Pat Martin

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the remarks of my colleague from the Liberal Party in Quebec have reminded me of an analogy I heard that the 1997 and 2000 elections were not unlike the Olympics, where one team would be all doped up on steroids and the other team had to live by the rules and was at a severe disadvantage.

Where I come from the official agent tells a candidate if he or she has spent one dollar more than the spending limits. If the candidate wins, he or she loses the seat and is not allowed to run again; the official agent is led away in handcuffs and everybody associated with the campaign is guilty of election fraud. Many, many ridings in Quebec were in that very situation. They were getting illegal money during the course of the 1997 and 2000 campaigns.

Would the member join me in calling for the Chief Electoral Officer to revisit every one of those ridings and disallow them, make them null and void in the context of the illegal spending that went on?

[Privilege, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the member for Bourassa's main complaint is in the content of the literature that was circulated in his riding, not the fact that the Bloc has the right to mail into his riding.

I would ask my colleague from Prince Albert if he agrees that part of this issue is about the fact that the sponsorship money was used to circumvent Elections Canada spending rules in election campaigns and to give envelopes of money to individual Liberal campaigns in the federal election.

Would it not have been perfectly valid for the Bloc Québécois to raise the fact that dirty money was being used to subsidize Liberal election campaigns in Quebec? Also, would it not be suitable if the Bloc had even called upon the Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, to investigate each one of those ridings that received envelopes of dirty money stolen in the sponsorship scandal and that the official agents of those campaigns be investigated because they clearly signed off that all of the spending in that election was perfectly legal and in accordance with the rules? Would he not also agree that any Liberal members of Parliament elected under those circumstances should lose their seat and not be allowed to run for office again as per the Elections Act?

Would it not have been suitable and within ethical guidelines for the Bloc Québécois to point out these things in mailings to the voters of Quebec? Would he agree that the Chief Electoral Officer should investigate every Liberal Quebec riding where they may have received dirty money and that the official agent should be charged as well as the member of Parliament should be dealt these consequences?

[Veterans Affairs, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the war some 14,000 veterans were deemed never to have served simply because they did not fill out their discharge papers properly.

This is the Year of the Veteran and I sincerely do not want to play politics with this issue. Will the government simply say that it will rescind this order in council so history will show that these veterans did in fact answer the call and serve their country?

[Asbestos, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge Parliament to join our fellow legislators in the United States to declare April 1 asbestos disease awareness day.

There are compelling reasons why Canada should do more to formally recognize asbestos related diseases. For over a century, Canada has been a leading producer and exporter of asbestos, yet we dedicate virtually no resources to diagnosing and treating the devastating diseases that our Canadian asbestos causes.

Canada needs to be aware that our widespread use of asbestos has exposed millions to a deadly hazard and contaminated untold thousands of homes and public buildings.

Better awareness of asbestos related diseases may lead to the recognition that we need to test for and remove Zonolite insulation wherever it is found. It may lead to better medical research, diagnostics and treatment of those who fall victim to asbestos related disease. Hopefully, it will convince Canada to stop supporting and subsidizing a product that is responsible for such misery, both at home and in the developing nations where we export it.

I urge all members to join the growing—

[Firefighters, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. If I may, I will briefly address the two points that my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, raised in regard to the amendment, but I would like to do so in reverse order.

First of all, on the matter of the royal recommendation or whether this in fact constitutes a money matter, I think my colleague almost made the argument for us in pointing out in his early remarks that this motion is not a bill. In fact, if it is passed it has no statutory effect. It actually causes no money to be spent and it does not infringe, therefore, on the spending authority of the Crown.

The House has passed motions from a private member which call for spending on a regular basis. One of the most notable was put forward by my colleague from Ottawa Centre, who moved an amendment in 1989 when the House unanimously voted in favour of a very costly measure, by a motion, in fact, which was to eradicate child poverty by the year 2000. That motion, by its tone and content, clearly called for spending to eradicate child poverty.

