Jean Crowder

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is actually a very interesting point. There are two things that an investigation or inquiry would help us with. It would bring some degree of comfort to the victims' families and friends in that their pain and the resulting loss of their loved ones would actually be heard and there would be some justice meted out as a result of it. That is the most important piece: that the families and friends of the people killed in that bombing actually have some resolution and feel with some confidence that the situation will never be repeated in terms of the bungling and ineptness that has happened.

There is also a second piece that is really important. An investigation would help the Canadian public and help Canada on the international stage with rebuilding the confidence in our security and in police forces. Examining what went wrong, bringing it to light and airing it in an open, public and transparent way would help us put the mechanisms in place to prevent it. Those mechanisms would allow the public to say, “Yes, we do have faith in our police forces and our security services”.

Getting the inquiry out into a public venue will not only bring justice to the families and loved ones impacted by this terrible tragedy, but it will also help Canadians have more confidence and faith in their system. I think it is absolutely essential that we get on with this investigation quickly and do not waste any more time. Twenty years is long enough for people to have to live with this without any resolution.

It is time for us to move on this. I urge all members of the House to support this very compassionate and compelling motion.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, there is some very good information around the area of why we would want to have an independent inquiry and why we would want to establish our credibility in the international framework.

What we really need here is decisive action with adequate resources. We must make sure that the person who would take on this independent inquiry and investigation would have access to all the materials that would be required to establish our credibility. It is absolutely essential that on the world stage we are seen as being able to conduct an inquiry which would actually end up with some results that would make some changes so this kind of tragedy would never happen again in Canada.

I think Canada has a role to play in brokering the kinds of investigations and whatnot that take a look at bringing in the key witnesses and the key people who would be able to inform the process and to make sure that we set up a mechanism to prevent any kind of tragedy like this in the future.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent upon us to point out that we have had 20 years to deal with the fact that in 1985 a very serious tragedy happened. We have had 20 years to talk about putting systems and mechanisms in place to ensure this never happens again.

As we talk about terrorism, one point we really need to talk about is what our responsibility is as a country to get at the root of terrorism. We need to talk about poverty in the third world. We need to talk about trade implications that impact on people in the third world that cause them to not have the standards and quality of life.

There is a move afoot right now that talks about .07% of our GDP going for foreign aid. If we really want to talk about dealing with terrorism, we need to talk about those root causes that are forcing people into sometimes very desperate acts.

Our conversation needs to broaden. We need to have this investigation into the Air-India bombing. We need to talk about how we protect the safety and security in our country. We need to talk about getting at the root causes of terrorism.

[Supply, April 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of the motion today. My riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan has a very large Sikh community. It is important that the House support the motion.

The motion before us states:

That, in light of the fact that the Air India bombing was the largest mass murder and terrorist act in Canadian history, and evidence that errors were committed by the investigative agencies involved, this House calls for an independent judicial inquiry into the investigation of the Air India bombing of June 23, 1985.

This motion is an example of how this minority government can work. It is an example of how we can pull together and support an issue that is important for our country.

Although the Deputy Prime Minister announced today that, pending an appeal by the province of British Columbia, she would organize an independent review of the facts around the case, the NDP is calling on the House to support the motion calling for an investigation into the Air-India bombing and not wait for any further delays. That is what is great about a minority Parliament. The opposition can push the government to act on areas of concern to the whole community.

It has been 20 years since the Air-India bombing. In the four years since September 11, the U.S. has managed to conduct and complete many independent reviews of the events surrounding that tragedy. However, on our front, this long wait for an Air-India inquiry has been a disservice to the families who lost loved ones during the tragedy and a disservice to all Canadians who waited to learn how our own agencies dropped the ball, not just on that day in 1985, but in the days since when important evidence for the hearings of Malik and Bagri were lost. That is shameful.

Our leader, the member for Toronto--Danforth, has said that no other democratic government in the world would leave questions unanswered about what happened and why. Three hundred and thirty-one innocent people were killed and no answers, no justice, no assurances about what needs to change so that it does not happen again. It is absolutely shameful that so many people have waited so long to have some justice.

