve the nutritional health and welfare of Canadians.

This measure will allow Canadians to compare products more easily, to evaluate the nutritional value of a greater number of products and, finally, to better manage specific diets.

The new nutritional labelling will be easy to find, easy to read and easy to use. The nutrition information panel will only be a useful tool to help consumers make healthy nutritional choices if they know how to use the information. That is fairly obvious.

That is why Health Canada is committed to launching a large-scale education program. The Minister of Health recently launched an information package on nutrition labelling, as you are no doubt already aware, Madam Speaker.

This information package was specially designed for dietitians and other health providers to help them inform Canadians about nutrition labelling. It was sent to 8,300 dietitians, diabetes experts, provincial nutritionists and other essential partners in the area of nutrition across Canada.

The new regulations represent an enormous challenge for many sectors of the food industry, because certain foods must be tested and new labels must be produced.

These sectors need time to adjust. While some can spring into action very quickly to add the nutrition labelling format on their labels, others will need all the time provided under the regulations that will come into force.

For each product, the nutrition labelling format provides information on the nutrient content of food at the point of sale. The nutrient content of most foods varies for any number of reasons, and it is not possible to test a sample of each food before it is sold.

It is therefore necessary to provide for some exemptions, to accommodate situations where it would be difficult, and perhaps even impossible, to list nutrition facts for a variety of reasons.

Ensuring that a nutrition label contains valid information requires the testing of many samples of each food over time to take into account factors related to variability. These factors include the time of year, climatic conditions, soils and the feed given to animals.

The data do not exist for all products at this time. Because of the lack of information on nutritional composition, an exemption from including a nutrition information panel has been granted with respect to raw, single ingredient meats that are not ground, meat by-products, poultry meats, poultry meat by-products, and raw, single ingredient marine or freshwater animal products. That is the reason.

Bill C-398 further proposes that information on calories and nutritional composition may come from an independent chemical analysis of the product or from representative nutrition composition data recognized by the Department of Health.

During the public consultations that led to the new regulations on nutritional labelling, consumers and dietitians told Health Canada that the quantities of nutrients shown on the nutrition information panel should be accurate.

Industry wants to analyze these products in order to be able to provide consumers with nutrition information. However, there are many cuts of meat, and fat content varies significantly according to the grade of beef or the season in which seafood is harvested. Taking these factors and other variables into account, an unrealistic number of samples would have to be analyzed in order to obtain standardized data for nutritional labelling. Such analysis is expensive and time-consuming.

This change would obviously create precedents; moreover, the repercussions on all categories of products regulated by the act and the constitutionality of such a change have not been evaluated.

In conclusion, the intent of Bill C-398 is clearly to provide consumers with more information about the nutritional value of the foods they eat. However, the current lack of representative data on meats, poultry and raw fish and seafood creates a risk that it might become mandatory to provide consumers with inaccurate information. That is not what we want to do. The information provided must be correct and that is what the dietitians told us.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, April 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously a pleasure for me to speak today on Bill C-13, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction. This bill has been long awaited in Canada. All the members and all Canadians know that this bill has been long awaited. It is truly a delight for me to speak on this subject.

In its current form, Bill C-13 reflects the contribution of numerous groups and individuals, including the members of the Standing Committee on Health, whom I want to thank for the enormous amount of work they did on this bill. It was not always easy. There were many important aspects. I believe that everyone devoted time and effort and, today, the bill is better for it. I would also like to mention the contribution of many of the members of this House.

There is no doubt that this bill today is different from the legislative proposals presented to the Standing Committee on Health almost two years ago.

Significant changes have been made since the bill was introduced last spring. The greatest change is the power to establish the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada.

However, there are also differences in many of the details of the bill, such as the Parliamentary review of regulations, the anti-discrimination clause and the firm rejection of any reimbursement of expenditures. As we all know, the bill will fill a legislative void.

We know that the current situation has serious consequences not only for infertile couples and Canadians born through assisted human reproductive technologies, but also for society as a whole. Having recognized these consequences, Canadians have clearly stated that they want the federal government to show leadership in this area.

It is up to us to protect the health and security of Canadians who are turning to assisted human reproduction technologies to help them build families. It is also up to us to follow up on concerns that science and technology should not be able to continue to evolve without regulation.

