Colin Carrie

[Supply, February 17th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party believes in cleaning up the environment. We believe in clean air and clean water, and we believe that this should be a priority for government. We also believe that we can do this without decimating our key industries and without implementing unrealistic legislation, placing our key industries at an economic disadvantage internationally. Therefore, I rise today in opposition of this NDP motion.

As the representative for Oshawa, I cannot believe that the opposition party would put forth such an irresponsible, short-sighted proposition. If this motion were to pass, it would have a devastating effect on Canada's auto industry. Canada's Kyoto protocol-defined reduction is very aggressive and not possible to achieve.

Oshawa is famous for producing the best quality automobiles in North America. A big part of the reason we produce such excellent quality vehicles is due to the quality people who put together these cars. Oshawa's auto workers are dedicated professionals whose eye for detail has contributed to a prosperous auto industry in Canada. Today I rise in defence of auto worker jobs and union jobs. The truth is that numerous auto jobs in my constituency will be put in jeopardy if this motion passes requiring mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency.

The NDP has put forth a motion that does not address the realities of the auto industry and the economic implications of the proposed legislation. This motion proves that the protection and the retention of auto jobs in Canada and the global competitiveness of the auto industry are clearly not a priority of the NDP.

In Canada we build mid to large size vehicles, minivans, cars and trucks. If this motion goes through, it will mean that virtually every car, truck and minivan built in Canada could not be sold here. As chair of the Conservative auto caucus, I had the opportunity to visit each of Canada's five vehicle manufacturers. They were unanimous in what they told me. They told me that legislating a mandatory reduction in fuel consumption of 25% by 2010 would have a devastating effect on the auto industry. As one auto exec bluntly told me, “If we cannot sell the cars here, why would we build them here?”

What the NDP is trying to do is akin to legislating the garment industry into making size two dresses only and demanding that everyone fit into them. That should fix the problem.

If the NDP motion is put through it would greatly restrict Canadian consumer choice. It would mean that Canadians could only drive subcompact cars, such as the Chevy Aveo and the Toyota Echo. What would my constituents who are in the trades drive? I actually have a friend who is 6'3”. His wife is 6'1”. He has two rather tall kids. On the weekend he drives to the cottage with his family, his gear, the dog and sometimes grandma. Which car does my NDP colleague want him to drive, the Aveo or the Echo?

Madam Speaker, I want to let you know that I am splitting my time with my colleague from Edmonton--Leduc.

It is essential that we improve emissions standards, but that we do so in a manner that strengthens not weakens the auto industry. The NDP motion calls for legislation that will undermine the economic and competitive position of the Canadian auto industry. As the representative for Oshawa, I refuse to let auto workers in my constituency be unduly affected by legislation that disproportionately penalizes the auto sector. Look at the time and resources it has taken to elicit a voluntary commitment from one industry to deliver less than 1.8% of the national greenhouse gas reduction obligations that Canada accepted in ratifying the Kyoto protocol.

The fact is that mandatory improvements for the auto industry under Kyoto are unrealistic. The plan calls for a reduction in emissions by 5.2 million tonnes by 2010. A 25% fuel reduction approach is touted as a means to achieve that goal. The lead time for design change in automotive manufacturing is roughly four years. Product plans are already underway for vehicles that will be manufactured by the end of 2010. Product development takes time: time to plan, engineer, design and manufacture. Efficiency improvements are typically implemented as new vehicle programs are initiated and are not suited to mid-product cycle.

The NDP is looking to legislate mandatory improvements when it clearly does not understand the challenges the automotive industry faces today, such as unfair competition from offshore manufacturers and challenges identified in the CAPC report.

Mandatory improvements are unlikely to take into account important variables like differences among the many vehicles various companies produce. Regulation and legislation insensitive to the industry could lead to disproportionate effects on the sector, with devastating effects on workers, plants and dealerships.

The reality is that the Canadian auto industry represents 9% of an integrated North American market. If the NDP members had bothered to check, they would have realized that the United States, Canada's largest trading partner, has not signed on to the Kyoto accord. Canada deals with a 90% auto export rate to the U.S. Attempts to make substantial engineering changes solely for the Canadian market would result in excessive costs, restricted consumer choice and a competitive disadvantage.

