37th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 056
CONTENTS
Monday, May 7, 2001
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1105
| FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
|
| Bill C-287. Second reading
|
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1125
| Mr. James Lunney |
1130
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
1135
1140
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1145
1150
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1155
1200
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1205
| FEDERAL LAW—CIVIL LAW HARMONIZATION ACT, NO. 1
|
| Bill S-4. Second reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1210
1215
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1220
1225
1230
1235
| Third reading
|
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| Mr. Vic Toews |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
|
| Bill C-15. Second reading
|
| Mr. Vic Toews |
1240
1245
1250
1255
| Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
1330
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1335
1340
1345
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| COMMUNITY TELEVISION
|
| Mr. Claude Duplain |
1400
| VOLUNTEERS
|
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| SIMON GAMACHE
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| DUNAMIS AND MERITAS GALA
|
| Ms. Carole-Marie Allard |
| AIR CADETS
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
1405
| NATURAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH COUNCIL
|
| Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
| PARENTAL LEAVE
|
| Ms. Monique Guay |
| VETERANS
|
| Mr. Roger Gallaway |
| BILL C-11
|
| Mr. Inky Mark |
| PATRICK JOSEPH CAREY
|
| Ms. Judy Sgro |
1410
| HOUSING
|
| Ms. Libby Davies |
| WAGE PARITY
|
| Ms. Diane Bourgeois |
| OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH WEEK
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1415
| WORLD WAR II
|
| Mr. Peter Goldring |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| ETHICS COUNSELLOR
|
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Stockwell Day |
1420
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
1425
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
1430
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| THE ECONOMY
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| MONETARY UNION
|
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| Mr. Richard Marceau |
1435
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
| SPACE SHIELD
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
1440
| PUBLIC WORKS
|
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| Mr. Andy Burton |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| GOVERNMENT LOANS
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1445
| BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
|
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
| Right Hon. Joe Clark |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| HERITAGE CANADA
|
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Cheryl Gallant |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| ACID RAIN
|
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. David Anderson |
1450
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| Mr. Leon Benoit |
| Hon. Art Eggleton |
| VETERANS AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Geoff Regan |
| Hon. Ronald Duhamel |
1455
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| AMATEUR SPORT
|
| Mr. Robert Lanctôt |
| Hon. Denis Coderre |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1500
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| TOKAMAK
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Ralph Goodale |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Tabling of documents
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| PETITIONS
|
| The Environment
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
| Human Rights
|
| Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
1505
| Census Records
|
| Mr. Murray Calder |
| Free Trade Area of the Americas
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Derek Lee |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| PATENT ACT
|
| Bill S-17. Second reading
|
| Hon. Brian Tobin |
1510
1515
1520
| Mr. Charlie Penson |
1525
1530
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1535
1540
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1545
1550
1555
1600
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1605
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1610
| Mr. Loyola Hearn |
1615
1620
1625
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1630
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1635
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1640
1645
1650
1655
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1700
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1705
1710
1715
1720
| Mr. John Bryden |
1725
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1730
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1735
1740
1745
1750
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1755
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1800
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
1805
1810
1815
1820
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Mr. Svend Robinson |
1825
1830
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Gun Control
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1835
| Mr. John Maloney |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 056
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, May 7, 2001
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1105
[English]
FOOD AND DRUGS ACT
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved that Bill
C-287, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (genetically
modified food), be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill is in favour of mandatory
labelling of genetically modified foods in Canada, and for,
understandably, good reasons.
First, let me say that the debate today is timely. Just last
week Ottawa hosted a meeting of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission's Committee on Food Labelling.
Last month Canada signed a biosafety protocol to regulate the
trade on living modified organisms.
Finally, the European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand,
South Korea and others are developing or implementing legislation
requiring mandatory labelling on genetically modified foods.
Against this background, the issue of labelling genetically
modified foods requires urgent attention because Canada's
domestic labelling policy has implications for people, for
international trade and for Canada's compliance with
international agreements.
Let me explain. Members of the House, either through media or
from letters, have been made aware of growing concerns over the
pervasive presence of genetically modified foods in the food
chain. There is definitely a lack of public confidence due in
good part to having been kept in the dark, beginning with the
fact that the public does not know which foods are genetically
modified and which are not.
What is the purpose of the bill? Members of the House have
probably receive all sorts arguments against the mandatory
labelling of genetically modified foods. I urge hon. members to
keep in mind that this is not a complex, scientific nor technical
issue. It simply comes down to the fundamental right of people
to know. Canadians want to know what is in their food. It is as
basic as that.
Is a mandatory labelling system feasible? Let me describe the
key features of C-287 with respect to feasibility and reliability
of a mandatory labelling system for GM foods.
What are genetically modified foods? There is confusion
surrounding which foods should be labelled. Should foods that
are the result of traditional breeding be labelled? The answer
is, no. The confusion arises from the fact that genetically
modified foods in Canada fall under the broad definition of novel
foods in the Food and Drugs Act.
By contrast, international agreements are clear on that issue.
As a result, members will find in Bill C-287 that genetically
modified food is defined in accordance with the Cartagena
protocol on biosafety. This protocol has been signed by Canada.
Consequently, the labelling would apply only to food or food
ingredients that contain genetic material obtained through the
use of modern biotechnology. Nothing more, nothing less.
Having clearly defined GM foods, the bill aims at ensuring that
the genetic history of a food or food ingredient be recorded and
traced through all stages of production, distribution,
manufacture, packaging and sale. This is the only way to ensure
the integrity of the documentation trail, to provide accurate
labelling and prevent incorrectly labelled material from reaching
the consumer. The result of the documentation trail is that no
person can sell genetically modified foods unless it is labelled
“This food is genetically modified”. Foods that have not been
genetically modified do not need to bear this label.
This proposed system does not prevent a vendor from voluntarily
applying a label describing the food as genetically modified
free, if that is the case.
1110
Why mandatory labelling? Opponents to mandatory labelling of
genetically modified foods often refer to the process set up by
the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors under the auspices
of the Canadian General Standard Board. They form the committee
called, and I quote, “The Committee on the voluntary labelling
of foods obtained or not obtained through genetic engineering”.
Regrettably, there has never been a consultation through this
committee on whether to proceed with a mandatory or a voluntary
labelling system for genetically modified foods. The committee
on voluntary labelling was struck to work only on a voluntary
standard for labelling on genetically modified food. I submit
that such a voluntary system offers no guarantee that all foods
containing genetically modified material will be labelled.
Under a voluntary labelling system, some foods may be labelled
and others may not be. This would be confusing and deceptive to
consumers who want to know what they eat. Separation and
tracking of genetically modified foods in our food system, as
proposed in the bill, are essential features to providing
consumers with accurate information. This accuracy cannot be
achieved with a voluntary system.
Moreover, a voluntary labelling system cannot offer any
guarantee of the genetic integrity of experts to our trading
partners.
The committee on voluntary labelling is currently contemplating
a voluntary labelling system with four different labels:
genetically engineered, genetically modified, non-genetically
modified and non-genetically engineered. This is utterly
confusing to say the least.
Bill C-287 would put in place a simple mandatory label stating
“this food is genetically modified”, or “this food contains an
ingredient that is genetically modified”.
The committee on voluntary labelling has had eight meetings
since November 1999. It may be meeting for a long time before it
can reach consensus on a standard for voluntary labelling. In
the meantime, Canadian consumers and trading partners are kept
waiting and will continue not to be informed about the content of
the food.
Let me also mention this very important fact about voluntary
labelling. It is already possible under the Food and Drugs Act
to identify biotechnology products under certain conditions. In
fact, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency states “Consumer
choice can already be accommodated through Canadian legislation
via voluntary labelling companies”. Yet, although it is
currently permitted under the law, food companies have not seen
the necessity to label their products containing genetically
modified ingredients. Hence the need for a mandatory labelling
system requiring companies to inform Canadians.
I have a final note on the voluntary labelling committee. I
believe industry sponsored, closed processes are inappropriate
for dealing with an issue as important as food safety and the
right to know what we eat. Such debate belongs here, in
parliament, and this is one of the reasons for bringing Bill
C-287 before the House.
I want to say a few words about the advantages of tracing
genetically modified food and of labelling. A mandatory
labelling system would make available crucially needed
information. It would indicate where genetically modified foods
can be found in the food chain, something we are not sure of at
this moment. Scientists and medical professionals have
frequently made that request. Let me quote from a statement last
year by the British Medical Association:
Genetically modified foodstuffs should be segregated at source,
to enable identification and traceability of genetically modified
products. This is important as there are considerable doubts
about the behaviour of GMOS once they are released into the
environment, and this will also facilitate monitoring in the
interests of public health. It is unacceptable that at present
some GM and non-GM products are mixed at source, and are not
adequately labelled.
This is quite a firm statement by a medical source.
The current Canadian policy is to limit labelling where there
are proven health or safety concerns.
However, how can potential long term health effects that may
arise from the consumption of genetically modified foods be
proven a priori in advance?
1115
In Bill C-287 at least we address this question by mandating the
Minister of Health to use information provided by the labelling
system and conduct research into the possible long term effects
of the consumption of genetically modified food on health. This
approach is consistent with the precautionary principle, which
Canada adhered to in 1992 at the Rio convention.
I have a few words now about the loss of export markets. Hon.
members are being told it is not feasible, too costly and not in
Canada's interest to label genetically modified foods. This is
not the case. Mandatory labelling is necessary for trade and
economic reasons. Our farmers and agribusiness have already
incurred costs as the result of the loss of export markets.
Without a reliable system for separating genetically modified
crops from non-genetically modified crops, we continue to lose
export markets in countries that have banned genetically modified
foods or require the labelling of genetically modified foods.
We can no longer export canola to Europe. We will soon not be
able to export soya to Japan. The Canadian Wheat Board is
pleading with the Canadian regulatory agency not to approve
genetically modified wheat for fear of losing export markets. As
a major agricultural producer and exporter of crops such as
wheat, canola, corn and soya beans, Canada relies on their
European market for export of agrifood products. Canada cannot
continue to lose markets because of an obsolete policy which is
increasingly out of sync with the rest of the world.
About the feasibility of separating GM crops and private sector
initiatives in response to consumers' demands, this can be said.
There is the argument that it is not feasible to separate GM
crops from non-GM crops. There are many initiatives by the
private sector to the contrary. For example, Casco Inc., a
milling industry, announced in spring 1999 that in order to
retain its European customers it would no longer be buying
varieties of genetically modified corn.
In September 1999 the agribusiness company Archer Daniels
Midland asked corn and soya bean suppliers to keep their
genetically modified crops separate. Then Commercial Alcohols
Inc., Nacan, A.E. Stanley, McCain, Gerber baby foods and Seagram
have joined the ranks of food processing companies that will not
use genetically modified foods.
Similarly, members of the Prairie Oat Growers Association issued
a news release stating that they do not favour the
commercialization of any genetically modified oats until there is
a clear market signal in consumer acceptance to do so.