In this case, again some of the references my colleague made are useful to our argument at the same time, because we should point out that Marleau and Montpetit, on page 900, when read in view of the light that we are viewing it in, states:

Motions attempting to make a declaration of opinion or purpose, without ordering or requiring a particular course of action, are considered resolutions. Hence, such motions which simply suggest that the government initiate a certain measure are generally phrased as follows: “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should...”.

This motion in fact reads: “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) recognize all firefighters...”, et cetera. So in actual fact the reference that my colleague made to page 900 is useful to the arguments that we are making as well.

Also, the reference in Marleau and Montpetit goes on to state:

No motion sponsored by a Member who is not a Minister can contain provisions for either raising revenue or spending funds, unless it is worded in terms which only suggest that course of action to the government.

We would point out as well that our motion only suggests a certain course of action.

On the second point my colleague made, in the argument that this amendment is outside the purview of the original motion, I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration, that the proposed amendments are only minor modifications to the principles of the main motion. The principle of the main motion is to recognize all firefighters who have fallen in the line of duty. Ultimately, that is what the main point is, of course.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider page 453 of Marleau and Montpetit on the main principles of an amendment to a privileged motion. I should point out that this is a privileged motion, not a subsidiary motion.

The main principles of an amendment to a privileged motion are listed on page 453. It is stated, “An amendment must be relevant to the main motion”. I do not think anyone is arguing that it is not relative to the main motion. “It must not stray from the main motion but aim to further refine its meaning...”. That is exactly what my colleague from Ottawa Centre was hoping to do by his amendment. “An amendment should take the form of a motion to: leave out certain words in order to add other words...”. That is one possibility. Or it can “leave out certain words; or insert or add other words to the main motion”.

Marleau and Montpetit then goes on to state, “An amendment should be framed so that, if agreed to, it will leave the main motion...consistent with itself”.

If we could look at what the main motion says and how the amendment changes the motion, I would ask you to consider that the main component of the motion is that the motion is a reflection of the opinion of the House of Commons, and second, that the government is not directed to but requested to recognize all firefighters who have fallen in the line of duty, support the firefighters' foundation to construct a monument, that the monument should be in the Parliamentary precinct, and that we then inform the Senate of what we chose to do.

The amendment modifies the form of the recognition which the House is requesting from the government for fallen firefighters by including a benefit for the families of the firefighters. Therefore, it is modifying a key provision already in the motion. It is not introducing a new component. I submit that the recognition is what is being changed in the amendment and that a benefit is relevant to that recognition.

A second part of the amendment modifies the location of the monument to include the national capital, not simply the precinct of Parliament. This change allows for more flexibility in what the main motion already asks for, which is a monument. There is no new idea. It is simply a modification of where the monument should be.

The final part of the amendment simply clarifies the placement of the monument—that it be prominent—and is therefore just another relevant clarification of the motion.

I therefore submit that the amendment is relevant. It does not stray from the purpose of the motion and therefore it is in proper form.

If you check with the Table, Mr. Speaker, you will also find that there is no similar subject before the House, which is one of the necessary prerequisites. You will also find that the amendment does not anticipate a notice of motion; therefore, it is not in any conflict. Also, you will find that it is internally coherent, with all parts in order, therefore meeting the requirements set out under the amendment section of the privileged motions reference in chapter 12 of the

House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

I submit that if my hon. friend does not like the amendment, he should have the opportunity to stand and debate it, but I hope that no one hides under procedural cover on this important matter.

[Criminal Code, October 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Palliser opened his remarks by paying tribute to Mr. Chuck Cadman, the former member of Parliament who championed this issue. I concur with his remarks on behalf of the people of the riding of Winnipeg Centre. The issues of street racing, crime and safety are key and paramount. They are on the top of the minds of the people whom I represent. I find that I concur with many of his remarks.

I did a survey among the people in my riding last year. I asked them what the most paramount issue was facing them and their families. It was not health care. It was not tax cuts. It was not post-secondary education. It was not even the price of gasoline. Overwhelmingly, by a factor of four to one, it was crime and safety on our streets.