It is also a reality that the NDP motion calls for mandatory emission standards when there is no agreed upon cost analysis for the new technology. Independent research by Sierra Research Associates estimates costs based on North America wide application of technologies at as much as $2,600 for cars and over $4,600 for trucks and says that the lead time for compliance with a 25% requirement by the end of 2010 is not sufficient. If the 25% is required on a Canada only basis, the cost would be much higher.

The auto industry has committed to drive greenhouse gas reductions through new technologies, publicly partner with the government in the fight for climate change and support automotive R and D in Canada.

In order to reach those goals, the auto industry is prepared to partner with the government to continue to aggressively pursue the introduction of cost effective, energy efficient technologies and alternate fuel offerings that use lower carbon fuels, and it is committed to a joint government-industry committee to measure progress toward its 5.2 million tonne goal. The industry also has agreed to a joint reporting committee with the government to monitor annual progress.

The industry's voluntary integrated agreement addresses the reality of the continental industry. It combines new vehicle technologies that save fuel with the broader availability of alternative fuels such as ethanol and biodiesels and provides communication support to help consumers adapt driving behaviours and enable them to afford more efficient vehicles in Canada.

The NDP has argued that we should adopt California standards. If the NDP would bother to step outside today and get some fresh air instead of the hot air they are promoting today, they might realize we are not like California.

First, Canada is colder than California. Driving in colder climates consumes more gasoline.

Second, California does not have an industry to speak of. It has one plant. It has little to risk. Canada has a dozen plants and much to risk by adopting unrealistic legislation.

Third, according to the CAW, Canada employs over 150,000 people directly in auto assembly and parts, with a spinoff of seven jobs for every one; this means that for every assembly job seven other jobs are created. Over 500,000 Canadians owe their jobs directly to the auto industry. Is it sensible to risk these jobs for little actual improvement to global greenhouse gas reduction?

Finally, CAW findings show that the Canadian auto industry generated a positive trade balance for Canada of $20 billion in 2001. This trade balance is fragile and depends on the free flow of goods across the Canada-U.S. border.

The NDP has not presented any economic impact studies indicating the cost to industry and costs in jobs in making such drastic legislation.

Canada alone is responsible for only 2% of global greenhouse gases. It is irresponsible to bet our entire auto industry in order to fulfill an ideological mandate. To legislate mandatory emissions standards at this time would be careless.

The Conservative Party is committed to cleaning up the environment while acknowledging the realities of the auto industry and what is attainable within it.

The industry itself is also deeply committed to producing cleaner cars. In fact, the industry has already reduced smog emissions by 99.6% since 1970 through sophisticated emission control technology.

My colleague needs to come clean and admit that not only is this motion irresponsible at this time, but it puts the well-being of the Canadian auto industry and its workers dead last on the list of national priorities for the NDP.

[Financial Administration Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member brought up CAPC and one of the major recommendations was to address disharmonization across the border. Kyoto does just that.

Adopting the Kyoto protocol will spell disaster for Canada's auto industry. Even the government's own forecasting shows that adopting Kyoto would result in 80,000 automotive jobs being at risk. The truth is that the government seems to do a lot of talking but it is clearly not interested in listening.

The Liberal government threatens to drive away our auto industry if it does not commit to effective policy that will ensure stability and competitiveness of the auto industry in the face of a growing number of challenges.

As the member said, the government is not going to do anything. That is what I am concerned about. I do not want the Beacon project to meet the same fate as the ITER project. We lost ITER because Durham Liberal MPs could not get the job done and I refuse to watch the same thing happen again.

The government needs to jump on board and be up front with the people of Oshawa. Will it commit to the Beacon project and assure us that it will not--

[Financial Administration Act, February 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address something of great importance to the people of Canada. I want to talk about jobs, particularly jobs close to the heart of my constituents in Oshawa, automotive jobs.

In November last year I rose in the House to address the issue of jobs and the government's insistence on pushing forward with its implementation of the Kyoto accord. I am pleased to tell the House that since I last spoke about this issue, I along with members and senators of the Conservative auto caucus had the opportunity to travel across southern Ontario and visit all the Canadian automobile manufacturers.