As members can see, the private sector is already responding to
consumer demand by separating genetically modified crops from
non-genetically modified crops so as to continue to supply to
expanding markets.
I submit that it is time for Canada to establish a system for
separating genetically modified crops from non-genetically
modified crops and go for a mandatory labelling system in keeping
with market demands.
I have a few words about farmers and genetically modified crops.
Some will tell hon. members that genetically modified crops
benefit farmers and are necessary for their survival. Nothing
could be further from the truth. In fact the National Farmers
Union adopted a new policy in December of last year which called
for a moratorium on the production, importation, distribution and
sale of genetically modified food.
In the policy, the farmers union speaks of markets in Europe,
Japan and elsewhere that are closing and domestic markets that
are being likewise threatened. It states that closing markets
and falling prices threaten to overwhelm any small, short term
economic benefit genetically modified crops or livestock may
offer. The farmers union makes the very important point that the
proliferation of some genetically modified crops has effectively
deprived many organic farmers of the option to grow those crops.
The National Farmers Union also states that:
Food products which contain genetically modified ingredients must
be subject to clear, consistent, mandatory labelling.
1120
Do we need more evidence? Is it not abundantly clear that the
uncertainty surrounding genetically modified crops and the lack
of public acceptance, the trend in foreign markets and domestic
markets are real concerns?
To conclude, it seems to me the necessity of mandatory labelling
is evident. We cannot wear blinkers and pretend this is strictly
an issue of our domestic regulatory system because it is not. The
rest of the world has recognized the need for mandatory labelling
of genetically modified foods and is moving ahead. Canada will be
left behind.
I would like to reiterate the fact that mandatory labelling is a
response to a basic right and that is that Canadians want to know
what they eat. Mandatory labelling is in Canada's economic
interest. Mandatory labelling corresponds to Canada's
international commitments. Mandatory labelling is relevant to
human health.
Opponents of labelling say there are already too many
genetically modified foods on our store shelves to make labelling
meaningful, that the horse is out of the barn and that it is too
late to fix the stable door. These arguments are weak. The fact
is that having invested so much in the diffusion of this
technology we have an obligation, a clear interest and a
responsibility to label. Moreover, mandatory labelling would
actually increase the public's acceptance of this technology. It
would remove the suspicion that there is something to hide. It
would reduce the public's distrust in this technology.
Finally, without mandatory labelling we would deny Canadians the
fundamental right to know how the food they eat has been produced
and to make an informed choice. It that not the essence of
democracy?
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the consent of the
House to share my time with the member from Nanaimo—Alberni.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have the consent
of the House to share his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-287, which deals
with mandatory labelling, as put forward by the member for
Davenport, represents a personal interest of his. I sat on the
environment committee that he chaired.
The member is speaking on behalf of farmers and farm
organizations. The member should look at what the letters which
received from the farm organizations actually state. They do not
support mandatory labelling.
For quick reference, I will refer to a letter from the National
Dairy Council of Canada addressed to the member for Davenport,
which is also supported by corn and grain growers and other farm
groups. The essence of their letter was that:
We find it difficult to appreciate the need for mandatory
labelling legislation at this time. It is certainly not a food
safety issue, as CFIA and Health Canada are reviewing stringently
the safety of those products. We doubt it can be a nutritional
or allergy issue, either.
Those are also dealt with by the people who regulate our food
safety in this country.
Not only do we have to look at the arguments put forward by the
member for Davenport, we also look at the arguments of other
players in this issue, including the many millions of Canadians
who do not want mandatory labelling. They want a voluntary
labelling system that responds to their consumer demands.
I note that Bill C-287 acknowledges there is no safety risk to
our food supplies. Clause 7.1(1) states:
No person shall sell or offer for sale a food that contains more
than one per cent of a genetically modified food.
If we are going to allow 1%, then we are consuming it. The bill
itself states that the food is safe. The argument then gets down
to why would we have mandatory labelling?
It is due to a response that the member feels a significant
number of consumers want it. There are a significant number of
consumers, people in agriculture in particular, who say that
mandatory labelling is not required and let consumer demand,
through the retailer and the wholesaler, make the case. The
consumers of course is spending the dollar, so if the demand is
there the dollar will be spent on what the consumers wants. If
they are demanding mandatory labelling, they will say that they
will not buy unlabelled food. That is clearly not the case.
1125
I will not be supporting Bill C-287 because it will implement
the mandatory labelling, which is not the right approach for
Canada. The majority of farm organizations that I met with were
not in favour of this.
I would also point out that the Royal Society of Canada expert
panel concluded in its report:
The panel believes that strong government support for voluntary
labels is an effective way of providing consumer input into these
issues, and (the panel) encourages the Canadian regulatory
agencies responsible to establish guidelines for the regulation
of reliable, informative voluntary labels.
That is the essence of the argument. There is no safety issue.
The response to the consumer is the important thing. I am a
farmer; a cattle rancher. I respond to the consumers and give
them the products they want and for which they are willing to
pay. That is the same with this labelling issue. There is no
reason to have mandatory labelling. It should be left up to the
consumer. The Canadian Alliance policy refers to the fact that
we support voluntary labelling.
Those are the comments I would like to make in this debate.
Mr. James Lunney (Nanaimo—Alberni, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also share in this time of debate.
This is a very important issue. I thank the hon. member for
Davenport for bringing the matter before the House. It is a
matter of concern to a lot of Canadians.
We are the party of free votes, so members may find that some of
my remarks will differ a little from my colleague for
Selkirk—Interlake. I would like to approach this from a health
perspective since that is my primary concern and mandate on this
side as deputy health critic.
I would like to begin with a few remarks about basic biology and
the adult human body. We have a bunch of them in the House
today. An adult human being represents about 80 trillion to 100
trillion cells. We represent a fantastic organization. If we
think about it, there are 80 trillion to 100 trillion cells which
are organized in about 200 different cell types in the body. They
are very different. Bone cells are different from cardiac cells.
Liver cells are different from nerve cells. Red blood cells
are different from cartilage. Yet amazingly they are all read
the same blueprint. The uniqueness that is expressed in us that
makes us distinctly human is because of the blueprint, the DNA.
The genome project recently made a milestone contribution to the
understanding of how our diversity and our uniqueness is
expressed. It identified about 30,000 genes in a human being.
The people were rather surprised because the humble fruit fly had
about 13,000 genes.
The remarkable thing about the genome project was it found that
as human beings we are remarkably alike, about 99.9% the same.
Imagine there are about six billion people on the planet and as
different as we are, genetically we are nearly the same. It is
that very small difference which accounts for all the differences
we attribute and make such a big deal about between us as human
beings.
There is a law in science called the law of biogenesis.
Basically it says that when it comes to reproduction, every kind
produces its own kind: humans have humans; horses have horses;
snakes make snakes; and flies make flies. It is in the blueprint
that we find this tremendous variation.
1130
By selective breeding, different traits or characteristics can
be emphasized within any particular species. An example is the
tremendous variation found in canine species or even in
selectively bred roses. However, from the beginning of time the
law of biogenesis has held true: every kind brings forth its own
kind.
Historically the development of improved crop characteristics
has evolved in the same way as selective procedures found in
other species, such as human, canine, butterflies and roses,
selecting from the gene pool within the species.
Health Canada's approach to date with genetically modified foods
has been to say that food should be judged by the quality and
nutritional value rather than how it was made. What makes GM
foods and GMOs different is that modern biotechnology has pressed
beyond the marvellous gene pool that defines each species, with
the intent of inserting a gene from a different species. This is
a major departure from what the world throughout the ages has
known.
Are GM foods safe? What are the long term effects of GM foods
on human beings and on the environment? Frankly, no one knows
for sure.
I might address the argument of substantial equivalence, that
is, saying that a genetic change is so small that it does not
change the outcome. However, that argument is frankly not
supported by an investigation done by the Royal Society, which
looked into the matter at great length. It rejects the concept
of substantial equivalence as precautionary for the safety of
these foods.
There are many concerns raised about genetically modified foods
in terms of the biological implications. When a novel gene is
introduced the context is changed and the long term effects of
that in regard to human illness have not been adequately studied.
To quote the Royal Society, the panel said:
As a precautionary measure, the Panel recommends that the
prospect of serious risks to human health, of extensive,
irremediable disruptions to the natural ecosystems, or of serious
diminution of biodiversity, demand that the best scientific
methods be employed to reduce the uncertainties with respect to
these risks. Approval of products with these potentially serious
risks should await the reduction of scientific uncertainty to
minimum levels.
In conclusion, it is my view that if we intend to introduce
biological changes the world has never seen, we have an
obligation to ensure that best science practices—
The Deputy Speaker: I regret to interrupt the hon.
member. When members receive consent to split their original
time of 10 minutes, their time for debate becomes 5 minutes for
each member. I cannot deviate from that.
[Translation]
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-287, an act to amend
the Food and Drugs Act (genetically modified food), which was
introduced by the hon. member for Davenport and aims at making
mandatory the labelling of all the food that is genetically
modified or contains more than 1% of a genetically modified
food.
For almost three years now the Bloc Quebecois has been demanding
mandatory labelling of genetically modified food and food
products. In November 1999, the Bloc undertook a consultation
and an information tour in all the regions of Quebec. This tour
was a huge success.
The Bloc also had a petition circulated that gathered close to
50,000 signatures and was tabled in the 36th parliament by the
then hon. member for Louis-Hébert, the former Bloc member who, I
want to remind the House, rose dozens of times in the House to
demand again and again the very same thing, the labelling of
GM0s.
Why? Because the Bloc Quebecois feels that each and every
citizen has the right to know exactly what is in his or her
plate. In spite of all the efforts the Bloc made in order to get
this government to listen to the concerns of the population of
Canada and Quebec, the federal Liberals turned a deaf ear on the
demands made by the Bloc Quebecois, which are broadly supported
by the population.
1135
The single, and minimal, action taken by the government on GMOs
was to strike committees to address the question.
GMOs have been on the market for five years now, and at this
time committees are looking at labelling standards. Is this a
really serious approach? One might well ask.
What is more, it is already predictable that these standards
will be voluntary, and there is nothing to indicate that they
will be adopted by companies not currently labelling GMOs.
Perhaps this government needs to be reminded of a few facts that
seem to justify its laxness in the field of GMOs, since its
position, essentially, like the major food industries, is that
there is no proof that GMOs are harmful to health.
This argument is correct, so far, of course, but that may be
because there have been no studies on the medium and long term
effects of GMOs on human and animal health, or on the flora and
fauna.
I would ask this. Can a responsible government treat such risks
so lightly? Of course not, particularly since we know that food
products containing GMOs have been on the market for the past
five years and that 42 genetically modified plants are
authorized for use in Canada.
David Suzuki, a well known journalist whose background is in
genetics, has already said that politicians who insist GMOs are
without danger are either liars or fools.
We know that the countries of the European Union recommend
caution: first, in the absence of scientific proof, a prudent
approach must be taken in order to prevent potential damage by
GMOs to health and the environment.