My thanks go out to the website Mapleleafweb which explains in great detail the reasons why public inquiries are helpful. I would like to mention some of these reasons so we have them on record.

There are several reasons the government may prefer to call a public inquiry instead of a parliamentary inquiry or a task force.

First, unlike a court of law or police investigation, which is concerned solely with establishing wrongdoing, a public inquiry can investigate the underlying causes of a tragedy or controversial event to help prevent it from happening again.

Second, public inquiries are perceived as being independent from government interference. While this may not be entirely true, they are generally more independent and less partisan than parliamentary inquiries.

Third, the government can appoint individuals to sit on an inquiry who have more expertise on the topic and more time to study the issue than sitting members of Parliament.

Fourth, the public may view a report written by federal public servants as biased in favour of the government, even if this is not the case.

Fifth, because of its independence and openness, a public inquiry is a good way for the government to reassure voters that it is taking concrete action on a controversial issue. For example, public pressure forced the federal government to reverse its original decision and hold a full public inquiry into the deportation and detention of Maher Arar.

Finally, public inquires have more power when it comes to gathering evidence than other types of investigations.

All this information is available on Mapleleafweb.

Despite their independence, governments maintain some control over public inquiries. The government frequently includes a deadline for completing an inquiry in its terms of reference. The government can shut down an inquiry that is past its deadline or is not getting results. I thought that was an excellent, plain language explanation of a few of the reasons that the public would want the government to hold an inquiry.

It is very clear that the public wants this inquiry. We hear that from people all over the country. There are many questions the public wants answered. The public wants reassurance that our systems are working, that we have considered the risks and are taking appropriate action.

It is somehow appropriate that the Auditor General reported this week about our national security programs. It fits right into what we are talking about in terms of the Air-India bombing. I would like to remind the House of some of the highlights from that report.

More than $1 billion in federal expenditures are spent in security and intelligence activities each year. These activities remain secret. The Auditor General emphasized that Parliament should scrutinize the spending and performance of these activities, but she pointed out the difficulty of doing so because of the secrecy around some files and issues. She said that she was pleased by the government's announcement of the creation of a new national security committee as a parliamentary oversight body for the security and intelligence agencies.

In the second part of the report by the Auditor General on the federal government's anti-terrorism initiative announced in the 2001 budget after September 11, 2001, some of the major findings around our transportation links show why an investigation into the Air-India bombing is still relevant today. For air transportation, there is no comprehensive assessment of key risks or any measuring of the likelihood or potential impact of specific threats.

Transport Canada has only one security performance measure in place, and it does not analyze the overall effectiveness of its security system.

Under marine security, our system of high frequency surface wave radar does not operate to its full range under certain conditions. The example the Auditor General gave was nighttime, which is pretty scary since in our country half the year is spent in nighttime. This is a major problem if we have systems that do not function in the dark. It also does not work well with meteorological disturbances and in heavy seas. Canada is well known for both of these events and we can well attest to that on the west coast. National Defence has not yet obtained a permanent licence from Industry Canada to even operate the system.

The Auditor General also has a lot to say about federal emergency preparedness. She notes that the national emergency coordination currently suffers both from the absence of an effective federal-provincial-territorial governance regime and from the absence of commonly agreed standards and priorities for the national emergency system.

The CBRN, which stands for chemical biological radiological or nuclear threats, research and technology initiative estimated that about 6,000 first responders should be trained in how to intervene and neutralize a serious event. The Auditor General found that 200 people had been trained so far. It does not sound like nearly enough.

She urged the government to finish drafting the revisions to the Emergency Preparedness Act and to finalize the definitions of the minister's powers and responsibilities.

The Auditor General also complained about the lack of creation of emergency medical teams. In December 2001, Health Canada was allocated $501,000 to develop health emergency response teams, but it did not happen. In January 2003, $626,000 was allocated annually to Health Canada to train health care workers in the prevention and treatment of smallpox. Such a team has never been established to date and it is urgent that we get on this matter.