The bill also recognizes that approximately one in four Canadian couples has to deal with infertility, and this figure is increasing. These couples must overcome a fundamental obstacle to one of the most human wishes, that of having a family. Assisted human reproduction technologies offer the chance to overcome this obstacle.

The bill will be a significant development for people who use these technologies in the hope of conceiving a child. It will ensure that they can do so knowing that their health, safety and privacy are protected. It will ensure they are not discriminated against.

Having a child is a major decision for anybody. But those who use assisted reproductive technologies are faced with added difficulties requiring they ask themselves some pointed questions. Is the technology safe? What are the chances of success?

This is why informed consent is a key element of the bill. To make an informed decision on assisted reproductive technologies, whether we are directly involved or not, we need tools.

Bill C-13 puts great emphasis on the availability of reliable information on assisted reproductive technologies. It recognizes how important it is to keep Canadians informed of the possible causes of infertility, prevention measures and treatment.

Couples who opt for in vitro fertilization or other forms of assisted reproductive technologies must have reliable information on the technology and treatment they choose. Bill C-13 will make sure clinics provide this kind of information.

Moreover, the agency established under Bill C-13 will have the power to monitor and evaluate new developments in Canada and abroad. It will become a known and informed source of reliable information for those considering using assisted reproductive technologies in Canada.

Couples should have access to professional help to evaluate the psychological, emotional and social stress they and their children might face.

So Bill C-13 attaches a great deal of importance to counselling, so much so that it has generated a considerable amount of interest for many members.

Although it is true that protecting the health and safety of Canadians who are seeking to start a family is at the very core of Bill C-13, there are still other important aspects to it.

Recent events have drawn the world's attention to the more sombre aspects of assisted reproduction. For many people, the necessity for such a bill has been crystallized by the claims, false though they may be, that a cloned baby was born prior to last Christmas. The spectre of that possibility was of huge concern to us all.

As a society, we have a duty to set out in legislation what we will accept and what we will not. That is precisely what Bill C-13 does. Without it, cloning will continue to be legal in this country.

The use of cloning techniques to produce a child is deplorable to Canadians. Health and safety issues aside, cloning for reproductive purposes is ethically and morally repugnant.

The deliberate creation of genetically identical humans is contrary to human dignity and to diversity. It blurs the distinctions between reproduction and production.

It virtually ignores the well-being of the cloned child. Any child born as the result of cloning techniques would have to cope with unprecedented psychological, social and emotional challenges relating to identity issues.

Cloning is not, however, the only unacceptable aspect of assisted reproductive technologies. Bill C-13 makes a number of other practices illegal as well, practices which Canadians simply will not accept, including gender selection for other than health reasons, the commercialization of reproduction, and the creation of animal-human chimera.

Clearly, the problems addressed by Bill C-13 are profound ones. We therefore consider Bill C-13 to represent a balanced approach.

The path to that balanced approach was not an easy one, but I feel that, overall, the bill establishes a very solid framework, a framework that will enable us to address the rapidly evolving technologies and the changes in public opinion.

I will cite the example of the approach the bill takes to donor identification. I recognize the valid concerns of those who would like to see donor identity disclosure made mandatory.

I firmly believe that Bill C-13 marks a major step forward. Let me be perfectly clear: under this bill, the identity of donors may be disclosed provided consent was given.

At present, the many Canadian descendants of donors are denied access to the most basic genetic and medical information about their genetic parents. Bill C-13 will ensure that future Canadians conceived with donated gametes have full access to the detailed medical and genetic background of the donor.

However, information from which the identity of the donor could be inferred will remain with the agency. This would mean that, in a medical emergency such as a bone marrow transplant, a medical practitioner will be able to contact the donor in confidence.

In addition, we cannot ignore the fact that, to date, most provinces and territories have not clarified the status of donors in family law. This means, for instance, that identified donors could possibly be asked to support a child or could have claims against their estate made by genetic descendants of theirs.

The international experience seems to indicate that for a system based on the mandatory identification of donors to work, legal protections must be provided.

This bill could well be a catalyst for such a legal clarification in Canada. Parliamentarians may therefore want to review this issue, as part of the mandatory review of Bill C-13.

Another area where we have achieved an appropriate balance is that of research on surplus embryos. Given current scientific and technological capabilities, surplus embryos are a virtually unavoidable result of in vitro fertilization.