Second, preliminary studies by scientists in a number of
countries indicate that certain GMOs had negative effects on
rats, insects and bacteria. These studies, while not involving
humans, should encourage us to further investigate their effects
and to expand them to humans.
Third, it should be noted in passing that the companies claiming
the GMOs they produce are risk free also oppose any sort of
regulation that would make them responsible for damage caused by
their genetically modified products.
If these companies refuse to assume this responsibility, if
preliminary studies indicate that there are effects on certain
beings, if certain countries are moving very cautiously on the
issue of GMOs, is it not simple justice to give consumers
freedom of choice to decide whether or not they want genetically
modified foods in their plate?
By playing the game of the food industry and not requiring it to
separate products containing genetically modified foods from
those that do not, the government is running the risk, over the
medium term, of finding itself locked out of certain foreign
markets.
We will recall the remarks by the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development in his report, and I
quote:
Genetically modified crops constituted a relatively small
proportion of this amount (roughly $840 million or four percent);
however, because Canada's bulk commodity handling and
transportation system is not currently equipped to segregate
genetically modified varieties from the non-modified varieties,
all exports of those crops ($2.8 billion) could have been
affected.
From this perspective, farmers could find their genetically
modified crops and food products made from them banished from
the export markets of Europe and Asia. Mexico and the U.S. are
currently looking at mandatory labelling of GMOs, and in Canada,
some of the major companies, such as McCain and Frito-Lay are no
longer buying GMOs.
1140
Food distributors or exporters could also risk losing market
opportunities for food products not labelled in such a way as to
indicate that they contain GMOs.
In concluding, allow me to mention that, fortunately, some
members opposite are well aware of the problems to which Canada
might expose itself by not clearly identifying foods containing
GMOs. These members finally understood that people's freedom to
choose what they eat is a basic right. So voices are being heard
from within the government party itself. As proof, this bill was
introduced by a member of the government party.
I know that the hon. member for Davenport has his heart set on
labelling genetically modified foods and that he supported the
efforts made in the past by the Bloc Quebecois in this regard. I
sincerely hope that the introduction of his bill will get his
party's other members and the ministers thinking about this so
that the Canadian government, like several European countries,
will make it mandatory to identify foods containing GMOs.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this private members' hour on genetically
modified organisms and the need for mandatory labelling. I
congratulate the hon. member for Davenport and say at the outset
that certainly this private member's bill has the full and
unconditional support of the New Democratic Party caucus in the
House of Commons.
In fact, at a convention in August 1999 we introduced a
resolution that substantially supported what is now contained in
the member's bill. It passed overwhelmingly at our national
convention.
What is genetically modified food? It is the splicing of a gene
from one organism into a plant or animal to confer certain traits
that are not inherent. The purpose can be manyfold. It can be
to increase the yield of the product, to prolong shelf life or
for crop resistance such as, for example, something that perhaps
would be more resistant to drought.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the work that has
been done in this area, as my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois
noted in her speech, by Madam Hélène Alarie, who was the member
of parliament for Louis—Hébert in the last parliament and did an
enormous amount of work on this, and by my colleague from
Winnipeg North Centre, who also has a private member's bill on
this topic.
I recall in the 36th parliament that at one point in our
deliberations in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food we were to have struck a subcommittee between the
Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food to deal with the whole business of genetic
modification, labelling, et cetera. I still to this day do not
know quite what happened, except that the then chair of the
committee reported at some point that the notion of a
subcommittee to look at it had fallen through. Fingers were
pointed as to which caucus was responsible. I and my colleague
from the Conservative Party who sits on the committee simply do
not know what happened. However, I think it was an important
opportunity missed and I certainly hope the government is going
to learn from that lesson.
I recall that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food did look at the question of labelling. People from the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency were before the committee about a
year ago. I recall what I thought was a bizarre exchange at the
time. Someone from the food inspection agency was asked how a
product listed as organic would be dealt with by the CFIA. The
answer was that the agency would look at it very carefully to
determine that it was indeed an organic product and met all the
criteria and guidelines.
1145
We then asked what would happen if the CFIA were handed a product
to test that may contain genetically modified food or organisms.
The answer that we got back at the time was that it would not
consider it at all because when it was tested one day it may
contain GMO, and when it was tested the next day it would be GMO
free. That flies in the face of what most Canadians want to see
in terms of the labelling process.
We have not heard from government members, but I suspect that
when they get up to speak they will be opposed to the bill,
although for the life of me I do not understand why. We talk a
lot in the House about democracy and transparency. Public
opinion polls indicate that in excess of 90% of Canadians believe
they should have the right to know what is in the food
they are ingesting. I have difficulty understanding why the
government has been dragging its heels to the extent that it has
on this issue.
One of the reasons consumers are interested and concerned about
this issue is that they believe genetically modified foods
may contain allergenic, toxic or even carcinogenic aspects. They
do not know and they darn well want the right to know.
The issue the member for Davenport is specifically concerned
about in the legislation is that of labelling, whether it should
be voluntary or mandatory, which he clearly demonstrated in his
remarks. Consumers associations, health and environmental groups
clearly want mandatory labelling. The government and, admittedly,
some agricultural organizations prefer to go in a voluntary way.
With voluntary labelling, and this is part of our concern,
consumers still cannot be sure the food they are buying is safe
and farmers will not know if the crops they are planting will be
marketable. The member for Davenport talked about the fact that
Canadian canola farmers have been shut out of the European market
because more than 50% of the canola produced in Canada now is
genetically modified and the European Union has a ban on that.
We have had the Canadian Wheat Board and other organizations
talk about the need to prohibit the commingling of products. We
could very clearly have non-GMO products and products that have
been genetically modified so that we can market our crops around
the world, and not be shut out of markets in the way that it is
happening today.
We do favour mandatory labelling. We have called on the
government to take immediate steps to implement a labelling
process that will make consumers aware of all genetically
modified products, produce and components in processed foods.
The other matter that needs to be touched on is that there was a
lot of emphasis six or eight months ago on the government telling
us to wait for the Royal Society of Canada to make its report.
That came down earlier this year and amounted to a scathing
condemnation of the practices of the government on the question
of food safety. The report says that Canadians do not know that
genetically modified foods are safe because the process of
approvals by the government is so flawed and problematic.
Given those concerns, we have been asking for months, as the
private member's bill indicates, for a process of mandatory
labelling of all genetically modified foods so that Canadians
know what they are eating.
When we talked about this at committee, we had the bizarre
argument that if we had to put labelling on a product that was
genetically modified, we would end up with a label on an eight
ounce jar that was perhaps two feet long. That would be
ridiculous. I submit that in this day and age it would be
relatively easy for a company that had a genetically modified
product to be able to say that the product contained GM food.
They could send people to their website for details on the
product without increasing the size of the label in any way.
1150
I have basically summarized the New Democratic Party's position
on the bill. I congratulate the member for Davenport for
introducing the bill. This is the first of three hours on the
bill and other members of the New Democratic Party will be
speaking in favour of the bill at subsequent opportunities.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to stand in the House today to represent the
position of the Progressive Conservative Party on Bill C-287.
First, I congratulate the member for Davenport who is seen in
the House as being an effective spokesperson for the environment
and a very passionate advocate with respect to mandatory
labelling.
The Progressive Conservative Party does say quite emphatically
that it would work toward mandatory labelling and do so in a very
logical and cautious way. We will initially support the
legislation in order to move it into committee because there are
a number of areas that need to be debated and discussed.
I sit on the agriculture committee. I must congratulate a
previous member, Ms. Hélène Alarie, who was a passionate advocate
of this particular topic. She put forward a private member's
motion which I and my party voted against. We did not vote
against it because we did not feel very strongly about mandatory
labelling but because the agriculture committee was going to
strike a subcommittee to discuss in detail the positives, the
weaknesses and the flaws in mandatory labelling.
Many questions on mandatory labelling need to be debated and the
best place for that debate would at committee where the necessary
stakeholders, consumers, producers and corporations can put their
positions forward on mandatory labelling.
It is refreshing to see a bill come forward from a member of the
government where it is contrary to government policy and a
votable item. It will be interesting to see how the government
deals with this particular issue.
The bill does have a number of flaws. One of the specific flaws
is that the bill calls for a very narrow definition of GM food to
go into the Food and Drug Act. Canada's novel food regulations
uses a very broad definition in capturing the regulatory system
of anything with a novel heritable trait. This minimizes
negative environmental and biodiversity impacts. Because the FDA
supersedes the novel food regulations, the breadth of the
products that go through the regulatory system would be narrowed
to the product of one GM technology and everything else would
pass into the food chain unregulated.
It is clear that most Canadians support the principle of
openness and transparency within the bill. However, achieving
the end results will be a very difficult task, as I am sure the
member for Davenport accepts.
The Progressive Conservative Party believes that Canada's
biotechnology industry, along with genetically enhanced food, has
for the most part benefited our agriculture and agri-food
sectors, and Canada as a whole. Biotechnology offers major
opportunities to improve both our environmental integrity and
improve our food quality.
The challenges that we must face in creating a solid and dynamic
biotechnology industry are twofold. First, we must create a
climate in which industry sectors can flourish, both here and
internationally. International trade is very important.
Second, we must meet the public's concerns about their own
health, environment and the safety of GMOs.
It would be unrealistic to think that we can put an end to the
biotechnology advancements. We do not want that. I do not
believe anyone in the House believes we should stop the
advancements of biotechnology. What we can do is find ways to
improve the system as it stands today and help improve consumer
confidence in the foods that we eat.
During the last federal election, our party stated that it would
ensure greater public involvement in the setting of policy and
regulations.
1155
We would work closely with the provinces, industry and the large
number of consumer stakeholders interested in the question of
biotechnology generally and GMOs in particular. We would work to
create ways in which the industry's need and the public's real
concerns about the health and environmental safety of genetically
modified foods could be addressed and resolved.
We would commit to a law requiring the labelling of all
genetically modified foodstuffs and products for human
consumption. It would include a caveat that mandatory labelling
could only occur in the future if done in a cost effective
manner, in concert with food labelling policies of other major
food processing and trading countries, and by using standards
consistent with those of current Food and Drugs Act regulations
and international standards. That goal could be achieved if
these conditions are met.
There are few issues today that are as complex and as detailed
as the issue of labelling food products derived by genetically
modified means. There have been ongoing discussions on this
topic for over 10 years.
One of the benefits of the biotechnology and GMOs is their
multitude. They increase our competitiveness as Canadian
agri-food processors and producers. They increase the yields
needed to compensate for the increase in world population. They
develop more sustainable agricultural practices like zero till
and less pest control. In our opinion we should look forward to
the benefits of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms.
However there are some issues that are still outstanding with
mandatory labelling such as, as was mentioned earlier, the
segregation of foodstuffs. We have some difficulty right now in
our food production, segregating the food product itself, for
example the grains we put into the international marketplace. We
have to get that aspect under control as well.
