WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE? RE: Request for Action to Canadian Members of Parliament

[Guest guest]

This is a reply I only just received. It seems that many of our members of

parliament don't know what is going on with this bill. So where does that

leave us???? How are we supposed to protect ourselves when those we have

elected

are being kept in the dark too?

blessings, Shan

 

RE: Request for Action to Canadian Members of Parliament

 

Ottawa, June 11, 2008

 

 

 

Dear S.S. Russell:

 

 

Recently, I sent you a letter, which responded to the concerns that you

expressed on the Conservative Government’s Bill C-51.

In it I underlined the support of the Liberals for the objective sought for

the aforementioned bill. Since then, however, I examined it more closely it

and I followed closely the debates in the House at the second reading stage

of C-51.

This has given me cause to reconsider the position which our Liberal Health

Critic has recommended to the Liberal Caucus. Perhaps you may already know

that the Conservative MPs at the time of their speeches declared that the

government will table some important and substantial amendments as soon as C-51

is sent back to the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Health. I’

ve been an MP eleven years, it is the first time that I see such a thing!

Normally, the government does not table amendments at committee stage, only

after all the experts and witnesses have been heard.

Following this decision, the Liberals clearly indicated that they could not

support this bill without having the opportunity of knowing the

aforementioned amendments.

For your information, I am forwarding an excerpt of a question raised by our

Liberal Health Critic on June 10, 2008 in the House of Commons.

_Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.)_

(http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/GetWebOptionsCallBack.aspx?SourceSyste\

m=PRISM & ResourceType=Affiliation & R

esourceID=78938 & language=1 & DisplayMode=2) :

Mr. Speaker, it has always been my understanding, as a member of Parliament,

that when one votes in favour of a bill at second reading, one is voting on

the principles of that bill. We expect that the bill will be sent to

committee where committee members can work on the details, and work on minor

adjustments to the bill to make those principles work. If the amendments are

substantive, then the principles are being changed.

In this case the minister has stated both inside and outside the House and

at committee that natural health products were not at play in the bill. He

said that nothing in this legislation would change the rules for natural health

products: the availability, the choice. But I understand from members

opposite that the minister now wants to put forward some amendments that would

deal

specifically with natural health products where they are not involved in the

bill now. That is changing the principles of the bill.

I believe that it would be respectful of the House if the minister withdrew

the bill, made the relevant amendments, and put the bill forward, so that all

members could do an adequate study, receive advice from the Library of

Parliament, receive advice from interest groups and professionals prior to our

debate at second reading, and well in advance of it going to committee where we

would make those moderate modifications.

Does the member not find this to be contemptuous of Parliament? Does he not

find it to be disrespectful that members would abuse their privileges in this

way?

I hope this clarification is to your satisfaction.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Marlene Jennings, P.C., M.P.

Notre-Dame-de-Grâce - Lachine

 

 

 

__

S. S. Russell [surpriseshan2]

June 5, 2008 11:33 AM

Jennings, Marlene - M.P.

Request for Action to Canadian Members of Parliament

 

 

 

Dear Marlene,

 

 

Re: Bills C-51 & C-52 which were introduced on April 8th 2008 and the

Natural Health Product Regulations which were introduced on January 1st 2004.