One of their issues is the street racing that we see up and down Portage Avenue and up into the neighbourhoods of my colleague from Kildonan. Every Sunday night cars are ripping up and down the streets with reckless abandon. We have not given the police the tools necessary to do their jobs. We have erred on the side of the rights of the criminal too many times in this regard.

On behalf of the people of the riding of Winnipeg Centre, I would like to acknowledge the points that they have raised with me, that crime and safety on their streets is their number one concern. As their member of Parliament, I intend to make it my number one concern. We are not going to be bleeding hearts about the rights of some punk to tear up our streets with a stolen car. In fact, we are going to give the police the tools they need to stop that practice and make our streets safe again. I concur with many of my colleague's remarks.

[Parliament of Canada Act, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I was very honoured to be asked to second this bill. I would like to begin by recognizing and paying tribute to my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for, if nothing else, the sheer perseverance that he demonstrates in pursuing what he views as an important democratic issue. He has done so consistently since I have known him. He tells me that since 1999 he has been fighting for this issue of basic democratic fairness. I have heard him talk about it since I came here in 1997. My hat is off to my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore. I think he is underestimated sometimes. He brings great value and ideas to the House of Commons more often than not.

Having said that, I support this idea. We have to stop this criss-crossing, cross dressing, floor crossing, whatever one wants to call it, that is going on around here. I have just about had it. We never know when we come to work in the morning where everybody is going to be sitting. My colleague called it musical chairs. It does a disservice to constituents, the very people who sent us here, to be this erratic. My colleague pointed out that the broadloom in the House of Commons is very expensive carpet and members are wearing it out criss-crossing the floor the way it has been going on lately. Somebody has to put a stop to it.

Some of us get this grandiose view of what is really important about our political system, as if the members of Parliament are what our democracy is all about. In actual fact, the heart and soul of our democratic system are the thousands and thousands of dedicated volunteers, canvassers, sign chairmen and fundraisers in all of our political parties who knock themselves out to send us here.

I am fully conscious of the honour it is every day to take my seat in the House of Commons to represent my riding of Winnipeg Centre. I am also very aware that my riding was made fertile ground for my party by somebody else, a man by the name of Stanley Knowles, who represented my riding for 42 years. In many cases the people who vote NDP in my riding are voting in the memory of Stanley Knowles, and not because of who I am. In other words, they are voting NDP; they are not necessarily voting for me as a person.

When I am sent here in that context, I will not show disrespect for that view by flip-flopping and crossing the floor. People do that out of self-interest more often than not. People do not usually cross the floor for some moral or ethical conflict with their party. They do it because somebody says, “I will make you a parliamentary secretary,” or “I will make you a minister,” or “Would you not rather sit in cabinet than sit on the backbenches of an opposition party?” That is why people do it and they show great disrespect and do a great disservice to our democratic system every time they do it.

My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore has come up with a reasonable proposal. Maybe it is not as fine tuned as it could be and maybe it needs some tweaking and amending. That is what committees are for. I am taken aback to hear the opposition to this idea at this stage of debate. This is second reading stage. We could send this bill to committee for a thorough analysis and review if there is still work to be done on this subject.

On the basic principle, I could not agree with my colleague more. If I was sent here under one banner, that is the choice of the people of my riding. I should not have the right to arbitrarily and unilaterally show disrespect for their wishes and intentions by criss-crossing the floor.

In his opening speech my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore pointed out that there are four motivations that make people vote. Sometimes they cast their ballot in opposition to the other guy because they are angry with the guy who is currently there. A good chunk of people vote against something instead of for it. A good number of people vote because the leader of that party appeals to them. That determines votes for a lot of Canadians. A lot of people vote for the party because their parents voted for that party, or they themselves are active in that party. Probably number four on the list is that some vote for the individual because of who he or she is. That is the ranking of people's motivations in my experience.