Therefore, as legislators, we have a duty to establish parameters regarding the fate of these embryos. Bill C-13 will ensure that, if a couple decides to donate an embryo for research purposes rather than simply have it destroyed, as is often the case now, the procedures relating to this embryo will be conducted in compliance with the rules of ethics and with the values of our society. Again, a balance has been achieved.

I want to reiterate to the House that, without Bill C-13, there is no legislation governing the fate of surplus embryos. There are no rules that are authorized by the legislation and that govern research on embryos.

It is important to point out that Bill C-13 will make it easier for parliamentarians, provincial and territorial partners, stakeholders and Canadians to make a commitment. The act establishes a process that will allow Canadians to address, on an ongoing basis, complex issues that surface quickly.

Parliament can legally conduct a comprehensive review of this legislation and, in the meantime, it will review all the regulations and it will receive reports on the full performance of the agency.

The structure of the assisted human reproduction agency of Canada owes much to the members of this House. As recommended by the Standing Committee on Health, the agency will be at arm's length from Heath Canada and will be governed by a board of directors reporting directly to the health minister.

The agency will aim for the greatest transparency possible, while ensuring that privacy rights are upheld.

The board members will come from a wide variety of backgrounds. They will each bring their unique expertise to the board. There is however one issue on which we will be adamant. No member will represent a specific organization or sector. Instead, the board members will work together in the best interests of all Canadians.

Lastly, let me quote the wise words of Louis Pasteur, the man who unlocked the mysteries of rabies and anthrax and was responsible for laying the groundwork on which much of modern science is based.

Pasteur said, and I quote, “Chance favors the prepared mind”. Bill C-13 sets up the framework that will prepare us, as a society—and as legislators—to assess and follow up on a variety of scientific discoveries and ethical challenges, now and in the years to come.

The bill now before the House might not solve all of the ethical dilemmas related to new technology. Some of these ethical issues go way beyond the scope of the bill. But the bill does provide for a balanced approach, a reasonable and reasoned approach. It is a global approach which is based on the experience and the best practices of countries the world over, but still remains our very own.

It is a truly Canadian approach that will help us meet the challenges of the new century.

[Sex Offender Information Registration Act, April 1st, 2003]

Quality.

[Adjournment Proceedings, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to summarize this for all Canadians. Regardless of what cigarette packages may say, whether they are labelled “light”, “mild” or “regular”, it is important, once again, to remind Canadians that smoking is bad for their health, period.

Now, before taking more specific measures to decide what packages should say, I think we should take the trouble to figure out what effect certain messages will have.

I know that my colleague is very impatient, but obviously, if he would give us a little more time, we might be able, in the end, to allay his concerns.

However, once again, everyone agrees that smoking is not healthy. That is the message that Health Canada would like to send to Canadians.

[Adjournment Proceedings, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I will have a little more time to answer than I had during oral question period. I will try to shed some light on this important issue raised by my colleague.

While scientists agree that cigarettes labelled light or mild are as harmful as regular cigarettes and do not reduce the number of tobacco-related deaths, we know that approximately 18% of Canadians continue to believe that they are less harmful. Tobacco producers have spent millions of dollars to promote this comforting but misleading impression regarding a dangerous product.

Obviously this is a very important issue and I agree we must act. However, as I said in my answer, it is also a very complex issue and we need to learn more about the effects these labels have on patterns of tobacco use.

On December 1, 2001, Health Canada held public consultations on the government's intentions to establish regulations that would prohibit using labels such as “light” and “mild” on tobacco product packaging.

Briefs were received and reviewed. Health Canada sponsored three studies to better understand consumers and their feelings, and to establish the effects of these labels.

Now, even if there are grounds to believe that, in the past, these labels stopped some people from quitting and that banning these labels might have beneficial effects for public health, more research is required, and it is underway.

In the meantime, Health Canada has continued its public education activities using the media, newspaper ads, pamphlets for Canadian physicians and information on the anti-tobacco web site, in order to continue to reduce tobacco use.

We continue to monitor developments and to gather information. Because we are determined to protect the health of Canadians, we will take steps as soon as we are sure they will be effective. It is important to take steps, but equally important that they be effective.

Our research continues and we want to be sure we have all the necessary information for a successful defence against the tobacco industry, should it challenge our regulations. For the moment, we will continue to inform the public on the dangers associated with use of this product.