Testing is a very important aspect of the whole issue. We have
to know that testing can be done economically as well as
effectively so that we know which is a genetically modified
organism and which is not.
We also have to look at world standards. We have to make sure
we work in concert with the rest of the world. We cannot sit in
isolation, deal with mandatory labelling and put in different
standards that are not accepted in the world marketplace. Our
export markets are absolutely vital to the lifeblood of
agriculture. Therefore we must make sure that any standard we
set with labelling is a standard that is acceptable by our
trading partners.
There is unfortunately no standard at this point in time. We
have labelling rules that are being set by communities throughout
the globe that are totally different from others. For example,
the United States, our major trading partner, is currently only
looking at rules for voluntary labelling and not mandatory
labelling.
In the European Union all products containing 1% or more GM
material must be labelled. Japan is looking at some new changes
to its labelling process. It is to take effect this year and
require mandatory labelling for food products and processed foods
that include one or more genetically modified organism as one of
the top three ingredients include. Australia and New Zealand
have some very strict labelling requirements, whereas in China
there are no labelling requirements at all. We must get together
and try to work out a standardized world labelling system so that
we can compete in a very competitive world market.
As for our position, it is clear that consumers demand to be
informed and we as legislators should look at ways to make
changes to cater to these demands. A substantial amount of
misinformation continually comes forward with respect to
genetically modified organisms and labelling. As
parliamentarians we must make sure that the misinformation is
backstopped by the proper and correct information. To stick our
heads in the sand and not have this go forward is not the way
that producers would have us look at the changes in our products
and how we market those products.
I would like to see this go forward, with the condition that we
do not compete with those people who are already out there doing
an awful lot of work on GMOs. We should sit down and listen to
all the stakeholders. We could then decide how best to put the
rules and regulations into place. The proper rules should be in
place that would be accepted by consumers and by the marketplace.
1200
Finally, but certainly not least, the rules we put into place
should be accepted by the food producers, those in the
agricultural community, our constituents.
I look forward to perhaps debating the bill in committee. We
will wait and see how far it can go.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague, the hon.
member for Davenport, has the right motivation in bringing
forward Bill C-287. However let us reflect for a moment.
The Government of Canada asked the Royal Society of Canada to
examine how we should prepare to regulate food biotechnology in
the future. The Royal Society came to the conclusion:
There are not currently sufficient reasons to adopt a system of
general mandatory labelling of GM foods.
The Royal Society came to this conclusion after examining
whether food biotechnology causes health or environmental risks
that would warrant general mandatory labelling. The panel
concluded that such risks do not exist.
That is not to say labelling of biotechnology foods should go
unregulated. The Royal Society concluded that labelling should
be mandatory in certain circumstances, such as when the food
could cause allergic reaction or where the modified food has a
different nutrient profile than the original.
These conditions for mandatory labelling, recommended by the
independent experts, match the rules Health Canada already has in
place. If a genetically modified food is potentially allergenic
it absolutely must be labelled. If a food's nutrient profile is
significantly changed it absolutely must be labelled.
In short, both the Royal Society and Health Canada agree that if
there are health or safety reasons to label biotechnology foods
then labelling will continue to be mandatory.
This takes us to the next question, the question of voluntary
labelling. Here again it is useful to refer to what the Royal
Society panel of experts concluded in its report to the
government. The report reads:
The Panel believes that strong government support for voluntary
labels is an effective way of providing consumer input into these
issues, and (the Panel) encourages the Canadian regulatory
agencies responsible to establish guidelines for the regulation
of reliable, informative voluntary labels.
What the Royal Society is calling for is already well underway.
The Canadian General Standards Board has a comprehensive process
in place to develop a national labelling standard for foods from
biotechnology. This is an excellent approach to the
biotechnology food labelling issue. By working together the
stakeholders will develop a national labelling standard that will
meet the needs of consumers and be workable.
The European Union rushed to put labelling regulations in place.
It was among the first in the world to have a mandatory regime in
place. However the result of rushing has not been positive. Few
products are actually labelled because the scheme is not
practical.
The virtue of the Canadian General Standards Board process now
underway is that the participants intend to come up with a
practical approach. A dialogue is taking place among all the
players so that everyone clearly understands what is practical
and what will meet the needs of consumers.
One final issue needs to be addressed. Public opinion polls are
telling us that the vast majority of Canadians want mandatory
labelling rules for foods from biotechnology. We have an
obligation to consider the views of our electorate. At the same
time, however, the people most intimately involved in the
labelling debate are coming to a different conclusion.
We have a split between informed opinion and opinion as measured
by opinion polls. Canadians are concerned and they have a right
to be concerned. When people become more knowledgeable or
engaged in an issue they often change their minds. I submit that
we need to listen to informed views. We need to listen to
Canadians. We should let the Canadian General Standards Board
complete its work. We should not pre-empt informed debate on
this topic. We should not quash the work they are attempting to
conclude.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the consideration of
private members' business has now expired and the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order
paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1205
[English]
FEDERAL LAW—CIVIL LAW HARMONIZATION ACT, NO. 1
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.) moved that Bill S-4, a first act to harmonize
federal law with the civil law of the province of Quebec and to
amend certain acts in order to ensure that each language version
takes into account the common law and the civil law, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the
parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent that Bill
S-4 be considered at all stages today, that is, second reading,
committee of the whole, report stage and third reading.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Anne McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill
S-4, the federal law—civil law harmonization act, No. 1. I will
start by providing some of the historical and legal context of
bijuralism in Canada, which is at the heart of the bill.
[Translation]
Canada is a bilingual and bijural country. Common law and civil
law traditions have been co-existing since 1774. In practice, in
the area of private law, the civil law is used in the province
of Quebec and the common law, in the other provinces and
territories.
The Constitutional Act of 1867, which divided legislative powers
between parliament and provincial legislatures, did not change
the situation.
[English]
By giving the provinces jurisdiction over property and civil
rights the Constitution Act enabled provinces to pass legislation
in key areas governing legal relationships between individuals.
Some examples include the rules governing family, estates,
property, contracts, liability and prescriptions.
When federal legislation uses or refers to principles and
concepts found in provincial or territorial private law, it
interacts with the two legal traditions that co-exist in the
country. This interaction occurs in both the English and French
versions of federal legislation. However in many cases over the
years federal legislation has not succeeded in giving civil law
the same resonance as common law.
[Translation]
The new Quebec civil code came into force in 1994. This code
deeply changed the civil law of Quebec. In the fall of 1997, at
the symposium on harmonization of federal legislation with the
civil law of Quebec and Canadian bijuralism, in Montreal, I
officially launched a lengthy process that led to Bill S-4.
[English]
Bill S-4 is the first in a series of bills intended to harmonize
all federal legislation with the civil law of the province of
Quebec. This is an enormous task and one that will have
significant practical implications for lawyers and notaries that
practise law in Quebec. It has received widespread support from
all stakeholders.
The objectives of harmonization of federal legislation with the
civil law of Quebec are to ensure that federal legislation is
fully consistent with the new civil law concepts and
institutions, that federal legislation employs correct and
precise terminology, and that amendments to federal legislation
take into account French common law terminology.
Let me be clear that Bill S-4 does not create substantive rights
or enshrine any new individual or collective rights.
[Translation]
Bill S-4 is aimed at ensuring that all Canadians have access to
federal laws that respect the legal tradition of the province or
territory where they live: the civil law in Quebec and the
common law in the rest of the country.
1210
[English]
Thus, while federal law may apply a single principle nationally,
for example, the liability of the crown in tort, it will do so in
a manner respectful of the common law and civil law traditions in
each province or territory. There is therefore co-existence
between uniformization and harmonization of federal statutes.
Federal laws are uniform in the sense that they apply a single
rule throughout Canada. They are also harmonized in that federal
statutes, in relation to matters of property and civil rights,
respect the particularities of the civil law or common law as it
applies in a given jurisdiction.
Bill S-4 reflects the principles and concepts of both our great
legal traditions. In some small way I hope we are providing
further roots for the civil law system in our country,
acknowledging that it stands on an equal footing with the common
law system in federal legislation.
Given the innovative character of the harmonization program, the
preamble puts the bill into context and explains the importance
of the initiative. The preamble recognizes the bijural character
of Canada in two ways. First, it recognizes that Quebec is the
only province in Canada that has a civil law system and that the
bill represents a concrete effort to reflect civil law principles
and concepts in federal legislation where it is relevant to do
so.
Second, the preamble fully acknowledges the common law as the
other half of Canadian bijuralism.
Our bijural tradition gives Canada an advantage internationally.
It enables us to better understand the legal systems of countries
with a common law or civil law tradition, and it facilitates
communication with them.
In the age of globalization of trade, our harmonization program
is timely. This provides Canada with an enormous advantage in
terms of what we bring to the table, of crossing the lines and
bringing people together to not only work in French and English
but to have a degree of confidence and assurance with both common
law and civil law principles.
[Translation]
We are fortunate, as a country, that two of the great legal
systems in the world are represented here and that more and more
people can easily work or give advice in one system or the
other. This is true not only here, but also in our work at the
international level.
[English]
The harmonization program is a totally unique and innovative
initiative that does not exist in any of the countries that share
a dual legal tradition with Canada. It is tangible evidence of
the government's commitment to our two great legal traditions and
to achieving full equality between them.
Bill S-4 will concretely acknowledge the existence of the two
great legal systems of our nation in a manner not done before in
Canada or anywhere in the world. The bill will ensure that
federal statutes equally take into account, in both official
languages, each of the traditions that make up the legal fabric
of our nation. It will also allow Canada to play a leading role
in an increasingly globalized world.
I thank all who have contributed to and supported this immensely
challenging project.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. colleagues for their support for
this groundbreaking legislation.
1215
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill
S-4, an act to harmonize federal law with the civil law of the
province of Quebec and to amend certain acts in order to ensure
that each language version takes into account the common law and
the civil law.
I will keep my remarks very brief. As we know, Quebec has its
own civil system of law based on the French model, whereas the
other nine provinces have a legal system based on English common
law. The bill is a reflection of a work plan established by the
federal government to ensure that the federal law which applies
in all 10 provinces has the same vocabulary as the Quebec code
and that the federal law takes into account both law traditions.
In reviewing the federal law some laws were found still in force
by virtue of having been adopted by the pre-confederation
parliament but made only applicable in lower Canada. In Bill S-4
the statutes are being repealed or amended to reflect the current
situation.
In any case the bill enacts necessary amendments. I have no
issues with either the intent or the substance of the bill. I
therefore support the immediate passage of the bill through the
House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
will be brief. I had not intended to rise at this time since we
object neither to the form nor to the substance of the bill
but, a comment by the Minister of Justice almost forced me
to do so because I have to take at least five minutes to set
some things straight.
During her speech, the Minister of Justice said that the
legislation proves that the government wants to take into account
the particularities of the two legal systems we have in this
country.
That might be true inasmuch as they are using the vocabularies
of both the civil code and the common law in order to please
everyone, but it is not the case in all jurisdictions of the
justice department.