As individuals let us get our heads around the fact that it is not about us as MPs. We are not that important, frankly. If a member turns his or her back on the party and the party machine in the riding that worked so hard to put the member into the House of Commons, then the member should have to sit as an independent until such time as a byelection or election gives the member the opportunity to cross over to another political party. And good luck. If the person can win the nomination for the other party, then the candidate would represent that party banner in that election.

It would be a clean system. The best thing about it is it would do away with all this hanky-panky that goes on behind the scenes now. There would not have been the recent taping incident that embarrassed all of us as parliamentarians because there would be no offers made, or accusations of offers being made. It would stop that kind of backroom dealing that so offends the sensibilities of Canadians when they learn about it. It would be one more improvement in the interests of transparency, accountability, democratic reform and improvement.

I am excited about the idea. I am surprised there was not more passion in the remarks from some of the other parties. This is an exciting idea. This is one of the most interesting things we have had to dwell on in recent memory in the debates of the House. It speaks to respect for our constituents. It speaks to eliminating borderline corruption associated with trying to buy somebody's electoral support by an offer of inducements.

Let me use my last remaining seconds to simply say that Bill C-251 would make Canada's parliamentary system better. My colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore deserves great credit and the gratitude of the House for bringing the bill forward today in his tireless effort to make this a better place for all of us to work in.

[Food and Drugs Act, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I failed to make myself clear. I do not think the parliamentary secretary is grasping the nature of my concerns.

I will try and state my problem as clearly as I can. Clause 5 of this bill provides that if an agricultural chemical is a pest control product, then the maximum residue limit or what we call the threshold limit value, which is established under the food and drugs regulations, is deemed to be the maximum residue limit as set out in the Pest Control Products Act.

Let us be clear, the Pest Control Products Act has threshold limits set by the pest management review board, an outside tribunal of independent authorities of experts. We are critical sometimes of their findings, but at least they are at arm's length and have some independence from Parliament.

As we incrementally shift the authority to the minister to establish threshold limit values, we are taking away authority from the independent review boards that may exist elsewhere in the regulatory process. It is that shift of jurisdiction that concerns us.

I am not convinced, and correct me if I am wrong, that this bill does not enhance the arbitrary authority of the minister and the executive, and detract from the independent nature of the regulatory process and the ability for Parliament to be the oversight of those regulatory processes.

When I use 2,4-D as an example, I think that fits neatly into the categories articulated by the parliamentary secretary. It is something that is already in existence. There is no new chemical associated with this that would fall under the normal regulatory thing. It is a new application of this chemical being contemplated, in that what was once banned, we now argue that it is safe to use. That is confusing.

I do not want that kind of choice to be made by a health minister who is not a scientist. I want that to be determined by the independent scientific community.

[Food and Drugs Act, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the very relevant question. It gives me the opportunity to share further some of my specific concerns about pesticides, such as 2,4-D and other pesticides that are often used in a cosmetic way, not in any necessary agricultural way but simply for our own vanity, either for our potted plants, the shrubbery outside our homes, or so that we can have a greener lawn than our neighbour's.

That kind of vanity we are going to have to address as a nation very soon because the sheer volume of the chemicals that we are dumping into the environment in an unnecessary way is irresponsible and it is starting to catch up to us.

I mentioned that one pivotal point in my education on this subject was listening to a young man from Quebec who grew up in a region with five golf courses surrounding him. He suffers from brain cancer. His best friend died of brain cancer. In his community there are an alarming number of incidents of this particular type of cancer that has been traced to radical exposure to this type of chemical.

My colleague is absolutely right. Municipal governments are taking initiatives in Quebec and other places across Canada. One by one communities are unilaterally passing bylaws regarding the cosmetic use of pesticides, but as a federal government we hear nothing. The silence has been deafening.