The Auditor General examined four areas related to the passport offices. Under security and identity verification she found that domestic examiners at the passport office were well trained, however, the examiners working in missions lacked the training necessary for such a verification task.

Under service to the public, although the key services standards exist in the passport offices, there are gaps. The costs have risen significantly and the passport office is unable to forecast and influence demand placed on it due to the burden of the services that are required in these offices.

The passport office does not meet the required management principles and practices. The Auditor General recommended that the passport office should review its risk management practices, examine its delivery methods and develop and report additional service standards.

Her main points were that the passport office was struggling to balance and meet security expectations and demand for service. The passport office could not effectively authenticate an applicant's identity and its watch lists were deficient. The passport office needed to perform a comprehensive risk assessment of all its operations and prepare an action plan.

It is clear from the list of deficiencies that the Auditor General found, the second examination since 2001, that we need to push the government to move on these important issues. Too often the measures this government takes do not deal with the systemic problems with our procedures but with the surface. Take, for example, the no-fly lists.

Shahid Mahmood was flying from Toronto to Victoria when he hit a wall in Vancouver. The ticket agents there would not let the cartoonist onto a connecting flight. They said he had been flagged for reasons unknown and would need a passport to fly on. He was not carrying one. He is a Canadian. He does not need to carry a passport to fly within his own country.

The NDP cannot help but wonder if Mahmood's bind had anything to do with his Pakistani roots. Authorities will not say. However, Mahmood wonders if he is on a blacklist. The transport minister has since revealed that Canada is building no-fly lists to ground suspected terrorists. Could authorities use these lists to discriminate against Canadians based on their colour, ethnicity or religion?

A leaked Justice Department report says that racial profiling by police and security services, while sometimes unconscious, is already a pressing issue.

Will preventing Canadians from moving freely around our country do anything to improve our security? It seems highly unlikely. I do think a public inquiry into the largest security lapse would help define strategies that would make a difference so we are never again talking about a circumstance like the Air-India bombing.

It is well past time for this government to take action and to ensure that justice is heard for all the families and loved ones of the people who were victims of the Air-India bombing.

[First Nations, Métis and Inuit War Veterans, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear that we are acknowledging the skills and abilities of our shipbuilding industry but it is cold comfort to watch B.C. Ferries take its shipbuilding overseas and to watch Halifax struggling to build its Coast Guard vessels.

Where is the government's commitment to ensuring that this kind of shipbuilding actually happens in Canada, not in Germany, not in Poland and not somewhere else?

In my province of British Columbia we have watched the shipyards close because we have not had the kind of focused attention on the shipyards that would help them stay competitive in the market. In B.C. they could not even bid on the B.C. Ferries contract.

It is fine to talk about the strategy but where is the government's commitment so we can actually build ships in Canada on the scale of B.C. Ferries?

[First Nations, Métis and Inuit War Veterans, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in recent months the Liberal government has provided funding to shore up many regional industries, which includes money to the automotive industry in Ontario, dollars to the aerospace industry in Quebec and cash to support the beef industry in Alberta, but nothing for a strategic industry in the industry minister's own province: shipbuilding.

The minister said that it was up to the finance minister to make the decision on whether to impose import duties on a proposal by B.C. Ferries to have new ferries built by an offshore company but I would like to suggest that the industry minister must play a role that acknowledges that we have three coastlines in Canada and a leadership role in developing a plan that promotes and supports our shipbuilding industry.

Because other large vessel contracts are coming forward, including the new supply vessels for our own Canadian navy, we need an action plan sooner rather than later.

The Washington Marine Group shipyards in Esquimalt are the main shipyards that repair Canadian navy vessels from the nearby base. It plans to compete for the new supply vessels. A contract that large will help support its ongoing role as a repair and refitted of vessels.

Other shipbuilding industries around the world enjoy massive subsidies. Our own shipbuilding industry cannot even enjoy fair procurement policies that do not prejudice against them.

