Garry Breitkreuz

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question clearly indicates one of the serious problems within the province. We have an agriculture industry that has been absolutely devastated. We have the federal government that puts in place a CAIS program which does nothing to address the serious problems within the province.

The CAIS program is a bureaucratic nightmare. The farmers and agricultural producers who are trying to struggle to get enough money to put in another crop or to get over the border closure and the crisis in the beef industry that the BSE issue has triggered are looking for assistance. Yet, that assistance could be right within the province if the equalization formula was fixed. It should be absolutely obvious that we get the resource revenues that our province deserves.

The agriculture industry cannot survive if we do not get programs that work for agriculture and proper funding for those programs. Within the province the agriculture programs are not being properly funded. The CAIS program that has been put in place by the federal government does not do what it is supposed to do. Not a day goes by when I do not receive many phone calls from frustrated farmers who do not understand why the finance minister and the federal government are trying to kill the agriculture industry in the province.

Many people do not see the connect between fixing the equalization formula and the help that we need for our basic agricultural producers in the province. That is one of the key points I was trying to make in my speech. We want fairness for the province. We want something that is going to work. People at home are sitting in agonizing pain as we speak here. They wonder what is going on in Ottawa, what is going on in Parliament, and why the government cannot see the obvious that Saskatchewan should be treated with fairness.

When we look out at the acres of land and all the potential in that province, there is no reason we should be moving from a have to a have not province, back and forth. We have the ability in the province and the federal government has removed the incentive for us to develop.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak up on behalf of my constituents today. Discrepancies within this equalization program are so obvious. The Prime Minister has not allowed the province to reap its benefits. It is a travesty. I appreciate the opportunity that the Conservative Party today has given me to raise these issues.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

I will begin my speech by letting people know watching via television exactly what the agreement is that we are talking about today. This is a federal program. It is in our charter. I cannot understand why the federal government would not treat all provinces equally when this is part of the agreement into which all provinces have entered. The government is cherry-picking in deciding this province gets this and that province gets that.

I will state what the agreement is. Under part III “Equalization and Regional Disparities Commitment to promote equal opportunities”, section 36(1) states:

Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to

(a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;

(b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and

(c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.

It goes on to say:

Commitment respecting public services...

(2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

This is what we are talking about and this is what I will make my remarks on today.

As we read this, equality for all Canadians is the very purpose in the federal government's equalization program. This is provinces rich in resource revenue helping out those struggling to provide their residents with the services to which every Canadian has the right. In theory, the rationale for equalization makes perfect sense. In reality, however, some provinces are being stripped of their resource revenues and, in turn, their ability to provide their population with those adequate services like timely waiting times for surgery and MRIs.

A national program has to be applied equally to all provinces. That is the essence of what I have to say today.

Special deals made by the Prime Minister have left provinces, like Saskatchewan, on the outside looking in and wondering when they too will be treated equally. Saskatchewan has been cheated by the Liberal government when it comes to fairness. This have province, which has seen its agriculture industry devastated by weather and trade issues, does have a bright spot: its natural resources. However, instead of allowing the province of Saskatchewan to support its people using revenues from oil and gas, the federal government instead uses it to provide residents in other neighbouring provinces, like Manitoba, British Columbia, Quebec, with a better quality of life. Saskatchewan is certainly not being treated equally through equalization.

Until very recently, Saskatchewan was not alone in the fight to keep resource revenues. It took a lot of effort by Newfoundland and Labrador, Premier Danny Williams, but our Prime Minister obviously saw a problem with the equalization formula when it came to provinces like Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, and from that we saw the signing of the Atlantic accord. Both Atlantic provinces can now keep their offshore revenues and provide so much more for their residents. Why not a similar agreement for Saskatchewan?

The Liberal MP from the province knows first-hand the struggle for daily survival in Saskatchewan, at least he should. Yet all he can offer as support for his constituents and the residents of the province are a few empty words about what the Government of Canada wants. Oddly enough, what the Government of Canada wants is exactly what Saskatchewan wants, and that is fairness. If we all agree on that, why is the province of Saskatchewan being forced to beg the Liberal government for an agreement like the one just signed by Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia?