The silence is a national shame, frankly, because we have this opportunity today to debate this issue of pesticides in our environment and we are not hearing progressive, courageous legislation that will put our foot down and say, “This is a bad thing. We want it eradicated from our communities. Let us put public health first before the right of industry to produce these chemicals and the right of irresponsible people to pollute the communities with them”.

[Food and Drugs Act, October 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the NDP caucus to share our views on Bill C-28, entitled an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act. I note that the purpose of Bill C-28 is to provide the Minister of Health with authority to issue interim marketing authorizations for foods that contain certain substances at specified levels and to exempt the foods from the applicable requirements of that act and its regulations relating to the sale of those foods.

That sums up our reservations about the bill. The very definition of the bill gives rise to the concerns that I have, and which my caucus tried to outline in its representations made on this bill before, in that it really does put more authority into the judgments by the Minister of Health.

I note, for example, that a judgment by the Minister of Health pertaining to trans fatty acids came into question recently. It is a serious public health concern that was debated and dealt with in the House of Commons. Bill C-28 contemplates putting more authority into the hands of the minister to make these judgments without the regulatory process for products that are already in the Food and Drugs Act. The example of trans fatty acids would in fact fit into that category.

Without the regulatory oversight that exists currently for what should and should not be in our food products, the bill contemplates giving more authority, as I understand it, to the Minister of Health.

Another aspect of the bill deals with the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Pest Control Products Act, which deals with pesticides in an agricultural setting or in other settings. The NDP notes with some concern that recently the Pest Management Regulatory Agency sent out a press release saying that the pesticide 2,4-D could be used safely, even though the Pest Control Products Act limits the language of advertising by pesticide companies, whereas they have been fined in the past for claiming that their product is safe. It is worrisome to us within the regime of pesticide control and pest management control when a product like 2,4-D, which even a lay person like me knows is a genuine health hazard and that it should be treated in the most severe category in terms of usage, has been found that there are safe applications of the pesticide.

I would rather see the Government of Canada going the other way. I would rather see the Government of Canada making bold statements about banning the cosmetic use of pesticides altogether, not finding safe applications for chemicals that we know to be hazardous.

I am concerned that Bill C-28 takes us down a road that we do not want to be going. In fact, it takes us down a road that may be 180 degrees opposite. We opposed the bill at committee because we did not believe that the Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency was doing its job properly in its evaluation of pesticides.

Canada is littered, polluted and contaminated with pesticides. I just heard a moving presentation in the last year from a 21-year-old man from Quebec who grew up surrounded by five golf courses. I cannot remember the name of the small community in which he was raised but there were five golf courses within the specific region. The incidence of brain cancer among he and his friends has motivated him to the point where he has dedicated his life to trying to eradicate the irresponsible rampant use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes and for unnecessary purposes like keeping a golf course's grass perfect for golfing. There is no agricultural justification for this.

The young man who gave us this moving and powerful speech, told us that both he and his best friend had been diagnosed with brain cancer at the same time when they were 14 years old. Their community represented a cluster of brain cancer caused by chemical exposure that is almost unprecedented. He and his best friend made a pact that if one or both survived they would continue to inform Canadians about the dangers of the irresponsible use of these chemicals. Unfortunately, one young man succumbed to his disease.

I want to debate bills in the House that talk about getting these toxins out of our food chain and out of our agricultural system. I do not want to talk about enabling the minister to have more arbitrary direction and control over the application of these known hazards.

I will not dwell on trans fats. We won a motion in the House of Commons to study trans fats more seriously. A task force was set up, chaired jointly by the Heart and Stroke Foundation and Health Canada, to bring back recommendations but we are concerned about the interim report of that trans fat task force.

The Minister of Health is already making statements that perhaps labelling is the way to go or perhaps the government should help industry voluntarily reduce trans fats in their products but that is not the language we want to hear. It gives me no optimism whatsoever that the Minister of Health is taking concrete steps toward eliminating known health concerns within our food chain or that he will apply the type of scrutiny, direction and control that we expect in the food and drug administration in evaluating new products.