What plan does the Liberal government have to support the shipbuilding industries, especially when it comes to contracts for military vessels and other strategic federal government procurements, including the Canadian Coast Guard vessels?

Will the plan include items like the impact of local purchases on the economy; taxes, including payroll, property and sales taxes; and the wages generated by Canadian purchases in its request for proposals for future projects? These multiplier effects are absolutely critical and must be included in these equations.

Will the government insist that B.C. Ferries show how an offshore procurement is more cost effective than a Canadian purchase that includes all the local benefits?

[Auditor General Act, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-277. Its summary states that the enactment amends the Auditor General Act in order to allow the Auditor General of Canada to act as auditor or joint auditor of crown corporations, certain other bodies established by acts of Parliament and certain corporate entities without share capital.

Let me turn to another bill for a moment, Bill C-39, which has already been before the House. It is the enabling legislation for the first ministers' accord on health care and it sets up a third party trust for wait times reduction transfer. The Government of Canada will set that money aside this year but it allows the provinces to draw upon that money until 2009. The House will not review that agreement until 2008. That is a lengthy period of time without oversight on how that money will be spent.

If the Auditor General were allowed to audit the foundation there would be transparency to Canadians and all their demands on health care funding. It is absolutely essential that we commit to openness and transparency in funding that is being spent by the government on behalf of taxpayers.

I want to quote from a document I found useful in considering how health care funding is provided. It is from the CCAF and the Canadian Healthcare Association. The document is entitled, “Principles for Governance, Management Accountability and Shared Responsibility”. It states:

Health system partners need to demonstrate commitment to public transparency and accountability. They do this by explaining to, and involving the public in, what they plan to do, how well the system is performing, and the implications of both.

A third party foundation that has no parliamentary oversight is not the way to achieve public transparency. If the government continues to insist on using these bodies as a way of providing funding, we need to provide the public with confidence that this money is being spent well, that the money is providing the benefit the public needs and that any deficiencies are being identified and acted upon. We do not want to see a repeat of needing to implement a Gomery inquiry.

Another part of that report reads:

Reporting principles and standards are key to the integrity and utility of reported information and aprerequisite for fair comparisons and benchmarking.

These are critical elements in terms of what we have seen over the last several years of various private practices in accounting like Enron.

The Auditor General provides Canadians with reporting principles and standards in regard to how tax dollars are spent, principles and standards the Liberals seem willing to ignore by salting money away in foundations instead of spending it in a transparent manner. The bill would give Canadians some assurance that money directed into foundations is being spent appropriately.

I would like to turn to another foundation, Canada Health Infoway Inc. It was set up in 2001 to help develop efficient data systems for health care. Make no mistake, the NDP knows that more efficient methods of health information transfer are absolutely vital to our Canadian system, but how do we know if Canada Health Infoway is providing good value on that strategy? Four years after it was set up, the need for improved methods of health information transfer is still front and centre with the wait times reduction fund, the need to better understand what parts of the country are underserviced by health professionals and as a way of developing a comprehensive pharmacare system.

In a recent article in the Ottawa Sun the headline read, “Suspect Worst of Foundations”. The article reads:

Canada Health Infoway Inc: Set up in 2001 to help develop efficient data systems for health care, the foundation so far has managed to spend $30 million administering $51 million in grants. (How's that for efficiency?)

These are the kinds of facts and figures that cry out for the need to have the Auditor General look at what is happening with these foundations, instead of treating them as an arm's length mechanism to tuck away funds that do not have the kind of oversight that parliamentarians should have over these kinds of funds.

When we are talking about oversight and transparency, another bill is being put forward to the House, Bill C-201, which talks about the need to look at crown corporations and access to information. It is just another example of how private members need to bring forward business to encourage the government and the rest of the House to really walk the talk when we are talking about transparency and accountability.

I would urge all members from all parties to support this very worthwhile private member's bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in support of this motion and to further discuss the principles outlined in Motion No. 195.