The words of the Prime Minister at the Saskatoon airport recently have the people of Saskatchewan outraged. Not only was Saskatchewan not allowed on board in January when the last agreement on equalization was signed with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, but the big deal made six months ago that Saskatchewan reaped so greatly from was actually, if we look at it, money owed to the province.

Saskatchewan has been ripped off by the federal government when it comes to equalization. Just six months ago the federal Liberal government corrected past inequities and the money Saskatchewan was supposed to be rewarded with six months ago was the province's money all along.

The Liberal government and the Prime Minister have said time and again that they all want to alleviate western alienation. Penning a deal with two eastern provinces while denying a western province the right to its resources and a light deal is hardly a step forward.

What it all comes down to is the definition and difference between a have and have not province as outlined within the equalization program. Because Saskatchewan is rich in oil and gas, 2 of the 33 base components used in calculating equalization determine that Saskatchewan is a have province. This dubious honour has been bestowed despite the hardships facing the agricultural industry in Saskatchewan and the out-migration of people. Because of equalization, revenues from the very resources that are keeping the province afloat are being handed to the federal government which in turn distributes the money among the have not provinces.

We are seeing Saskatchewan, which is in absolute distress, supporting its neighbours. By all real indicators, Saskatchewan is far from a have province. It is not a knock to the people of Saskatchewan but to high ranking political officials like our finance minister who knows firsthand the financial struggle of the province's key industry, that being agriculture. At least he should.

Our beef, sheep and other producers have been ravaged by the BSE crisis and grain farmers have had to endure year after year of weather related crop failures, the most recent being the untimely frost last August. Countless farm families have to sell off their machinery, animals, land and homes because their input costs far outweigh their income. Yet, we are regarded as a have province.

I want to go through some statistics. First, the Fraser Institute indicates just how serious the problem is in Saskatchewan. We have the longest waiting times for surgery in the nation at 24.5 weeks. By comparison, Manitoba has the shortest wait time at 7.8 weeks, yet Saskatchewan has to transfer money to Manitoba.

Saskatchewan has the longest wait times for MRIs at 25 weeks. Manitoba's MRI wait is 11 weeks. But this year Saskatchewan will receive only $71 million in equalization transfer payments while Manitoba will receive 20 times as much at $1.433 billion. Over the past 10 years Manitoba has received approximately $800 million more per annum than Saskatchewan in equalization payments.

There is even more evidence of the problems with equalization. Canada's average per capita income for 2003 was $29,341. In Saskatchewan the per capita income was almost $5,000 below the national average. Saskatchewan pays the high cost of educating its kids who then move to other provinces. Saskatchewan possesses the second highest level of net citizen migration. At the height of the Great Depression, Saskatchewan had a population of 930,000 people. Today its population is barely more than that at 995,000, a 14% increase over 70 years. Saskatchewan's population has declined by 24,000 from 1996 to 2004.

Saskatchewan's net debt is nearly $1 billion or almost $10,000 of debt for every man, woman and child living in the province. Saskatchewan has the fourth highest net debt of the 10 provinces yet the province's oil and gas revenues are going to provinces with much less net debt. As an aside, we need to have those resource revenues available so we can pay off this debt.

Saskatchewan is the only province in Canada to not fully fund its share of farm safety net programs. The province's premier claims he cannot afford it, but does no one see the obvious contradiction? On one hand, the government is telling the people in Saskatchewan that everything is great, it is a have province, and on the other hand, the federal Liberals sit by while the province admits it cannot fund certain programs in the agriculture sector.

We want fairness for the province. I will conclude by saying that by removing non-renewable resources from the equalization formula, provinces like ours would possess an incentive to expand their economies around their natural resource base and become a true have province like its neighbours.

The current equalization formula is grossly unfair. I know it, the Premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland-Labrador know it, the Prime Minister knows it, and every resident in Saskatchewan knows it.