It must be kept in mind, however, that it is essential to have a solid foundation before taking any action, and to ensure that the steps taken by Health Canada are effective and achieve our objectives.

I hope that this sheds some light on the matter. Instead of making blind decisions, I think we need to take the trouble to seriously consider all of the implications that this could have, so that when we do come up with a position, we are on solid ground.

[Canada Pension Plan, March 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address this motion asking that the government amend the definition of pensionable employment in the Canada pension plan to include worker's compensation payments.

First, I commend the hon. member who sponsored this motion on her concern for Canadians who are prevented from working by a disability or a serious illness.

I want to point out that this is an issue that the Government of Canada takes very seriously.

Since coming into office, we have endeavoured to find new and improved ways to help people with disabilities so that they can adequately support themselves and their families.

We have developed programs to help workers with disabilities acquire the skills and training necessary to re-enter the labour force.

For example, we have introduced the Opportunities Fund under which, every year since 1997, $30 million was used to help persons with disabilities take their place in the labour force.

We have introduced and enhanced tax relief measures for persons with disabilities and their families.

In 1998, we introduced the Canada study grants for persons with disabilities, and increased the amount of the grants in 2001.

In budget 2003, we renewed a transfer of $193 million a year for the employability assistance for people with disabilities program. This money will be transferred to the provincial and territorial governments to fund programs and services designed to help Canadians with disabilities overcome employment barriers.

In addition, the Minister of Human Resources Development and her colleagues are working closely with their provincial and territorial counterparts to make sure there is a coordinated approach to meeting the needs of people with disabilities, one that will provide them with the best possible services and eliminate duplication.

Of course, one of the most important programs is the Canada pension plan disability benefits program, which provides an income to contributors who are unable to work because of a serious long-term illness or disability.

The Canada pension plan is the most significant income program for people on long term disability. During fiscal year 2000, the Canada pension plan paid out $2.6 billion to 280,000 contributors with disabilities, and $245 million to the 97,000 children of these contributors. No fewer than 55,000 applications are received each year.

The Canada pension plan offers more than just disability benefits. It also provides retirement pensions, death benefits, survivor benefits, and child benefits. Almost all Canadian residents contribute to the Canada pension plan and will eventually receive benefits from it.

Clearly we must ensure that the Canada pension plan is able to continue this important work over the coming years.

This means that we must ensure that it is financially viable and can count on the necessary assets to provide future generations of workers and their families with the same level of protection that their predecessors are now enjoying.

One way to do this is to ensure that the rules governing eligibility for benefits are relevant, clear and easy to administer and that they allow for the right balance between providing enough support to those who are entitled to the benefits and ensuring healthy management of Canadians' contributions.

A very good example that illustrates this principle is the clear and precise definition of “pensionable employment” contained in the Canada pension plan and intended to be used in determining eligibility for benefits and the amount thereof.

This definition, which excludes compensation for workplace accidents, employment insurance benefits, social assistance and other benefits of this kind, has struck the right balance and shown that it is here to stay.

This definition was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2000, when an applicant claimed that the workplace accident compensation he received should have been considered income for the purposes of eligibility under the Canada pension plan.

The Court's decision was very clear: Part I of the Canada pension plan is adequate and corresponds to the objective that was set out by Parliament.

There are other reasons that suggest that the proposed change is not relevant.

First, implementing such a change would lead to increased Canada pension plan contributions for both workers and employers.

This would place an additional burden on many workers already having trouble making ends meet.

It might also act as a disincentive for some employers to hiring new workers, something no member of this House would want to see happen.

Moreover, this measure would have a negative impact on many workers' compensation recipients, because CPP would have to be deducted from their benefits, thus reducing their already pretty modest incomes still further.

Are these results we would want to see? I think not.

Extension of CPP coverage to workers' compensation recipients might seem unfair, particularly to injured self-employed people who would not be entitled to it.

Finally, if such a change were approved, it might have repercussions on such provincially administered programs as social assistance and worker's compensation.

The long term disability plans offered by private insurers would also be impacted.

The provincial and territorial governments might refuse to consent to such a change, and this would greatly complicate implementation.

All of this points to the fact that the change proposed in this motion would not be as desirable as it might seem at first glance. Worse yet, it might end up doing harm to those it seeks to help.