This motion calls on the government to create a secretariat responsible for overseeing a foreign credential recognition program. It calls on the involvement of all those levels of government and various representatives who have a share or interest in this program. They would work together to implement national standards to recognize foreign credentials in Canada. We are well aware of the fact that employment is a key element of successful immigrant settlement and successful involvement in the Canadian way of life and economy.

When people apply to immigrate to Canada as economic immigrants, they submit their education and professional or trade credentials which are then judged on the point system. The points given to these are crucial to the success of their applications. Because they are so crucial to the application process, the expectation is clearly raised that people with these skills and abilities are needed and wanted in Canada.

However, sadly, many of these people arrive here to find that they cannot practice their professions or trades in Canada. There is a huge disconnect between the success of their immigration applications and their inability to work in Canada. This is unfair and unjust. It causes huge disappointment and frustration for these new immigrants.

Programs that facilitate their access to employment in their fields must be an integral part of Canada's immigrant settlement policies. We have all heard stories about physicians driving taxis, engineering professionals cleaning hotel rooms, and highly skilled people working in jobs that do not put to use their specific skills. I call to mind an oncology nurse in my own riding who, after a couple of years, was finally able to work in her profession, a highly skilled, highly trained individual.

We must ensure that people are able to fulfill their professional callings here in Canada. We must work out a way to let them contribute to their new home. In my riding and in ridings across the country this is something that happens to new Canadians, but there is a difference between being underemployed as a temporary measure when one first arrives and being forced long term to throw away one's particular talents and skills, and perhaps even to deny one's calling to a profession.

Being chronically underemployed is deeply damaging to the self-esteem of new immigrants. It hurts them spiritually and represents a waste of potential and resource to our country. New Canadians should be able to use their skills and talents here in Canada, so our country can benefit from their experiences and skill sets.

We need to create an infrastructure that allows immigrants access to do the meaningful work that they were trained to do. A coordinated infrastructure would expedite this process and allow for pan-Canadian standards which would make it easier and more accessible both for employers and new Canadians.

There is no doubt that this is a complicated matter here in Canada. There are many levels of government, many government departments, educational institutions, professional associations, licensing bodies and trade unions, all of which have an interest and a jurisdiction in the issue. Adding new levels of bureaucracy is clearly not always the best way of solving a problem, but the reality is that this problem has not been solved even though the seriousness of it has been recognized for so many years.

We need to take all measures to address this problem and be seen to be actively addressing this problem. Establishing a group of dedicated public servants with a specific mandate to find and implement solutions is a necessary step in the right direction.

Consecutive throne speeches have made the issue of foreign credentials a government priority. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has recommended that the federal government work toward developing a nationwide system for assessing international credentials. The committee is working on the issue of international credentials and I understand that it will soon be holding hearings across Canada. I hope it hears from Canadians about how to solve this problem and about how a secretariat might be of assistance in that solution.

I am aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been given a mandate from the Prime Minister to work on this issue. Citizenship and Immigration has a key role in this matter. Human Resources and Skills Development is also a key player, but there are at least 10 or 12 other federal departments involved. It speaks to the challenges of getting to a solution.

How do we best ensure that this situation receives the attention it deserves? How do we ensure that the issue of foreign credentials is resolved and that a system is in place that gets new immigrants to work using their overseas training?

We must ensure that this task is not something done off the side of the desks of many busy people with complex mandates. We must ensure that a branch of our government has a mandate for action on this issue, that it is that branch's priority, its full time endeavour.

I think the best way to accomplish this is to establish a secretariat for overseeing foreign credential recognition. This step would prove in a tangible systematic way that the federal government is serious about its leadership in this area.

Currently there is an enormous variation in the way that employers deal with the evaluation of foreign credentials. Some of them take them at face value and some use informal networks of friends or associates who may know more about the institution or standards in the potential employee's country of origin. Others use provincial or institutional assessment services.

We need to bring these methods together in a comprehensive system so that both employers and potential employees are not operating under a whole variety of conditions.