Our findings confirm my concerns about the government's inaction on such an important file. I heard about the government's unrealistic proposal, legislation to decrease fuel consumption of automobiles by 25% by 2010. This arbitrarily chosen number will cause undue hardship on the automotive industry and lose automotive jobs.

In Ontario we build mid and large size vehicles, mini-vans, cars and trucks. Under the proposed legislation, virtually every car built in Canada could not be sold here. What does this mean for automotive jobs in Ontario? As one auto executive bluntly told me, “Why would we build cars in Canada if we cannot sell them here”?

The government is oblivious to the reality that these demands on the auto industry will have devastating effects on Ontario's auto based communities. One of the side effects of the legislation would be that Canadians would only be able to buy subcompact cars such as the Pontiac Wave or the Toyota Echo.

I have a friend and this friend just happens to be six foot three. His wife is six foot one. They have two kids who are also quite large. On the weekend he drives to the cottage with his family, his coolers, gear, the dog and occasionally grandma. Which car does the minister want him to take on his weekend trips to the cottage? The Wave or the Echo?

Another one of my questions is, where are the government's economic impact studies that provide numbers on how many automotive jobs will be lost because of the government's implementation of the Kyoto accord? My concern is of special importance at this time.

General Motors has recently announced its intention to invest $2.5 billion through its Beacon project, a project that would ensure retention of automotive jobs and would invest in research and development. Infrastructure would be put in place to ensure that the Ontario automotive industry has a prosperous future. It seems everyone but the federal government is on board. The local community is on board. The industry is on board. Our local university is on board. Even the Liberals' provincial cousins are on board.

The time has come for a solid commitment to this project. It is déjà vu for the people of Oshawa. Only a few years ago, we lost out on the ITER project, a project that would have brought international recognition and an estimated $10 billion benefit to our region. Oshawa lost the ITER project for only one reason. The federal government dithered for too long. The ITER proposal died because the government would not act.

As Oshawa's representative, I cannot and will not let history repeat itself. Oshawa's auto workers are the best in the world and we will not accept more inaction from the Liberal government. We are losing auto jobs as a result. The Beacon project deserves the support of the government. It is time to stop dithering, reverse the climate of uncertainty and inaction.

The minister thinks it is hogwash that Kyoto could affect 80,000 jobs. Well, the government was quick to have our very own Canadian flag made in China. How long will it be before our automobiles are made in China?

The Canadian International AutoShow begins in Toronto later this week. There is no better time to announce support of the Beacon project. I would like to know if my hon. colleague will take a moment tonight and assure the House and the people of Oshawa and Ontario that their jobs and their future are a priority for the government?

[The Environment, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is the government that does not understand. It is like telling Canadian dressmakers to just make small sizes, force the public to fit into them and that should fix the problem.

While the government dithers over an automotive policy, Ontario auto jobs, factories and initiatives like GM's Beacon project hang in the balance. When will the government admit its Kyoto plan will kill thousands of auto jobs in Ontario?

[The Environment, February 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Kyoto protocol takes effect in Canada on February 16. While everyone supports a greener environment, including the auto industry, the Liberal-imposed vehicle emission targets will penalize Canada's automakers and harshly punish consumers.

Will the industry minister come clean today and admit that his government's own emission targets will kill thousands of auto jobs?

[Taxation, December 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a headline in Saturday's Ottawa Citizen stated, “Canadian firms fall further in productivity” despite being busier than ever. The Ottawa based Centre for the Study of Living Standards estimates that Canadian businesses were only 73% as productive compared to their U.S. peers over this past year.

Why is the government refusing to provide broad based tax relief to correct the productivity gap between Canada and the U.S.?

[Child Tax Benefit, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an issue that has been brought to my attention by several of my constituents from Oshawa. The issue in question is child tax benefits, commonly known as the baby bonus.

Currently, it appears that non-custodial parents, neighbours, friends and non-relatives can simply call Revenue Canada and make application over the phone for this benefit. This can occur without providing any proof of custody and, more important, without any notice to the parent currently in care of the child. When Revenue Canada agents are questioned on this practice, the answer is that they assume people are telling the truth.