[Civil Marriage Act, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as the elected member of Parliament for the riding of Yorkton--Melville for nearly 12 years, I was present in the House when the traditional definition of marriage was challenged back in 1999 and defended by the Government of Canada. Through it all, I have stood not only by my beliefs and values, but those of my constituents as well.

In 1999 I voted alongside my colleagues and with those sitting across the way on the government side, and my vote was in favour of the traditional definition of marriage and so to were the votes cast by the majority of Liberals on the other side, including the present Prime Minister.

In 1999, 215 of 270 members of Parliament voted to keep marriage defined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others and that the Parliament of Canada would take all necessary steps to ensure that definition stayed true. In fact, the then justice minister and our present Minister of Public Safety reassured Canadians that the definition of marriage was safe when she rose on the floor of this place and declared:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.

That promise is being broken by her and the government.

In 2000, speaking for the Liberal government, she said:

We recognize that marriage is a fundamental value and important to Canadians. That value and importance is in no way undermined by recognizing in law other forms of committed relationships.

Had the Liberals stood by their word and their promise to Canadians we would not be here today debating the meaning of marriage. How can Liberals change their minds on something as sacred as the true definition of marriage? Why should we believe them now when they say they will protect the religious beliefs of those opposed to same sex marriage?

My stand on same sex marriage is well known and is unwaivering. I adamantly oppose changing the definition of marriage from its traditional form. I have remained true to my beliefs and true to the values of my constituents. In fact, residents of my constituency have sent me clear messages through letters, e-mails, and faxes. They are also opposed to changing the definition of marriage.

I would like to read today into the parliamentary record a sample of my constituents' letters. These letters are from average Canadians very busy with their affairs yet who strongly believe and support the traditional definition of marriage. They have taken the time to forward their views to me and the Prime Minister. It is only fair that we give them our attention.

Here are some quotations that I want to put on the public record because they say things better than I.

The first letter states:

I have been following the issue of changing the definition of marriage from the sidelines, but now I feel compelled that my views be heard and represented. I strongly support traditional marriage as defined as “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. Marriage between a man and a woman is unique and simply cannot be substituted by any other relationship. Marriage ensures the continuation of a stable and healthy society, for generations to come.

The majority of my constituents strongly hold the traditional view of marriage.

The next letter I would like to quote states:

Just want you to know that I support you and your stand about legalizing same sex marriage and wondering what else I can do to stand against it. Is this really a human right issue as we hear our prime minister say? Is it right that the Supreme Court says that the federal government may re-define marriage but are not obligated to do so? Has there even been a study done in countries where it has become legal, the impact it has on family life? I think this would be a good thing to do before we legislate such.

In fact, the government has not answered the question this person and many Canadians have asked. What studies have been done to see the impact of this on family life and our children?

The next letter to me states:

Thank you for publicly opposing same sex marriage for Canada. I support your position that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. I continue to vote for you because you stand up for moral values and for family. Canadians have to “stand for something or we'll fall for anything”. Please keep up the good work.

The point of reading these letters is that Canadians want to see their politicians stand up for moral values and for the family. These Canadians are feeling threatened by the Liberals' proposed legislation to change the definition of marriage.

This is the next letter I would like to read:

Please continue to fight the same-sex marriage legislation. If the Prime Minister backs up his talk of taking it to the electorate, consider yourself being in the next government! Human rights have become a weapon for the small minorities to use against the average Canadian tax payer. What about a level field? Keep up the fight for all citizens.

Canadians are telling me that this will be an issue in the next election. Clearly, Conservatives support traditional marriage as was put into our policies last week.

Here is a letter from another constituent from the riding of Yorkton—Melville to the justice minister:

Since the beginning of time, marriage has been the means of bringing up children in a strong, healthy family situation and it ensures that children have the best chance of having a Mom and Dad in their lives. Marriage between a man and a woman is a unique relationship which cannot be replicated by any other relationship. A change in the definition of marriage will erode family stability and will require the rewording of all family-related laws. I am writing to respectfully request that you do everything possible to ensure that marriage is upheld.