A secretariat would work to make employers comfortable with the skills of new Canadians. Many employers are hesitant to provide job opportunities to people about whose qualifications they are unsure. The federal government must step up to the plate and show ongoing leadership to help these employers, provinces and educational institutions with the task of putting new immigrants to work using their training and professional qualifications.

The federal government must show leadership on developing standards and appropriate process. It must not impose standards, but it must make available resources to ensure their development and their ongoing implementation. A secretariat would be a helpful tool in moving toward this goal.

It is not just the employers who should be comfortable with and informed of these standards for foreign credentials. The potential immigrants themselves should be given relevant information about certification processes in Canada so they would know what to expect. That would help them make a choice about coming to Canada.

I do caution that we need to think about regional strategies, as needs vary with geography. Immigrants tend to settle in cities, but all federal programs need to take into consideration the unique needs of the individual communities across Canada. We can achieve this with a consultative process championed by a secretariat with a mandate for consultation and the fostering of cooperation among all the players on this issue.

In an increasingly global world, Canada is competing for immigrants. Canada must be positioned as a destination of choice in order to attract the highest calibre of skilled workers.

We rely on immigration for growth in our economy. By 2015 all new job growth in Canada will come from immigration. By the mid-2020s, all new population growth will come from immigration. The ongoing viability of our social programs is also linked to population growth.

We cannot afford a bad reputation among potential immigrants. Canada must not be known as a place where highly trained, highly motivated professionals and skilled workers are not allowed to use their training and their skills. Nothing will limit our ability to attract immigrants more than that kind of bad reputation.

The Australian immigration department has centralized their skills recognition. The Australians have a dedicated area that deals only with this issue. Perhaps there is instructive experience in their model which will be helpful to Canada. This system allows a more accurate assessment of potential immigrants' skills before they apply for permanent residency. Australia is also one of Canada's only significant competitors for immigrants and it is recognized that Australia does a far better job in putting new immigrants to work after recognizing their credentials.

Perhaps even more worrisome is the fact that some research has begun to show that this situation is so frustrating for some new immigrants that they are now considering leaving Canada and returning to their country of origin or to some other country that actually will recognize their credentials. We cannot afford to lose people who at great personal sacrifice and with incredible hope for a better future for themselves and their families have chosen to come to Canada.

I realize that a long term systematic approach to bring together all levels of government, regulatory bodies, NGOs and so on is no small feat. The Conference Board of Canada calculates that the impact to Canada's economy of recognizing the skills of immigrants to be valued at $3 billion to almost $5 billion annually. This is a significant impact on our economy.

More than just the economic value, we must ensure that those people who choose Canada as their new home feel that their gifts and talents are recognized and appreciated and that they can take their place in making their communities and our country a better place to live.

These skilled workers are a vast untapped resource. At present they represent a huge brain drain to our country. Let us work together to make sure that Canada is an attractive place for skilled workers. I believe there is merit in this proposal and recommend that we continue the debate and interest in it.

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

Mr. Speaker, would the member elaborate on the health care professionals? We are facing a critical shortage.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the principle behind the bill. We support Canadians having reasonable and safe access to these products. However, we are concerned that some aspects of the bill may have unintended consequences, and I will speak to that shortly.

Canadians use a lot of natural health products. In 2003 Canadians spent over $1.2 billion on products, including vitamins, minerals, herbs and so on. Add in more than $3.5 billion spent on organic food products, natural personal care products and functional food and we have a sense of the size of this sector and how important it is to Canadians.

We support the safe access of Canadians to these products. With this much money being spent, it is critical that Canadians feel confident about the products presented, their safety and the efficacy.

I depend on the work of my colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, who sat on the health committee in 1998 and helped prepare the report on natural health products, from which I have taken a great deal of information.

We believe that natural health products do not fit in either the food category or the drug category and that Health Canada must move toward a third category that has already been referenced. The definition of food would not cover natural health products that are applied topically, such as a cream, or others that are injected.

The Canadian Health Food Association, in its report to members on Bill C-420, states that:

Pursuing the former Standing Committee on Health's recommendation for a distinct third category would better serve the industry at this time than would redefining NHPs as foods.