I believe the minister had a good opportunity with the Young
Offenders Act to show that both legal systems can cohabit in
this wide and beautiful Canada but she failed. In that
particular case, she simply imposed her views on something of
such importance as the Young Offenders Act.
I have no problem with Bill S-4. However, as far as the remarks
by the minister to the effect that with this legislation her
government, and her in particular, are taking into account the
interests of Quebec and the other provinces, I think that is a
half truth and I wanted to make that clear.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
this debate promises to be probably one of the shortest second
reading debates in history.
I do not have much more to add to the extensive contributions of
my colleagues from the Alliance and the Bloc in the debate on
Bill S-4. We all know the merits of the bill. I do not want to
assume anything on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party,
but all of us assume its speedy passage. Having listened to the
Minister of Justice and having familiarized myself with the
legislation it seems to me that the sooner we accomplish this,
the better.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I want to put some comments on record with respect
to Bill S-4. I will indicate at the outset that the Conservative
Party is similarly disposed. We want to see the legislation pass
quickly through the House and take effect. We recognize its
importance and recognize the entire principle behind the bill.
As the title suggests, the bill is to harmonize federal law and
civil law in the province of Quebec and to amend a number of acts
in order to ensure that each language version will take into
account common law and civil law principles.
The bill respects the traditions of both common law and civil
law in Canada, as has been stated. It is also interesting to
note that it originates in the other place.
1220
Senator Beaudoin and Senator Andreychuk, both very learned
counsel in their own right, have spoken in favour of the
legislation, as have other senators including Senators Murray and
Nolin. They have made very valuable contributions to the bill.
Canada is a country with two legal systems, public law and
private law, better known as the civil and common law. Canada
also has provincial jurisdiction set out under subsection 92(13)
of the Constitution Act, 1867, which legitimizes most of what is
considered property and civil law.
In Quebec these notions are traditionally included in the civil
code of Quebec, which concerns itself with the following:
successions, the management of immovable property, hypothetic
securities and property laws, consumer protection, civil
incapacity and tudorship, celebration of marriage, the
obligations and contracts of civil liability, and the regulation
of professions and occupations under Quebec's exclusive
jurisdiction.
In other provinces the corresponding matters defined under the
common law are also under provincial jurisdiction. The main role
of civil law in this sense is to supplement federal legislation
for the following reasons.
Since 1867 the Parliament of Canada has enacted more than 300
statutes. Some or all these provisions are designed to regulate
matters of private law. It has done so primarily under
parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over matters that had it not
been for the division of powers established in sections 91, 92
and 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, would have fallen under the
province's jurisdiction.
The federal government has also done this indirectly by enacting
statutes designed primarily to regulate questions of public law
with some provisions relying upon private law concepts.
The field of private law thus is not solely a provincial
jurisdiction. The federal government has exclusive authority in
a number of areas under the private law which include banking,
monetary transactions, interest on money, bankruptcy and
insolvency, maritime law, patents, copyright, marriage and
divorce.
Although the federal government takes away from or adds
provisions to the civil law of each province, it does not mean
all these statutes constitute a separate legal system. For
example, the civil code of Quebec also supplements the federal
statutes while assisting in their interpretation and application.
It can therefore be said that there is a complementary
relationship between the federal legislation and the civil law
practices of the provinces.
[Translation]
The Progressive Conservative Party supports the principles
underlying Bill S-4 on harmonization between federal law and the
civil law in Quebec. The goal in this bill is to make sure
federal law provisions are harmonized with those in the civil
law.
The lack of harmony has been more crucial since the enactment of
the new civil code in Quebec in January 1994.
Bill S-4 reflects the need to have a smooth interaction between
the federal and provincial legislation. Harmonization of federal
law and the Quebec civil code will help reduce interpretation
problems caused by the use of different terminology in federal
and provincial legislation.
[English]
The need to harmonize therefore is clear. In 1994, after more
than 50 years of talks and plans for reform, Quebec replaced the
civil code of lower Canada, which had come into force in 1866,
with the civil code of Quebec.
Since that time extremely important and existing federal
statutes have had to be harmonized to be made consistent with
current civil law. The changes in vocabulary and substance made
to the civil code were not without effect on federal laws. The
resulting change in vocabulary and language of federal statutes
is no longer exactly that which occurred in civil law.
That language had to be modernized. It was a language of that
period. Regardless of language there is often the need to
modernize, particularly with technical aspects of a bill such as
this one.
Substantive changes, changes in traditional institutions and the
formalization of new concepts and reform of existing rules are
also taken into consideration.
1225
Problems can exist through the survival of a number of
provisions from the civil code of lower Canada which Quebec had
not been able to repeal because they had related to matters since
that time in 1867 and have been within the jurisdiction of
parliament. The federal government has now looked at these since
the new civil code came into force. They are thus isolated from
the body by which they once were formed and in their relation
with the civil code of Quebec may have become and have become to
some extent controversial.
According to a number of experts the civil code reform is not
the only reason for the law to be harmonized with federal laws
and with private law. The federal government still has not
managed to take into account Quebec's civil language and law in
the wording of private law provisions that were enacted.
Since 1993 the federal Department of Justice has reviewed more
than 700 statutes to determine which ones would be most affected
by the amendments, substance and form planned in the new civil
code. Based on that analysis it identified 300 laws that would
have to be harmonized.
In June 1998 the federal government under the leadership of the
Minister of Justice considered that it would be able to do so by
tabling one bill a year over the following nine years.
According to the Department of Justice this harmonization would
ensure that federal laws which are implemented under private law
include Quebec civil law terminology, notions and institutions.
It would also enhance the effectiveness of the courts by making
parliament's intention clearer and by reducing the problems
involved in interpreting federal laws when they are applied in
Quebec.
Finally it would facilitate access to justice for all Quebecers.
The details are often very critical to this process. The
preamble of Bill S-4 recognizes in particular that Quebec's civil
law tradition which finds its principal expression in the civil
code of Quebec reflects the unique character of Quebec society.
This has been somewhat controversial. I refer to some comments
on the record in the other place which touched upon that subject
matter. There was a reference to the highest court of the land
in terms of its use and expression of the terms Quebec society
and distinct society.
In 1996 the late Brian Dickson, former chief justice of the
Supreme Court of Canada, took a stand on the concept of Quebec's
distinct character. At a conference organized by the Military
and Hospitaller Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem, Grand Priory
of Canada, which took place in Winnipeg, he stated the following:
He was speaking in this instance of Quebec society. He
continued:
The courts are already interpreting the Charter and the
Constitution with an eye to the distinctive role of Quebec in
protecting and promoting its French-speaking character. In
practice, therefore, enshrining formal recognition of the
distinct character of Quebec in the Constitution would not be a
great departure from what our courts are already doing.
To put this on the record, in 1997 the second red book of the
Liberal Party of Canada said that a Liberal government would work
toward the constitutional recognition of the distinctness of
Quebec society which includes the French speaking majority, a
unique culture and a tradition of civil law.
There should be no hesitation on the part of the Liberal
government to wrap its arms around this initiative. It provides
all Canadians who are certainly entitled to access to federal
legislation with the common law and civil law traditions. It
harmonizes the interaction of federal and provincial legislation
in that it is essential and lies in the interpretation of both
these common and civil law traditions.
The bill will receive smooth passage, certainly through this
place. I would deem that it has received a significant review
and attempts by the senators to improve and put before us a very
sound piece of legislation. There was talk of amendments with
respect to the harmonization of other statutes in the future.
According to the federal Department of Justice, tax law,
regulatory law and commercial law were identified as other key
areas in which harmonization would be the subject of new bills in
coming years.
It is also important to note that many organizations including
the Barreau du Québec, la Chambre des notaires du Québec, le
ministère de la Justice au Québec and a number of other law
professors have assisted significantly in the drafting of the
legislation.
1230
Therefore, as a party that has a long tradition in the province
of Quebec we are pleased to be supporting this legislative
initiative. We support the minister in her efforts to bring
forward other important bills. We look forward to having an
opportunity to participate in those debates as well.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on the motion. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in
committee, reported and concurred in)
1235
The Deputy Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third
time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of
Canada, Lib.) moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to recognize the
tremendous co-operation we have had from all parties in the House
this morning with respect to the bill.
[Translation]
I recognize and I appreciate the support of all members for this
bill.
[English]
The harmonization project itself has been well supported by all
stakeholders in and outside of Quebec and I appreciate the level
of support Bill S-4 has received here this afternoon.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I simply echo the comments of the minister and thank the
staff and all those who worked very hard on this bill. We
appreciate their efforts.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, given that there is so much love and harmony in the
air, I would put on record as well that obviously a bill of such
a cumbersome and technical nature did require a great deal of
work within the Department of Justice and by others who put a
Herculean effort forward to bring the bill to this point. We in
the Progressive Conservative Party commend those efforts and look
forward to working with the department further in other attempts
to harmonize legislation in the country.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2001
The House resumed from May 3 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-15, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other
acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate today in debate on Bill
C-15, an act to amend the criminal code and to amend other acts.
When the bill was first introduced almost two months ago, one of
my new colleagues asked “Animal cruelty, child pornography, and
firearms, what do any of these issues have to do with one
another?” and said he did not understand why they would all be
put in one bill.
While past practice has often demonstrated that logic is not
essential to the legislative process or for the legislative
provisions themselves, there is a clear logic to grouping
together the diverse provisions of this bill. It is a
Machiavellian logic motivated by the politics of cynicism. It is
a logic that raises the spectre of the worst of the American
legislative process.
It is a logic that attempts to coerce agreement from opposition
parties by requiring their consent to a political agenda of
flawed partisan legislation as a precondition to the enactment of
legislation widely recognized as necessary for the protection of
the most vulnerable in our society. How else can one logically
explain, for example, the coupling of the provisions seeking to
amend the fundamentally flawed legislation concerning the billion
dollar long gun registry failure with provisions that seek to
protect our children from sexual predators?
This omnibus bill is a deliberate and cynical attempt to curtail
any substantive debate on the flaws of the political agenda
evident in the long gun registry provisions and to require
members either to accept legislation that our constituents
fundamentally disagree with or to vote against legislation that
our constituents would never want to oppose, such as laws aimed
at protecting children.
1240
There is no question that there are some good provisions in the
bill. Most important, the legislation contains long overdue laws
against luring children over the Internet for the purposes of
committing a sexual offence. I commend these initial efforts to
protect children from criminals using the Internet.
The Canadian Alliance has consistently called for legislation to
protect children from those who keep finding ways to prey on
their vulnerability. Law enforcement agencies and child care
agencies regularly advise the public through the media or
otherwise that predators frequently use the Internet, mask their
identities and pretend to be children or young adults in order to
lure children into a situation where they could be sexually
abused. These situations are becoming more common and I am
relieved to see that the government has finally recognized the
great need to amend the law. It is a good first step, at any
rate.