In theory, my next door neighbour could pick up the phone, call Revenue Canada and make application for my child's benefits without any notice to our family. Furthermore, it is of concern when parents who are rightfully entitled find out they have been disentitled. The rightful parent has to go through tons of red tape in order to get their entitlements back. This is simply wrong.

I encourage the Minister of National Revenue to look into this matter today.

[Food and Drugs Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know of other means to get this product out to the general public. The way the regulations are written now, because this is under the drug directorate, Health Canada has interpreted this to be a violation of subsection 3(1) and has actually shut down the company. In many cases people who are relying on this product and have had wonderful results are now worried about not getting it anymore.

There was even talk of making a third category. In other words, there would be food and drugs and then a third category for natural health products. This was not done. It was decided instead to make natural health products a subcategory of the drug category. This has had inherent problems as far as people actually having access to these products is concerned. Many times these products, which people have relied on, have enabled them to get off the drugs they were told they would be on for a long time, certain drugs that had horrible side effects.

I do not know of any other way of handling this, but I am happy to listen to the debate today and I look forward to the comments of my colleagues here in the house.

[Food and Drugs Act, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, safety is of utmost importance to all Canadians. Many of these products have been researched to death.

For example, my colleague mentioned folic acid. Not only is it beneficial for heart disease, but for pregnant women it is very important in preventing neural tube defects. This is something that is commonly known and is spoken to among health professionals and patients; however, claims cannot be written as such because of the way the regulations are made.

We even have items like calcium, which we know is good for the bones. Why should these well known effects be regulated as such and why should they be so stringently regulated as if they were drugs? It does not make sense. These health products are inherently safe. When we look at all the different adverse reactions, they appear to be less than 1% of reported adverse reactions.

I mentioned Aspirin. In 1998, 48 people died from reactions to Aspirin. Every year, I believe, over 100,000 people in North America die from taking the right drug at the right dose at the right time.

With natural health products, these risks are almost negligible, so to regulate them as drugs makes no sense for the consumer, and it will unnecessarily shut down many quality corporations and companies that make these products.

In my own practice, I have had great results with natural health products, not only for the management of disease states but for maintaining a person's health, their optimal performance and health. Everyone from the elderly to bodybuilders have used these products and used them well.

If we can have Aspirin and Tylenol over the counter, which we know have inherent dangers and cause reactions and allergies, it makes sense to me that we give the same recommendations for natural health products.

[Food and Drugs Act, November 29th, 2004]

moved that Bill C-420, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to reintroduce Bill C-420, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

As we know, the bill was originally introduced by the member for Nanaimo—Alberni in the 37th session of Parliament. In the last Parliament, the bill passed second reading by a vote of 124 to 85, with support from all sides of the House. It was sent to the Standing Committee on Health where the bill was enthusiastically debated. It ultimately died when the House recessed for the last election.

Bill C-420 was a response from Canadians to Health Canada's attempt to regulate natural health products under a drug directorate. Approximately one million Canadians voiced their displeasure toward having natural health products being regulated as drugs. Health Canada has a long history of bias against natural health products. The response to natural health products has been called “bureaucratic obstructionism” by some.

In the 36th Parliament, the minister of the day called on the health committee to look into this. The committee tabled its report, “Natural Health Products: A new vision”, in November 1998, now over six years ago. “A new vision” brought forth 53 recommendations, including:

1. Natural health products be allowed to make health claims, including structure-function claims, risk-reduction claims and treatment claims.

2. Health Canada immediately initiate a review of the diseases listed in Schedule A to ensure that only appropriate diseases are included and, where relevant, specific diseases be exempted by regulation from the broad terms found in Schedule A.

3. Health Canada, subsequently, conduct a study with the participation of representatives from consumer groups, the food, natural health products and pharmaceutical industries, and health practitioners to determine whether subsections 3(1) and (2) of the Food and Drugs Act or all of the diseases listed in Schedule A should be deleted.