That is why I cannot support the motion as presented, but I do congratulate the hon. member for her efforts and her determination to help disabled workers and their families.

I say again, this is an important matter which the government is determined to address, but everyone must do his or her part in this.

I am therefore calling upon each and every member of this House, regardless of political affiliation, to work with us in our efforts to ensure that programs are put in place that can provide disabled persons and their families with the support they require to cope with their most challenging circumstances.

This is the only way we will be able to find a satisfactory solution to this situation, and to provide Canadians with the help they need and deserve.

[Health, March 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. At this time, no one really knows what this virus is. Officials suspect that it is, indeed, a virus, called a paramyxovirus, that is related to the viruses that cause measles and the parainfluenza viruses.

What are we doing in Canada at this time? We know that it is not a real threat because the virus has been traced back to Hong Kong. There have only been a few cases in Canada that have come from there.

We must ensure that we closely monitor people arriving from Hong Kong. That is what we are currently doing at the Pearson and Vancouver airports.

Obviously, it is very—

[Canada Health Act, March 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the goals of Bill C-202, which was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

The bill clearly stems from a concern for the future of linguistic minorities in Canada. I want members to know that the federal government shares this concern in every respect and supports official-language minority communities.

On March 12, 2003, and as a result of the commitment it made, in particular in the September 2002 throne speech, the federal government tabled its action plan on official languages, a concrete measure on behalf of official language minority communities.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs have announced the new Official Languages Action Plan, which I shall refer to as the action plan in this speech.

This action plan includes a $119 million plus investment in health care, to implement positive steps such as the retraining and retention initiative for health professionals and a community networking initiative designed to improve access to services provided to minority communities in both official languages.

In addition, Health Canada reallocated a total of $30 million from its Primary Health Care Transition Fund to improve access to services for official language minority communities.

The government strongly supports linguistic duality in Canada and the action plan clearly shows its commitment for the future.

The plan includes an accountability framework setting out how the commitments and obligations under the Official Languages Act are to be met.

The government is clearly committed to meeting its responsibilities, in addition to defining mechanisms for coordinating the policy and the new measures included in the action plan, meaning that Health Canada and official language minority communities will have real means of improving access to health care services.

Improving access to health care for official language minority communities and ensuring their viability are major priorities for Health Canada.

Health Canada's commitment is clear and has been demonstrated in many ways already, namely:

by funding various projects within these communities on its own initiative or in partnership with Canadian Heritage;

by funding the “Santé en français” forum in Moncton in November 2001, during which the francophone advisory committee made its report public;

and, finally, by funding various projects within these communities, on its own initiative or in partnership with Canadian Heritage. More than $13.6 million has been allocated to official language minority communities over the past three years. This funding, taken from existing programs, was a response to requests made by the communities.

The action plan on official languages will help support the development of French and English language minority communities and will make health care services more accessible to them in their official language.

The action plan is proof of the federal government's support for official language minority communities. This action plan respects provincial and territorial jurisdictions and requires these governments to contribute to improving access to health services for official language minority communities in their own language.

As members know, under the Canadian Constitution health is primarily the responsibility of the provinces and territories.

In other words, the provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the development and delivery of health services to Canadians.

This means that provincial and territorial governments are responsible for the planning and management of their own health care systems.

As for the federal government, it is committed, through the Canada Health Act and the action plan on official languages, to promoting and protecting the health of all Canadians.

I remind everyone that we must never forget that the Government of Canada cannot get directly involved in a provincial or territorial jurisdiction. Nor should it infringe on provincial and territorial jurisdictions.

The federal government cannot and must not act unilaterally in a shared provincial jurisdiction. Any decision to broaden the scope of the Canada Health Act requires extensive consultations with the provinces, and the agreement of all governments.

In Canada, there is a long-standing tradition of partnership and cooperation between the federal, provincial and territorial governments in the health sector.

We continue to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that Canadians have access to health services in both official languages. In fact, the action plan on official languages helps make health services in their own language more accessible for francophones and anglophones in minority communities.

The action plan's accountability framework is the concrete expression of our commitment to these linguistic communities, and it ensures that Health Canada will fulfill its responsibilities to improve access to health care services for official language minority communities.

In order to reaffirm the government's commitment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, the following amendment:

That Bill C-202, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (linguistic duality) be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter of the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages to report back to the House on or before October 31, 2003.