However, I have serious doubts whether the legislation, which
attempts to provide protection to children from sexual predators,
will be either effective or sufficiently broad. The same
government that has to date failed to create an effective
national sex offender registry now wants us to believe it can
keep track of the criminals who lure children over the Internet
or who deal in child pornography. Why should we believe that it
would follow through with effective measures that enforce the
legislation?
Furthermore, these provisions would only provide legislative
protection for children who are less than 14 years of age.
Canadians would be shocked to learn that even under this
legislation an adult could lure a 14 year old girl or a 14 year
old boy over the Internet with no legal consequences. Parents
and children deserve a greater measure of assistance and
protection from these predators.
I agree with those law enforcement and child care agencies that
recommend that the law set out for child luring should be
extended to all children under the age of 16. This way parents
and other concerned authorities would have some legal recourse to
protect children of 14 and 15 years of age who fall prey to
sexual predators they encounter over the Internet.
There are also new offences set out for transmitting, accessing
or distributing child pornography over the Internet, punishable
by a maximum of 10 years. This is a laudable goal, but I would
be interested in being advised of the practical difficulties
involved with these kinds of investigations and prosecutions in
order to determine whether these legislative proposals meet those
very real concerns.
Similarly, I would like to point out that in Bill C-15, although
there are provisions for substantial maximum sentences for
accessing child pornography, luring children for sexual purposes,
animal cruelty, criminal harassment and a variety of other
offences, the legislation will be ineffective if judges will not
impose appropriate sentences.
When maximum sentences are increased it is rare to see a
proportionate increase in sentences, as many judges simply ignore
the direction signalled by parliament when it enacts these
changes in legislation. Not only do the appeal courts appear to
be reluctant to establish sentencing ranges that are
proportionate to the crime committed and the legislative penalty
provided, there is a corresponding reluctance on the part of the
government to send clear, legislative directions to the courts
that the sentences imposed on many serious and repeat offenders
are simply inadequate.
This apparent reluctance on the part of the government is
compounded by the imposition of new and fundamentally misleading
sentencing tools that encourage the pretence that offenders are
in fact imprisoned, while the truth is that they are free to
exploit more victims in our communities.
1245
I refer of course to the practice of authorizing and imposing
conditional sentences. As crown attorneys continue to advise,
the enforcement of breeches of these conditional sentences are
increasingly rare because of the lack of adequate resources to
apply these very complex provisions. Then the failure to provide
the appropriate resources fulfils another political agenda of the
Liberal government to make it appear that these sentencing
provisions are in fact working because there are so few reported
breeches.
Accordingly, unless the government takes the necessary steps to
implement effective and truthful sentencing in the Canadian
justice system, these important child protection provisions in
the bill will simply be another example of the failure of our
laws to protect the vulnerable in our society.
In terms of the animal cruelty sections of the bill, I am aware
that the government has made certain changes from the previously
proposed legislation, Bill C-17. However there are still
significant concerns that many organizations, businesses and
individuals have in respect of these provisions.
I know that some of my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance will
go into further detail on many of these issues, but I would also
like to touch briefly on the issue on behalf of the various
groups that took the time to contact me personally to raise their
concerns. These groups included the Ontario Federation of
Anglers and Hunters, the Ontario Farm Animal Council, the Ontario
Veal Association and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.
These organizations have consistently said that they welcome
amendments to the criminal code that would clarify and strengthen
provisions relating to animal cruelty and that they do not
condone intentional animal abuse or neglect in any way. Many of
these groups support the intent of the bill as its objective is
to modernize the law and increase penalties for offences relating
to animal cruelty and neglect. However, despite the minor
improvements to this legislation, they advise that this bill
requires significant amendments before it becomes acceptable to
the vast majority of hunters and farmers, many of whom are
dependent on the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their
livelihood.
One of the central concerns with the bill is that the criminal
code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection
presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate,
lawful and justified practices. The phrase “legal
justification, excuse or colour of right” in subsection 429(2)
of the criminal code currently provides protection to those who
commit any kind of property offence. However in the new bill,
the fact that the animal cruelty provisions would be moved out of
the general classification of property offences and into a
section of their own would effectively remove these provisions
outside the ambit of that protection.
Moving the animal cruelty sections out of the ambit of property
offences to a new section in its own right is also seen by many
as emphasizing animal rights as opposed to animal welfare. This
significant alteration in the underlying principles of the
legislation is something that needs to be carefully considered.
These groups are concerned that elevating the status of animals
from property could in fact have significant and detrimental
implications for many legitimate animal dependent businesses.
Another major and very serious concern is that the definition of
animal is too broad, subjective and ambiguous. The proposed
definition of animal in Bill C-15 includes non-human vertebrates
and all animals having the capacity to feel pain. This
definition marks a significant departure by providing protection
for an extremely wide range of living organisms which have never
before been afforded this kind of legal protection.
1250
In terms of practical difficulties, this definition as worded
could cause potentially enormous problems by extending the
criminal law to invertebrates, cold blooded species such as fish,
as well as the extremely wide variety of other types of both
domestic and wild animals.
In her speech last Thursday, the justice minister assured us
that what was lawful today in the course of legitimate activities
would be lawful when the bill received royal assent. She
promised the House that these changes would not in any way
negatively affect the many legitimate activities that involve
animals, such as hunting, farming or medical and scientific
research.
Her statement was at the same time self-evident, but also
misleading. Of course the new provisions would not prevent
legitimate activities from being carried out. The law only
prescribes illegal activities. The problem is, and therefore the
concern, that these new provisions would arguably narrow the
scope of what constitutes legitimate activities by increasing the
scope of this provision.
If it is not the minister's intent to prohibit the presently
acceptable and legitimate activities in Canadian agricultural or
fur industries, I would suggest that the wording of the
legislation be amended to clarify the intent of these provisions.
If it is not amended, I and many of my colleagues will have a
very difficult time supporting the bill.
The riding of Provencher, which I have the honour to represent,
is primarily a rural riding. The farmers and hunters and other
businesses associated with those activities have enough to worry
about these days without having to wonder if they are going to be
criminalized for practices they have been carrying out their
entire lives. I have the option of voting against the bill on
the basis that farmers and others who use animals legitimately
have voiced reasonable and serious concerns regarding the
implications the bill would present. However, in this case I
would also be voting against new laws to protect children.
It is a difficult situation and one of which I am certain will
be exploited by the Liberals for crass political advantage. It
is truly unfortunate that the minister is asking us to consider
provisions that deal with the lives of children in the same
context with provisions that impose conditions on how farmers and
hunters and related businesses should handle animals.
There is no legal requirement to proceed to weigh the merits of
this bill on the basis of such inappropriate relative comparison.
It demeans the value of human life and at the same time prevents
the House from fully considering the impact of the animal cruelty
provisions on the economic circumstances of many rural people of
Canada.
Bill C-15 contains a number of good things. As I have said, it
contains updated legislation to protect children to some extent
from sexual predators on the Internet. It would make viewing,
transmitting and distributing child pornography over the Internet
an offence punishable by up to 10 years.
More important, the bill would increase protection for police by
creating the new offence of disarming a police officer. The bill
outlines reforms to rules governing criminal procedure. These
are procedural reforms that are long overdue. Much of this
legislation in the bill is in fact badly needed. The opposition
has been calling for these provisions for years. Personally, I
am relieved to see that the measures are being finally
introduced.
As I have said before, I would like to support the bill. The
bill presents a very difficult situation. I am disappointed that
the government would put such diverse and I would argue
completely unrelated issues in the same bill. As I stated
earlier, I see this approach to lawmaking as a blatant and
cynical political move on the part of the Liberal government to
force flawed legislation through the House. More important, it
shows a callous disregard to the constituents who have asked us
to serve their best interest in the House.
1255
I would ask the minister to consider introducing a motion to
split this legislative package into several bills. That would
remove the provisions that have a broad base of support in the
House so that those provisions could be fast tracked and
proclaimed. We saw an example of that this morning with Bill
S-4.
Members in the House are willing to co-operate. I believe that
on many provisions there is broad if not unanimous consensus in
the House to move them forward. The technique of bringing
forward a motion to split the bill would accommodate the need to
move those provisions that do have that broad consensus, while
subjecting the others to a more rigorous debate and, I suggest,
to better legislation. If need be, I am prepared to sit down
with representatives from all parties to facilitate that
discussion.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to Bill C-15, at this stage. It is a very
important bill.
Before discussing the legislation further, I would like
to repeat what I have already said on other omnibus bills. I
think it is inappropriate that so many different things should
be put into such an important bill.
In the bill, there are provisions on animal cruelty offences,
on the sexual exploitation of children involving the use of the
Internet and on sexual harassment. Amendments are proposed with
regard to the way in which this will be brought to court.
The bill deals with harassment, home invasion, disarming a
police officer, judicial errors—all this is very important—and
with the whole issue of criminal procedure, which is also very
important.
In the bill, some things need no explanation. We totally agree
with some of the changes the minister is introducing; we were
hoping for them. We commend the minister for the changes that
she is proposing. However, there are certain
aberrations. What do we do? We do not support the bill because
part of it does not interest us and part of it goes
against certain positions of Quebec or of our party?
However, with regard to the sexual exploitation of children and
the modernization of the criminal code to take into account
today's reality in terms of the Internet, we are in agreement.
What are we supposed to do? Vote against the bill?
I think the Minister of Justice is not disinterested. I
believe she knows very well what she is doing. We lack
neither time nor opportunity in the House of Commons to study
subjects one after the other, in their proper context and with
the help of experts in each field. We have what we need to do
good work. Why use an omnibus bill like this to confuse the
issues?
It will be strange when the bill is in committee to hear people
from humane societies, crown attorneys speaking on criminal
proceedings and university professors speaking on research.
At one point, we will have to focus on a subject in particular.
It will take a lot of time if we really want to do good work and
hear witnesses. In the end, we are not saving any time.
I do not think the legislator works better when the
government introduces a series of changes in an catch-all bill.
In this sense, I believe the minister failed. I think
we could have worked diligently on amending bills as we did
earlier with Bill S-4. That is a very good example, in my
opinion.
1300
When all the parties in the House get along, partisanship can be
set aside and we can move ahead with a bill to improve the
justice system and better meet the concerns of people. We had a
demonstration of that this morning by all the parties. We
co-operated and were able to go through all the stages in the
same day, with the result that Bill S-4 has now been passed.
I am convinced that the same could have been done regarding the
sexual exploitation of children. We could have done it to
modernize the criminal code regarding the criminal use of the
Internet and make this an offence. It should be pointed out that
these changes are often made in response to decisions by the
higher courts.
This whole part of the criminal code could have been passed very
quickly, so that these provisions could take effect as soon as
possible.
There are also other issues, such as disarming a policeman. This
has been a concern of police officers, including the RCMP,
municipal police forces and the Quebec Provincial Police, for a
long time. We have already heard a number of witnesses. The
spokespersons for political parties, including the Liberal
Party, the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois and the others,
are all aware that police officers want this amendment. One does
not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that if the
government introduced a bill that dealt strictly with this
issue, we would pass it more quickly.