The chair of the Standing Committee on Health took on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and asked when it would issue a press release retracting the statement that there might be a safe way to apply 2,4-D. We did not want to send the wrong impression out to the general public.

Thousands of garages at the back of homes all over the country have a container of old 2,4-D sitting on their shelves. All people need to hear is some regulatory authority changing its mind and telling people that 2,4-D is not so bad after all and that they should continue to go after the dandelions with this incredibly hazardous material. People who already possess tonnes of that product and who should be advised to take it to a hazardous waste site and have it treated properly as a health hazard, may get the false idea that there is a safe way of doing this.

I do not think I need to remind people in the House of Commons about agent orange and agent purple at CFB Gagetown which showed chemicals can remain in the environment for years. Some people may not be aware of the fact that 2,4-D is a component of both agent orange and agent purple.

At the same time as members of Parliament are seized with the issue of contamination at Gagetown by the experimental use of agent orange and agent purple in the post-war year which put our armed forces personnel at risk, it is ironic that 2,4-D, one of the main ingredients in those cancer causing agents, is being contemplated for safe application again. That is as crazy as saying there is a safe application for asbestos. Canada is full of these contradictions.

How can we in all good conscience say that there is a safe application for asbestos when asbestos contamination is all around us to where we have polluted the entire country with asbestos? It can be found in every school, hospital and government building. Even our own House of Commons is contaminated with it. We seem to be adopting this same cavalier, user beware approach to harmful chemicals like 2,4-D.

The Sierra Club of Canada has spearheaded a public campaign questioning why the Pest Management Regulatory Agency claimed that 2,4-D could be used safely but its questions are not being answered.

If we are dismantling or, in any way, altering or affecting the regulatory process now, which would rely on outside expertise and authorities other than our own researchers with Health Canada, et cetera, then we are really concerned and critical of it.

We should point out that Health Canada does not actually do its own original research. It only gathers up the empirical evidence. It gathers up studies that have been done by others, often by the manufacturer of the very product that it is studying, and it assesses the risk based on the research available. This was made clear at the whistleblowing hearings where three Health Canada officials were fired for blowing the whistle on health hazards associated with bovine growth hormone.

Dr. Shiv Chopra made it clear when he said, “Everybody thinks we did this research and that we are advising Canadians about the hazards of bovine growth hormone”. He went on to say that he wished Health Canada could do its own research but that it did not have the laboratory or the budget to do the original research and that it had to rely on what has been done by others, which, hopefully, was done independently and peer tested. Sometimes it is the type of study that is done by the industry because it is the only one willing to fund the research on a product and in that way that research could be tainted or biased. That is certainly the case in many known food additives and chemicals that have been later found to be hazardous.

Asbestos is not the only one. Let us face it, most of the work on asbestos in the country today was done by an institute that was funded by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. It was concerned that it could not underwrite asbestos workers any more because of the extraordinary incidence of occupational disease related to people handling that product, so it funded its own research laboratory, published the reports that were pro asbestos and never published the reports that were anti-asbestos.

I want to get back to Bill C-28. Some of the issues involved include the study of chlorinated dioxins. I think everyone knows dioxins are enormous cancer causing agents and no one is saying that dioxins are necessarily present in 2,4-D, but the dioxins are in fact a byproduct in the manufacture of 2,4-D. If we are adopting a more casual approach to 2,4-D and saying that there are safe applications of it, we will be stimulating the production of it and, in acknowledging the production of it, we will, inadvertently or in a secondary way, also have to acknowledge that there will be the greater production of dioxins stemming from the production of 2,4-D.

The most toxic form of 2,4-D containing DEA was excluded from the evaluation. Even though the Pest Management Regulatory Agency ruled that there may be safe applications of 2,4-D, it did not even look at the most extremely hazardous toxic form of 2,4-D which contains this dioxin DEA, although it did say that it would examine it later, which is small comfort.