In the opposition's minority report, drafted by Dr. Grant Hill, Reed Elley and the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, it was stated that the committee's overall report recommends a continuation of the existing situation of a paternal federal government that must protect Canadians from the unknown evils of natural health products. This is inconsistent with Canadians' experience that shows overwhelmingly an incredibly safe historical pattern of use of natural health products.

Canadians universally recognize natural health products as basically foods, certainly not drugs, especially when consumed in the dosage and form recommended. The existing overemphasis on government control, licensing and regulation of mostly benign consumer products could be greatly simplified.

By regulating natural health products under the purview of Health Canada's Food Directorate, the opposition believed we could ensure that these substances are viewed within the culture most familiar to them and thereby never again fall victim to the intimidating practices and procedures of the Drugs Directorate.

The opposition still believes Canadians deserve and will continue to demand much more freedom of choice over natural health products. The opposition, the Reform Party at the time, “believes an informed Canadian consumer will always be a better judge of what is best for them and their loved ones than some distant bureaucrat in Ottawa”.

The NDP minority report also expressed concerns about the reclassification of herbs as drugs, the inability of the Health Protection Branch to regulate in a fair and balanced way, and the need to respect the expressed wishes of Canadians for freedom of choice and access to natural health products.

Minister of health Allan Rock accepted the report's recommendations on March 26, 1999. The government then set up an office of natural health products transition team and accepted their clarification and expansion of the 53 recommendations of the health committee. In its final report, the transition team stated:

Sections 3(1) and 3(2) and Schedule A of the Food and Drugs Act are no longer relevant. They do not serve any purpose that cannot be accomplished adequately by other sections of the legislation or regulations.

More importantly, the schedule does not reflect contemporary scientific thought. The weight of modern scientific evidence confirms the mitigation and prevention of many diseases and disorders listed in Schedule A through the judicious use of natural health products. It is time that the legislation and regulations reflect the prevailing science.

Section 30(1)(m) of the Act grants the authority to add anything to, or delete anything from, the Schedule of Act.

The transition team recommended that subsection 30(1) of the Food and Drugs Act should be invoked to remove all diseases listed in schedule A, and that subsections 3(1) and 3(2) should be revoked through the legislative renewal initiative.

All Canadians are concerned with the safety of herbs, dietary supplements and other natural products, and all Canadians want to ensure that there is accountability in any health claims made by the sellers of natural health products. These safeguards already exist in the Food and Drugs Act:

1. No person shall sell an article of food that

(a) has in or on it any poisonous or harmful substance;

(b) is unfit for human consumption;

(c) consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, disgusting, rotten, decomposed or diseased animal or vegetable substance;

(d) is adulterated; or

(e) was manufactured, prepared, preserved, packaged or stored under unsanitary conditions.

1. (1) No person shall label, package, treat, process, sell or advertise any food in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character, value, quantity, composition, merit or safety.

Similar clauses exist for both food and drugs and devices.

By bringing herbs, dietary supplements and other natural health products under the umbrella of food by definition, consumers are protected from false or misleading claims, and product safety is ensured.

While the Department of Health stated that “the regulatory regime for drugs under the food and drugs regulation is viewed as far too rigorous for these products, given the history of safe use that most of these products have enjoyed”, it still chose to regulate natural health products as a subset of drugs. This was contrary to the opposition's minority report and the wishes of many Canadians.

The bill is basically taken from the committee's recommendations and further work done subsequently. As I previously stated, the bill seeks to bring herbs, dietary supplements and other natural health products under the purview of Health Canada's Food Directorate by amending the definition of both food and drugs in the Food and Drugs Act and to implement the recommendations of the office of natural health products transition team by repealing subsections 3(1), 3(2) and schedule A of the Food and Drugs Act.

Section 3 and schedule A of the Food and Drugs Act were adopted in 1934 when there were no known treatments for many diseases. Things have changed a lot since 1934 and it is long overdue that these changes take place.

The diseases listed in schedule A include alcoholism, arthritis, asthma, cancer, depression, diabetes, diseases of the prostate, heart disease, liver disease, et cetera. This means that there is an outright ban on advertising, even if there is scientific evidence supporting the claim.