As I said at the beginning, the bill contains amendments to
which I am totally opposed, perhaps not in principle as such
but with respect to how they are worded. It seems that the
legislator, or those who took the time to draft the bill,
forgot certain particular situations. Quite honestly, if the
government had produced bills addressing each situation
separately, the House of Commons would have passed them very
quickly.
Once again the Department of Justice appears to be out of touch
with the public. We have seen, and are still seeing, the
results of this with the whole issue of young offenders in
Quebec, where nobody is in favour of this bill. The minister
does not even want to hear from the representatives from Quebec
in committee.
The government has bulldozed right over everything, as only it
can do. We will eventually end up with this bill at third
reading.
To show just how strange things sometimes are in the life of the
Minister of Justice, the young offenders bill has not even been
passed at third reading and we realize that we are going to
repeal the Young Offenders Act with Bill C-7, which we recently
passed. We realize that certain of the clauses in this bill
amend the Young Offenders Act. We are amending this legislation
when we know that we have a bill that is going to repeal it.
I would like to describe the context in which the bill seems to
have been drafted, and particularly to point out the
government's, or the Minister of Justice's, lack of understanding
of what is going on within that department. Apart from coming
here to the House and listening to what we have to say, I do not
get the impression that the minister has much control over her
department. She needs to keep much more of an eye on things
because this is very important.
I have been an MP since 1993. If there is one bill that has
been very hard to get through this House and that has divided
just about all caucuses, it has been the firearms legislation.
The minister has seen fit to change certain aspects of the
Firearms Act with Bill C-15, as well as certain definitions in
the criminal code, and this has greatly expanded the definition
of a firearm.
The legislation we had was already hard to understand and now,
with the amendment the minister is bringing in with Bill C-15, I
must say the definition of a firearm will be as clear as mud.
1305
One of the clauses that surprised me when I examined Bill C-15
was clause 4. It says, and I will take the time to read it
because it is somewhat complex, that subparagraphs 84(3)(d)(i)
and (ii) of the Criminal Code are replaced by the following:
(i) a shot, bullet or other projectile at a muzzle velocity
exceeding 152.4 m per second or at a muzzle energy exceeding 5.7
Joules, or
(ii) a shot, bullet or other projectile that is designed or
adapted to attain a velocity exceeding 152.4 m per second or an
energy exceeding 5.7 Joules.
I am just a lawyer; I do not know whether it will take engineers
to enforce the Firearms Act in future because apparently a
series of multiplicative factors are needed to arrive at the
number of joules: the length of the barrel, the radius of the
barrel, the size of the bullet, the weight, multiplied, divided—I
no longer know what all—to calculate the number of joules. With
a definition like this, I have serious doubts with respect to an
industry that is in full expansion in Canada and Quebec. I am
referring to the whole paintball industry.
I think the biggest operation in all of Canada is located in my
riding—its sales are considerable—and it is called BigFoot
PaintBall. I am told that, obviously, the rubber bullet filled
with paint does not travel 152.4 metres per second, but has a muzzle
energy around 12 joules.
Will these guns that look like something from out of this world
with their silver and blue and all sorts of other colours have
to be registered?
The department assures me that this is not the intent. I read
the definition, I read the provision that applies in such cases,
and it is “or”. It is “either or” the way I see it. If it is
not, I hope they will correct it. But “either” the bullet
travels faster than 152.4 metres a second “or” it develops a
muzzle energy exceeding 5.7 joules.
Under such an interpretation, the gun belonging to my
constituent, who earns a living with it in paintball, a new
sport, should be registered.
I cannot support such a law because it totally distorts the
point of registering firearms.
As regards my position, which I spoke of at the start, do I vote
for or against the bill given this aberration in it?
I think we will vote for it and try to convince the minister she
is headed in the wrong direction in certain respects, in certain
ways the bill is drafted.
There is no doubt that if the past is any indication of things
to come, I have little chance but we will try. We have
succeeded on a few occasions in getting certain things changed
in the department. We will continue to do so.
The drafting of Bill C-15, in certain cases,
is confusing and will have to be given careful consideration.
However, we could have amended the bill with a series of small
bills, which could have been quickly passed.
With regard to the more complicated bills that do not get the
unanimous approval of the House, more time and effort could have
gone into understanding and improving them but the minister
decided otherwise.
Another point has to do with the whole question of child
pornography. As drafted, I think this part of the bill is in
keeping with requests made and decisions given by the courts.
It also updates legislation. So, there is no problem.
1310
The other issue that concerns me is animal cruelty. At the
present time, we have legislation. I agree its provisions are
obsolete. This whole part has not been changed recently. It no
longer properly reflects reality. It is not as modern as we
could wish. There is an approach that deals in a modern way with
the improvement of legislation. There is another approach, which
is too broad and which encompasses almost anything and, once
again, does not achieve the objective sought.
Sincerely, I agree with the principle of protecting animals. I
am against cruelty toward any kind of animals.
I will tell the House a story showing how sensitive I am. Once
I accidentally hit a cat that was roaming the street and I
stopped to see whether I could save it. It was an accident.
Thus, I want to show the House that I am in favour of protecting
animals and I think the current legislation does not achieve
this objective.
The way this provision is written, I understand the people who
are worried and who feel targeted by it, while they are doing
nothing illegal and they are not being cruel to animals. The
definition is so broad that I understand them. The minister will
also have to understand the people who are concerned.
In the definition of cruelty to animals, which is totally new
and which applies to many animals, the bill says:
182.1 In this Part, “animal” means a vertebrate, other than a
human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel
pain.
This provision includes just about every animal, from a little
mouse to a moose in northern Quebec. It also includes fish, not
just endangered whales and belugas but all vertebrates. Frogs
are also targeted since they are vertebrates—at least I think so,
I am a lawyer, not a biologist—but I think they are.
The definition is very broad. There is a whole series of
issues relating to cruelty to the animals, namely any
vertebrate that has the capacity “to feel pain”.
The bill also provides that:
182.2(1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully or
recklessly:
What does this mean? The clause also says:
If the bill is passed without being amended, will a person who
hunts with a bow, which is legal, now commit an offence if he
continues to hunt with a bow?
When I go fishing, the fish that I catch does not seem to like
to get caught by a hook. Am I guilty of cruelty to that animal,
to that vertebrate? These issues must be raised.
This is a very broad definition and this is why I understand all
the hunting and fishing associations' concerns. I received
letters from people in my riding who practice these sports,
since there is a lot of hunting and fishing in
Berthier—Montcalm. It is a beautiful riding. Mr. Speaker, let
me know if you ever want to go hunting or fishing in my riding.
People in my riding are interested in this legislation. Sports
associations from across Canada and Quebec also sent me e-mails
and letters saying “Listen, this is dangerous”.
1315
The legislation really needs to be looked at in order to see
what its objective was. It then becomes clear that, although
the present wording may attain the objective, it will end up
covering a lot of people who were not necessarily meant to be
part of it.
I have touched on just two points but there are a number of
actions the legislators may consider cruelty to animals. I
wonder where this leaves the pig farmer, for instance. With the
definitions given, I am a bit worried for farmers.
For instance, where the shipping of animals is concerned, clause
182.3 (1) (c) reads:
I do not know if the minister has ever seen how pigs are loaded
onto trucks and chickens into cages for shipping and so on, but
the expression “negligently” is very broad, as is “injures an
animal while it is being conveyed”.
Very often, any manner of unexpected event can occur. Even with
the best of intentions and care for the animals being shipped,
sometimes an animal gets injured. Its leg may be broken, or
something of the sort.
In the riding of Berthier—Montcalm, we have poultry farms.
I have seen such things as a whole shipment of chickens being
suffocated by the heat, something that was unavoidable because
the outside temperature was 35 degrees Celsius, with high
humidity and no wind.
Could the person shipping these chickens be charged with
“negligently injuring an animal while it is being conveyed”, in
this case of causing its death? I wonder, and I am not the only
one.
As I was saying, there are all those involved in hunting and
fishing. Then there are the farmers as well who are also
raising such questions. We have received a letter from the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture raising objections to certain
points in the bill and asking us to look into certain things or
to propose amendments. Quebec farmers have also made us aware
of this problem. Some pig farmers have telephoned me to check
out certain things they had heard.
Hunters, fishers, farmers and even academics are asking
questions. On April 6, we received in our offices a copy of a
letter from the Association of Universities and Colleges of
Canada to the Minister of Justice. I will read the resolution
adopted by the Association of Universities and Colleges of
Canada, which is very significant and speaks for itself. The
letter concerns Bill C-15, which we are currently studying. The
resolution reads as follows:
That the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada make
known, in the strongest possible terms, to the Minister of
Justice and the chair of the House of Commons' Standing
Committee on Justice and Human Rights that it and the
institutions that are members of it fear that the proposed
changes to the Criminal Code on the treatment of animals
inadvertently threatens legitimate university research done
using animals, in accordance with the standards recognized in
Canada and abroad of the Canadian Council on Animal Care.
It is clear from the wording that even academics, professors and
those doing research, who have a highly developed professional
conscience, have doubts about these provisions.
The number of people who have doubts about the very ordinary but
very badly drafted provisions is beginning to add up: hunters,
fishers, farmers, producers, professors, academics, researchers
and all that.
My colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville will speak on the part
concerning the protection of animals and all that concerns this
issue once I have finished speaking. I know that there is a
whole very important issue here.
1320
One thing that is missing right now but that could have been
changed given the objective pursued is the recovery of costs.
Breeders and people who keep animals are currently being
prosecuted for cruelty under existing provisions, and it is
difficult to recover all the expenses incurred to get to the
animals, try to save them, care for them and so on.
Today, proposed amendments to Bill C-15 are designed to
facilitate cost recovery, or at least to try to recover some
money.
This is fine. However, the same goal could have been achieved
with more restrictive provisions and definitions, such as those
I mentioned earlier, to deal specifically with the cruelty, not
in a restrictive way but in a more targeted way.
I am convinced that we will have good discussions in committee
on this, because it is a very important issue.
Other amendments included in the bill
concern the whole issue of miscarriage of justice. A
fellow Bloc Quebecois member took a very close look at this
issue.
He has already proposed amendments to the criminal code. He has
introduced a bill to facilitate future prosecutions and the
compensation of individuals, men and women alike, who have been
treated unfairly or have been found guilty when in fact they
were not.
The whole issue of miscarriage of justice is very important. It
is an issue that has interested the Bloc Quebecois for a long
time. The hon. member for Repentigny has been following it
closely. He even had a constituent, whose name I forget, who was
finally found not guilty and had his rights restored. However,
this individual had to live through being unfairly accused and
being found guilty of an offence when he was not guilty.
This whole issue is important, hence our support.
But here again, this section is in the bill, which contains
certain provisions with which we are not in agreement.