I read these quotes because they tell it like it is. I could not say it any better myself.

Here is a letter that the Prime Minister received from one of my constituents in regard to the same sex marriage legislation:

Dear Mr. Prime Minister: I would like to ask you and encourage you to uphold, protect and retain marriage as “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. For if you look at this definition, and its far-reaching ramifications, rationally, socially, biologically, spiritually, that marriage is of critical importance to our society. It is perhaps the most important societal institution we have because:

--it provides for the procreation and upbringing of children;

--it provides the strong foundation for healthy families;

--it provides and ensures that children have the best chance to have both a mom and a dad in their lives;

--it ensures the continuation of society and provides family stability for future generations.

Marriage between a man and a woman is a unique relationship that just can't be replicated by any other relationship. Please, Mr. [Prime Minister], do not force a minority desire on the conscience of the majority. If you desire, grant same-sex people the rights for civil unions or contracts, but please don't call that marriage--that belongs to the heterosexual scene.

That lays the issue out quite clearly. Here is another note to the Prime Minister:

Marriage is uniquely dedicated to a man and a woman who have the incredible privilege and responsibility of bringing forth the next generation of Canadians. All rights for all individuals in society are already protected by legislation. Please allow each MP a free vote on the “same sex” issue. It is impossible to use the term “marriage” and same sex in the same thought.

I would like to add that the Prime Minister is really not making this a free vote.

In a world filled with so much uncertainty, it is irresponsible for the government to abolish the definition of marriage. This definition has been in existence for as long as man has walked the earth and it has never changed. We do not know the consequences and the impact this will have on our children.

The vast majority of my constituents view this as a social policy issue, not a rights issue. The Conservative Party is proposing a fair middle ground which allows same sex partners legal recognition with equivalent rights and benefits, while protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage as the very foundation for strong families.

The thousands of letters, faxes, emails and phone calls I have received from Canadians across this great land are asking parliamentarians to do just that. I urge the government to listen. It has been a privilege for me to share some of their letters. The Prime Minister surely does not want this to be part of his legacy.

Let me conclude with this letter to the Prime Minister; I wish he would read it:

I am opposed to the proposed legislation on same-sex marriage. If the definition of marriage is changed to include partners of the same-sex, I will feel as if the state has annulled the last 35 years of my marital life.

1. First of all, a definition does not discriminate, it only defines. Homosexuals already have the same basic human rights as any other member of our society. If half the definition of marriage can be changed on the human rights argument, then there can be no logical explanation to changing the other half “to the exclusion of all others” to a polygamous union.

2. The government has broken its 1999 promise to defend the definition of marriage and since then has abandoned the democratic process in dealing with the matter and allowing the lower courts to usurp their constitutional power.

3. As a nation we also have a responsibility to the next generation who will have to deal with the social consequences when a greater number of children are denied the influence of both a mother and father. What a sad commentary on our nation that the protection of our children of future generations will be compromised to defend and promote the lifestyle of such a few.

There is one more letter to the Prime Minister with a quotation I would like to put on the record.

As Christians, my wife and children and I place a very high value on life and the upholding of moral standards. God has not changed his laws, as evidenced by the timely rising and setting of the sun, the seasons, gravity, and even nature itself as seen in the animals around us.

I have much more to share, but unfortunately my time is up.

[Agriculture, March 11th, 2005]

But nothing for agriculture producers, Mr. Speaker.

It is no secret that Canadian farmers have been struggling financially with the border closure and years of adverse growing conditions for grains. The 2005 crop year is already in question for many farmers because they cannot afford to put seed in the ground. The farm improvement loans program provided farmers with an option to bank and credit union loans with special interest rates and terms.

With that knowledge, why then is the Liberal government quietly scrapping this desperately needed program in the midst of the worst agriculture crisis since the Great Depression?

[Foreign Credential Recognition Program, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick questions.

