An Ottawa-based democracy campaigner told the Straight that Health Minister Tony Clement could theoretically benefit from a loophole in federal conflict-of-interest legislation.

“Clement could own a pharmaceutical company and, under these rules, change the Food and Drugs Act and not be in violation [of the Conflict of Interest Act ],” Duff Conacher, coordinator of public-interest group Democracy Watch, said in a phone interview.

Some opposition to Bill C-51—which purports to “modernize the regulatory system for foods and therapeutic products”—has focused attention on Clement’s former 25-percent investment in Prudential Chem Inc., a Toronto-based company that sells ingredients for use in medicines.

According to Clement’s press secretary Laryssa Waler, the minister divested his shares in July 2006.

Conacher said Paul Martin introduced a “huge” loophole as prime minister in December 2003 to allow him to keep making decisions affecting his company, Canada Steamship Lines, which he eventually signed over to his three sons.

“It allows any minister or his staff or senior government officials to continue taking part in and making decisions, even if they have a financial interest in the matter, as long as it is a general matter that affects a broad group of the public,” Conacher said. “The Food and Drugs Act is a general matter.”

Conacher said this should be addressed. He cited Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s 2006 platform, where he promised: “Stephen Harper will close the loopholes that allow ministers to vote on matters connected with their business interests.”

Conacher called this “one of Harper’s biggest broken promises”.

On June 9, Clement defended his position against Bill C-51 critics whom he said betray an “ignorance” on the issue.

“The particular company that I invested in in the past was actually involved in natural health products as well as active pharmaceutical ingredients,” Clement said by phone. “So they are showing their ignorance and they are showing that all they are about is dragging a person’s reputation down when they can’t win a policy argument.”