The current definition of food prohibits claims, other than basic nutritional information and a few generic health claims for food products. Under the new NHP Regulations industry has the ability to make a wide range of claims for its products based upon appropriate evidence. Without extensive amendments to the food definition and regulations this ability to make claims would likely be lost if NHPs were redefined as foods.

Further, food labelling regulations do not allow for dosing information or for the listing of warnings and contraindications, information needed by consumers to make appropriate product choices.

Industry has invested significant resources, both financial and human, in developing and now complying with the Natural Health Products Regulations. We do not want to see this effort go to waste if NHPs are redefined as “foods”. The existing NDP Regulations may not be transferred over to the food side and may actually have to be recreated in line with existing food regulations if NHPs are redefined as foods.

I think the explanation from the Canadian Health Food Association is pretty clear as to why redefining NHPs as food may have unintended consequences.

However, other parts of the bill deserve some serious consideration. Both CHFA and the Canadian Medical Association would like Health Canada to revisit schedule A of the Food and Drugs Act.

Its definitions of diseases and conditions is too broad. A product that could help regulate blood pressure could not make that assertion because heart disease is one of the conditions under schedule A.

There are still many conditions for which we do not believe people should be encouraged to self-medicate, so we do not believe schedule A should be completely repealed.

Schedule 3 is also important to the NDP. Recent events, like the Vioxx recall, point to the direct-to-consumer advertising as part of the problem. People saw so many advertisements about this wonderful drug, which would make them pain free, that they pressured their doctors to prescribe Vioxx. We need to continue to regulate direct to consumer advertising as part of overall consumer safety and to reduce over-prescribing that increases health care costs.

I would like to turn to the 1998 report from our previous health committee on “Natural Health Products: A New Vision”. It has a succinct definition of health claims. It states:

Health claims, meanwhile, are statements of the effect of a product on the health of an individual made by the manufacturer or distributor, and displayed on the product label or literature. The Committee was told that there were generally three different categories of health claims. According to the APNHP, they are defined as follows. Structure-function claims report the effect of a product on a structure or physiological function in the human body and are based on the maintenance or promotion of good health. Risk-reduction claims relate consumption of a product to significant reduction in the risk of developing a disease or abnormal physiological state. Risk reduction may occur in two ways. One, the product may alter a recognized major health risk factor or factors of a disease or abnormal state. Two, it may affect a body function or system so as to improve the body's capacity to resist the disease or abnormal state.

Therapeutic or treatment claims report the effects of a product on the actions of a specific disease or its symptoms. Treatment can include the cure or alleviation of either the disease or its symptoms.

There are a couple of examples of health claims, one under structure: “calcium builds strong bones”. Another under risk reduction is that “garlic decreases the risk of cardiovascular diseases”. A therapeutic or treatment claim says that “St. John's Wort is useful in the treatment of mild to moderate depression”. This is all from the final report of the advisory panel on natural health products in May 1998.

The NDP agrees with the committee's report, which stated that no health claim should be allowed without evidence to back it up. Their recommendations are reasonable when it comes to making health claims about natural health products. These are some of the report's recommendations:

NHPs be allowed to make health claims, including structure-function claims, risk-reduction claims and treatment claims;

Claims be assessed to ensure that there is reasonable evidence supporting the claim;

The evidence not be limited to double blind clinical trials but also include other types of evidence such as generally accepted and traditional references, professional consensus, other types of clinical trials and other clinical or scientific evidence;

The evidence required vary depending on the type of claim being made, with different evidence being required for structure-function claims and risk-reduction claims for minor self-limiting conditions than for therapeutic or treatment claims;

The label indicates clearly the type of evidence used to support the claim.

We want this bill to come forward to the committee so we can look at the regulations and the recent changes that Health Canada has made to enable natural health product suppliers to move more quickly to get their products approved. We would encourage the House to support the bill going forward to committee so we can have a much fuller debate around these critical issues.