First, I have been here for a while and I have observed that the government has made commitments in this area for quite some time. Does the member have any statistics as to how often this has already been promised to us?

My second question is about the barriers between the provinces in regard to this issue. Is there anything in her proposal that would address the fact that credentials are not recognized from one province to the other? Teachers cannot move from Saskatchewan to Alberta to Ontario without jumping through hoops and hurdles. Is there anything in her proposal that would address that?

[Supply, March 10th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend the member for bringing forth the motion. I am pleased with it. My colleague who just spoke sits with me on the justice committee. He is a very valuable member of that committee.

I would like ask him what I think is a tough question and if he is unable to answer it today, that is quite understandable. However, I would like him to take the question under consideration.

I believe we have needed this law for a long time, not just in Quebec but across Canada. I too believe that criminals convicted of crime should have their proceeds from crime confiscated. It is too difficult now to prove in a court of law that what they have in their possession has been obtained dishonestly.

However, my question is this. What if someone in a charitable organization such as a church based organization possibly, for example the Mennonite Central Committee, or an organization like the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, which is very strong in my riding, or Samaritan's Purse, which operates across Canada, is a bad apple and is found dealing in drugs, or money laundering or some other such criminal activity?

Sometimes we hastily pass a law that may have a serious flaw in it. What assurance do we have that this law may not be used against organizations that have honourable goals but that may be disliked by someone? Can we ensure that another huge loophole is not created so criminals can use to keep their illegally obtained possessions? That is my main question.

The other question I have is this. In passing this law in Canada, can the proceeds if transferred out of the country be recovered by a law here within our country? As we know, criminals can easily transfer their assets elsewhere. Will this law help in recovering those assets if we pass the law in Canada?

In any event, my first question is the more important one.

[Petitions, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, lastly, I have a large number of petitions in regard to the marriage issue. The ones I am submitting today are mainly from Ontario and British Columbia but there are names from all parts of Canada.

They ask that in regard to the fundamental matters of social policy, Parliament should make that decision, not the unelected judiciary. The majority of Canadians support the current legal definition of marriage and therefore they say that it is the duty of Parliament to ensure that marriage is defined as Canadians wish. They are asking us to use all possible legislative and administrative measures, including the invoking of section 33 of the charter, if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

[Petitions, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the next group of petitions come mainly from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and they contain several hundred signatures. The petitions are with regard to the Citizenship and Immigration Act with respect to the distribution of holy books established in 1998 allowing for books to be displayed for new citizens to take but did not allow for people to hand the said books to these new citizens.

They say that in regard to that, the voluntary non-intrusive policy that was working had no serious complaints leveled against it, and also in regard to the pluralistic environment in Canada, they say that the recent decision to ban the availability of holy books was made unilaterally despite a previous track record of discussion and open dialogue between the Canadian Bible Society and the Citizenship Commission. They ask Parliament to order the Citizenship Commission to return to the previous policy that was in place and had been in place since 1998.

[Petitions, March 10th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions that I would like to present this morning.

The first one I have the privilege to present is from many residents in Ontario who are calling the attention of the House to the child pornography issue. They say that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by the clear majority of Canadians and that the courts have not applied the current child pornography law in a way which makes it clear that such exploitation of children will always be met with swift punishment.

They call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities are outlawed.

[Food and Drugs Act, March 9th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in debate on Bill C-420.

Just as an aside before I begin my remarks on the bill, members may be aware that for years I fought for the votability of private members' business. I must say that the quality of debate now is at a much higher level than it used to be years ago.

It is very interesting to listen to the different points of view. The two speakers I have listened to today have me almost convinced. I am hoping that all members of the House of Commons are listening to this debate, because we have to vote on these bills now. I think some very good legislation is proposed here, legislation that we should take note of. I say that as a prelude to commenting on this bill.

This is really a very important bill. Many of us are very busy, but we should take note of what is happening here today because this bill would provide a viable choice for Canadians who find natural health products helpful. There are many in my constituency and across Canada who use natural health products and find them useful and helpful in maintaining health.