ASasThe act unintentionally restricts the dissemination of information to the public. Is it beneficial to the consumer and in the interest of good health?

It is generally agreed that natural health products have minimum to no risk associated with them. In the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, a long history of human usage is generally sufficient evidence to suggest a product's safety.

For example, most people consider aspirin to be safe. When it was first introduced to the public in the late 1800s, little was known about it and there was no standardized testing for safety. Still today every year patients die from taking aspirin, often in the correct doses for the correct ailment. In 1998, 45 people died from reactions to aspirin.

Does the House know that aspirin was originally manufactured from white willow bark, a natural health product commonly used by the country's aboriginal peoples? White willow bark is still a popular natural health product used today. Does it make sense to restrict information on a natural health product but not on the drug made from it when the natural health product is cheaper and safer?

In the standing committee's report of 1998 it was stated:

Although we feel that the government has a responsibility to protect public health and safety, this should not be applied in a way that unreasonably denies consumers access to products that they perceive to be necessary for their well-being.

Health Canada has a history of enforcing and regulating these harmless products as if they were strong and often dangerous drugs. There are already too many enforcement officers barging into health food stores, raiding shelves, escorted by the RCMP. Why do we need to spend so much time and so many of our resources taking harmless products, such as melatonin and stevia, off the shelves? Does the Government of Canada not have better uses for Canadian taxpayer money?

Let us take, for example, a product developed in Alberta: Empower Plus. This product has been helping patients with bipolar disease and manic depression. People with these problems are at a high risk of suicide and are sometimes not very productive in their lives. There are over 3,000 Canadians finding a benefit from this product.

The Province of Alberta initiated a scientific response to this product and the Alberta Science and Research Authority approved and funded a $544,000 study. Preliminary results have already been published in at least four peer-reviewed psychiatric journals. Amazingly, Health Canada interpreted news of this success as a subsection 3(1) violation and shut down the study. Last July, Health Canada, while accompanied by the RCMP, raided the company's offices and began obstructing access to the product. This makes no sense at all.

Many of my colleagues here today are aware of Bill C-420, as it has had a great deal of discussion. I am specifically making reference to the 1998 report to the Standing Committee on Health.

Most Canadians recognize natural health products as low concentrations of foods and, recognizing this, Bill C-420 would regulate them as such. For example, garlic has been used for centuries not only to season foods but for its health properties. Garlic has a number of health promoting benefits, including being recognized for having well known antiviral properties. It would not be far off to say that most people would consider garlic a food.

Another example is the purple coneflower, more commonly known as echinacea. This readily available herb is vastly popular, especially during flu season. It is known to decrease the duration and severity of colds.

Last night I took a well known and researched sleep aid, melatonin. This product cannot be sold in Canada, but it is allowed into this country for personal use. It is ludicrous that this product can be imported for personal use but cannot be sold here.

Because of the way our present laws are written, we cannot advertise or label the effects of well known, researched products.

Bill C-420 is designed to rid us of antiquated laws that were made in the 1930s when little was known about natural health products. It is time that our laws reflect this new reality of the science we now have.

Bill C-420 was also designed to bring Canada into the 21st century. In my own career as a health care practitioner, I saw first-hand the benefit of natural health products.

John L., a patient who suffered from arthritis for years, relied on Aspirin to take away his pain. After years of taking Aspirin, his liver and kidneys were damaged and he developed an allergy to Aspirin. What could he take then? The answer for John was a common natural health product, glucosamine sulphate. This product worked well for John and helped him maintain a reasonable quality of life.

Another patient, Martin K., was told he would have to take cholesterol lowering drugs for the rest of his life. After reading about the serious side effects and the possibility of death, he decided to research an alternative. After several months on an exercise program and a vitamin and mineral regime, he was happy to report that he no longer required the commonly prescribed dangerous drug and his cholesterol levels were normal.

Patients like these deserve the right to have access to information and products to make educated decisions in regard to their own health. Canadians need to be able to make informed choices when it comes to their own health.

I encourage all members to support this bill because Canadians are demanding better access to natural health products in a number of ways. We want better access and more comprehensive information and labelling so that Canadians will know how these products can make them healthy and keep them healthy.