We are concerned that Bill C-28 would augment the authority of the Minister of Health to regulate food products, supplements or additives to the food and drug regime. It is in keeping with a motif that we have noticed in so many pieces of legislation introduced by the Liberal government. It is a trend. It seems to be a recognizable motif to augment the arbitrary authority of the minister and to dismantle or erode the regulatory authority of independent voices and bodies. We cannot tolerate that lightly and we have to speak out about it.

When this bill was introduced into the House of Commons on November 29, 2004, it was introduced with no advanced indication as to what it was designed to accomplish. That is rare for a bill. It was featured at a technical bill, a bill that was really just a housekeeping matter. It was only upon our own investigation and examination that some of these concerns rose to the surface and came to our attention within the NDP caucus.

The debate at second reading is where some of this information started to come up. Cautionary notes were raised about preventive measures, preventive health concerns and dietary issues. Some speakers at second reading articulated their concern that we emphasized too much of our health care resources toward treating the sick and not enough of our resources toward preventing illness.

Some people say that the title of Minister of Health should really be changed to the minister of managing illness, because our Minister of Health really has very little to do with making Canadians healthier or putting forward initiatives or legislation that might actually lead to a healthier population.

We are all aware of the preventable illnesses and that we could take steps to lessen the burden on our much taxed health care system. This is certainly one area where we expect our Minister of Health to be more proactive.

We are concerned when a bill like this comes along and does not really speak to the general public health concerns that we all share, but speaks more to streamlining a regulatory process to make it easier for the Minister of Health to give the yea or the nay about a food additive or a food product that is currently within the food chain or the drug system.

I acknowledge and take the parliamentary secretary's point that the bill does not apply to new chemicals being introduced or new additives. Those will still be subject to the full process of which we are all aware, but we are talking about existing products, chemicals and additives that may be in the existing food product list or in the existing drug regime that Canadians consume with the confidence that there are safety measures put in place to ensure that their health is key and paramount.

I cannot help but think that the industry would be quite interested in this new development which takes the regulatory authority away from the regime we are used to and hands it back to the minister.

If I can use trans fats as an example again, it is a product that is fully entrenched in the food chain currently. It is generally acknowledged across the country that this stuff is bad for us. Scientists use the word “toxic” when they make reference to trans fats because it meets the scientific definition of toxins. Our bodies cannot process it; our bodies reject it.

In fact, our bodies do not acknowledge trans fat as food. They see it as some foreign substance, which it is, to be stored elsewhere, and they store it in the form of fat within our circulo-vascular system and builds our cholesterol. This is the problem with trans fatty acids. We want them out of our food supply system.

However, as more and more of this regulatory authority goes directly to the minister, I am not sure that I trust this minister, or any subsequent minister of health, to put the best interests of Canadians first with such a bold step because there is some push back from industry. It will be awkward. It will be inconvenient to reformulate the products to get trans fat out of cookies.

If it ever comes down to the shelf life of doughnuts and the shelf life of Canadians, I would hope that the Minister of Health would err on the side of promoting the shelf life of humans. All that trans fats are good for is for making oil solid at room temperature and adding to the shelf life of some of these products. Using that as an example and using 2,4-D as an example, we have some legitimate concerns about Bill C-28.

This is one of those bills that comes to us, as I say, without a lot of fanfare. It sort of flew under the radar when it was first introduced in the House of Commons.

Throughout the debate, I actually learned a great deal. I have read some of the debate at second reading in Hansard , where my own colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, and also my colleague from the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, raised serious reservations about how the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations would in fact have its work undermined somewhat, or would be surrendering and forfeiting some of the authority that it currently enjoys, in transferring that power and authority to the minister.

We should all be cautious when we enhance the arbitrary powers of a minister at the cost of the democratic authority of the House of Commons. This is giving power to the executive that we currently enjoy within Parliament and we should be very careful.

Market authorizations have been made regularly by the current regulatory process. It is not as onerous as some would have us believe, and fast-tracking it by putting that authority into the minister's hands scares me, frankly, when it comes to the public health of Canadians.