Many Canadians are upset that, for reasons they feel are inadequate, the bureaucrats and the politicians are excessively regulating products they find helpful. I stand here today and agree with those Canadians who do not like the excessive regulation that is taking place.

We spend a lot of money treating illnesses in our health care system, yet when there is an opportunity to prevent health problems and reduce costs, we throw roadblocks in the way. That is not acceptable.

People have been using many of these health products throughout human history. Often they are simply the packaging of herbs or other natural substances found in nature.

Bill C-420 should be supported by members on both sides of Parliament because it would advance effectiveness and cost effectiveness of personal health care and, in the end, improve the personal health of Canadians.

Even if members do not believe that we should allow our citizens to have a choice in personal health care, members should support what we are doing. It would bring down the costs. In effect, if we do not support this bill we could be forcing Canadians to use a health care system they would rather avoid.

I was a grower of echinacea. Echinacea is a natural prairie flower called the purple coneflower. It has helped boost the immune systems of many people. It reduces the length and seriousness of illnesses.

It is not possible to patent this herb. Why then does it have to be treated as a drug? Yes, it could be regulated to ensure its purity, but it should be treated more like a food than a drug. That is what Bill C-420 tries to do. To treat it as a drug makes it harder for ordinary people to obtain. It drives up the cost. Those on low or fixed incomes have a more difficult time because it becomes too expensive.

In 1988, the parliamentary health committee, with members from all parties supporting it, put out a report with 53 recommendations. The government accepted all of them. Included was a recommendation that the Food and Drugs Act include natural health products and that the companies be allowed to make health claims.

A team of 17 experts was then assembled to take the committee's work, expand on it and clarify it where necessary. That was the mandate they were given, but let us look at what happened.

In 2001 the government ignored the committee's recommendations, treating natural health products as pharmaceutical drugs with all kinds of hoops and hurdles for natural health products to jump through and over before they could get the approval, just like drugs. That, we know, can take years. For the companies or the people who put out these products, this make them more expensive in the end, and we have improved virtually nothing by doing this.

Canadians rightfully were upset when this happened. The result was that many of the most effective natural health products were removed from the market and were not available to Canadians to improve their health. This urgent situation needs to be corrected.

We should support Bill C-420 and send it to committee to be dealt with as soon as possible. Bill C-420 would treat herbs, dietary supplements and other natural health products as a food rather than have them fall under the definition of a drug or we could create some amendments to have a separate category.

Lest members think there are no regulations that food producers have to comply with, let me give an example of some of the safeguards. I am quoting from our food regulatory system:

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.

We obviously have controls already. It is not like we are asking that everything be thrown wide open so that there is no control over what people buy.

Let me give an example of another terrible thing that has happened. This is something that all members here should note. A vitamin-mineral product was developed in Canada that was having a phenomenal effect on people with a mental disorder called bipolar disorder. The results were published in reputable, peer reviewed scientific journals. Health Canada moved in, however, took the success of this natural product as a violation of the law it created. There was absolutely no evidence that the product was harming anyone.

In July 2003 Health Canada shut down everything. It blocked all access to this natural health product. How many people today are suffering because of this act? Health Canada went in just like the KGB, raided offices, confiscated computers, et cetera. Health Canada told the users of this natural health product to go back on expensive drugs that did not work effectively for them.

This was a low cost solution and is a solution that could relieve great human suffering, yet it was denied to many Canadians. This is just one example of where the rubber hits the road on how harmful our present situation is with the way natural health products are treated.

Bill C-420 can put the brakes on a bureaucracy that is out of control. We need to restore the freedom of choice. It is not like there are no controls if we put it back into the category of food or some separate grouping, as I explained earlier. The Department of Health that should be trying to improve the health of Canadians is doing the opposite.

In conclusion, I appeal to all members of the House to support Bill C-420 because it is designed to do something about a department that does not have as its primary interest the health of Canadians when it comes to the use of natural health products. I have had experience with it. I know of what I speak and I hope all members will take note of this, approve the bill, and send it to committee.