The same question I had at the beginning arises. Do I or do I
not support the bill? We will probably support it again but
we will try to improve as much as possible all these provisions
which, as far as judicial errors are concerned, are not a
problem.
The minister could have introduced a bill amending the whole
issue of judicial errors. First, this would have shown that
this is an issue of importance both to the minister and to the
government. Everything seems to have been thrown into a huge
salad bowl, as it were, and mixed around as if to get rid of it.
This would have shown the government's interest.
Second, the bill could have been passed very quickly, so that
the new legislation could be implemented as quickly as possible
because, when we look at the provisions proposed by the Minister
of Justice regarding judicial errors, we see that they are not
necessarily simple. It is not because we support it that it is
simple. The implementation is very complex. Care must be taken
to ensure that errors are not made with respect to the judicial
errors themselves.
This must be applicable to everyone. Everyone must be treated
equitably, without political interference. The approach must be
acceptable to everyone.
We seem to be getting there. It could have been passed. If it
were passed quickly, the people who implement it will be able to
become familiar with this new legislation and do a more
effective job as quickly as possible.
Once again, by introducing an omnibus bill, the minister
deprives herself of any possibility of proceeding rapidly in the
sections not contested by anyone in the House.
I will try, as we go along, to separate them and I think in fact
that this was already done with another bill. We will see if it
is possible to do so. I will look at this with the House law
clerks in order to see whether certain parts of the bill can be
separated before the vote. It would be very interesting for
everyone if we could do this.
1325
The last section deals with firearms. It is certain that it is
intended as a response to certain problems, because the minister
has a problem when its comes to applying the Firearms Act.
Hon. members will recall that the Bloc Quebecois voted in favour
of this bill, but under circumstances which included certain
comments by the minister of the day which led us to believe that
the Firearms Act would be implemented and certain common
objectives would be achieved.
What they were saying at that time was that implementation of
the Firearms Act would cost some $100 million to $125 million
and would thereafter be self-sustaining, year after year, by
licence fees and so on. Here we are in 2001 and firearms are
not even all registered in Quebec. Perhaps 65% or 70% are.
For the implementation of this act we are talking not $125
million but more like $875 million. Now they are telling us
that it will not be self-sustaining but will instead cost some
$100 million to $150 million a year.
If I had been given the right figures in 1995, perhaps our
position would be different. We might have voted in favour but
our position might have been a bit different.
Now we have amendments to Bill C-15 that amend the already very
complex regulations of the Firearms Act. I would hope that the
final result of all that will be a faster or improved way to
register firearms. I say in all honesty that when I see
how things work at the Department of Justice, I have my doubts.
At the point we have reached, however, we will trust the
government on the registration of firearms.
I would like to point out that there is a whole other aspect
that is not a source of problems either. Many amendments have
been made with respect to Nunavut, including certain regulations
and procedures, and so on, which apply only there. There is no
problem, and I think these amendments were sought by the local
community.
As I was saying earlier, other provisions in the bill amend the
Young Offenders Act.
I find it very strange that the Minister of Justice is changing
a law she well knows will be repealed shortly by her decision,
especially the way she is going about it, not wanting to hear
any witnesses from Quebec. The National Defence Act, the
National Capital Act and other similar acts are being amended as
well.
As members can see, I have tried to do a very quick overview.
This bill will come before the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights. I will be there, as I am for each and every bill.
I know that the member for Terrebonne—Blainville will closely
follow the deliberations of the justice committee and
consideration of this bill, because she is very interested in
certain aspects of it. I invite her to come to the committee
meetings and I am sure that together we will do a good job with
Bill C-15.
On this note, I will reiterate our final position. Even though
we have a problem with many provisions of Bill C-15, we will
support it at second reading, while hoping that we can convince
the Minister of Justice, or rather her department, since it is
obviously the department that is calling the shots, that they
are off track with some definitions, which are much too broad.
There are also a number of difficulties with procedures
regarding arms, paintballs, the number of joules and the number
of metres per second being much too complex. A cumulative
process, not an either or situation, is required. We will try to
propose all sorts of amendments to the Minister of Justice, to
improve this bill.
1330
I know that there are hunters, producers and farmers who are
listening to us, as well as people involved in the sale of
firearms and paintballs. I want them to know that we will review
this bill as thoroughly as we can in order to be able to propose
the necessary amendments to make it acceptable and to ensure
that it will achieve its objectives.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the NDP caucus we find ourselves generally speaking
in support of the bill at second reading. There is much work to
be done in committee as some members have already pointed out.
I want to begin by saying how much I regret that the government
has decided to bring in an omnibus bill of this kind. In
listening to the debate it is already clear that we could have
had a different scenario before us. It could have been more
pleasing to parliamentarians and more pleasing to the public in
terms of passing expeditiously a number of measures that have
broad support in the House and among the Canadian public.
That is not the situation we are faced with. Bill C-15 is an
omnibus bill containing controversial items which have the
prospect of delaying the passage of the legislation, and I find
that very regrettable.
Would it not have been better if parliament could speak swiftly
and emphatically, with one voice, on matters such as: the luring
of children on the Internet for the purposes of sexual
exploitation, child pornography with respect to the Internet, the
seriousness with which we want the criminal code to take the act
of home invasion, and the disarming of police officers?
This is a short list of the kinds of things that are in the
bill. We could have said with one voice that we want these
things to happen quickly. We know that our laws need to be
updated with respect to the new phenomena of the Internet and all
the criminal possibilities for the exploitation of children that
the Internet provides.
It is something that is long overdue because it is not as if the
Internet just showed up yesterday. It has been around for a long
time, yet it is only now that we have legislation before us. It
is better late than never. It would have been better if we had
been presented with a legislative scenario in which we could
have proceeded to do that right away.
The same applies to home invasion. This is a relatively new
phenomena but it has been around for far too many years already.
There has been a cry on the part of the Canadian public for the
criminal code and our laws to reflect the seriousness with which
people regard home invasions. This is not just any sort of
ordinary break and enter, not that we should convey any kind of
ordinariness on acts of break and enter, but home invasion. Some
of the things that have gone on offend the senses of propriety,
decency and morality of all Canadians. It is something that we
could have proceeded with quite expeditiously.
We could have also proceeded swiftly with the new provisions
having to do with the luring of children on the Internet. This
also applies to the disarming of police officers. It is not so
long ago that the Canadian Police Association had its week of
lobbying here.
I am sure that it found very few members of parliament who said
that they were against bringing in the provision dealing with the
act of disarming police officers. That too could have been
proceeded with expeditiously.
1335
Perhaps those things could have gone into an omnibus bill and
they could have been done all at once. What makes an omnibus
bill offensive is not necessarily what is in it but what the
government may be trying to bury within it that it would rather
not deal with on its own.
We have a couple of examples of that, and I am not saying that
because I am necessarily opposed to what the government is doing
in the bill. It just makes for bad politics in the best sense of
the word politics. It makes it hard for parliament to speak
clearly about these issues if we must always be speaking about
more than one issue at the same time when we are speaking about a
particular bill.
It may look like good politics in the more pejorative and
cynical sense from the point of view of the government that it
insert something that is obviously controversial and was
controversial in the last parliament. I refer, for example, to
the provisions having to do with cruelty to animals. Instead of
having them in a separate bill, the government put them in the
omnibus bill. People who have concerns about that, whether they
be right or wrong, would be open to the charge that they are
holding up new provisions for dealing with the luring of children
on the Internet when what they are really trying to debate is the
merits of what the government is doing with respect to cruelty to
animals.
If it is true, as the member from the Alliance alleges, that the
way in which the legislation is drafted represents a conceptual
transition or a conceptual leap from regarding animals as
property to regarding animals as having rights, this is a
significant conceptual development. If it is done in a certain
way it may be a conceptual development that my colleagues and I
would be in favour of and that would not be unreasonable with
respect to all the things many people would have to continue to
do, whether they be hunters, fishermen, farmers or whatever the
case may be.
However it is something that merits debate in its own right. It
should have been dealt with in a separate piece of legislation
rather than in the context of all the other things I have already
spoken about. It could have been dealt with in a way that
reflects the agreement that exists among members of parliament
about those provisions.
We do not want to bring legislation forward, particularly if we
are trying to make some kind of moral statement, which I presume
we are trying to do in Bill C-15, about luring on the Internet,
child pornography, home invasion and the disarming of police
officers, in a way that ascribes controversy to those measures by
tacking them on to things which are controversial. Why would we
not want to do that in a way that conveys the full measure of
support that exists in parliament and in the Canadian public?
This is the argument to be made for splitting the bill. I do
not know if the government is open to that but I doubt it. It
seems that it has already made a decision not to do that because
it has taken formerly separate pieces of legislation and put them
into the omnibus bill. I regret it has done that for all the
reasons I have already discussed.
There will be a lot of work to do in committee, particularly
with the issue having to do with cruelty to animals, not just in
terms of that conceptual leap but in terms of definitions and
just exactly what is meant here. It may be that I do not know
what the government has in mind. There are issues to be looked
at in terms of cruelty to animals that may not have to do with
the destruction of animals but with the treatment of animals in
factory farms.
I am not even sure it comes within the ambit of the legislation
but I know there are many Canadians who are becoming concerned
with the way in which their food is being produced, as well as
the living conditions of animals. In some cases it is more the
pre-dying conditions of animals that are raised and harvested for
human food purposes. This is something that obviously has to
continue to happen but surely there must be a way in some
instances to do this better than we do now. However, that may
well be outside the range of the bill, and I digress.
1340
Another area of controversy in the bill has to do with the
firearms legislation. Bill C-15 proposes to put in place certain
efficiencies with respect to registration so that people can
register on line, et cetera. It would change some definitions.
Here again, although very few of us in the House would look
forward to a debate centred specifically on this legislation, or
on firearms registration and control because it has been so
controversial, I still have to say that it would have been better
to deal with this by itself. There is already a lot of suspicion
out in the community about what the government may or may not be
up to with firearms registration, and changing definitions in the
body of a big omnibus bill gives rise to a lot of anxiety and
suspicion, which may or may not be warranted.
I and perhaps other members of parliament have had a great deal
of mail from people who enjoy the sport of paintball. People
wonder whether or not the definitions in the bill are designed in
some way, either accidentally or intentionally, to eliminate the
game of paintball. I had my staff check with the firearms
control folks and they say that paintball will not be covered,
but others say that it might be. Therefore this is obviously
something that we need to address in committee not just with
respect to paintball but with respect to any new definition of
what constitutes a firearm.
If it is the government's intention to restrict things that are
not now restricted, such as the registration of things that are
now not registered, it should be very upfront about it. It should
not hide it in some type of microcosmic detail about length or
width of a barrel, how many joules, how many feet per second or
whatever it is that is used to describe the speed of what comes
out of the cannon. It should be very clear with the Canadian
public about what it is up to. At this point I do not have that
feeling. Maybe the government is not up to anything at all but
it has not been very clear about making that clear either. This
is something that will have to be dealt with in committee.
As the member from the Bloc said, another element of the bill
deals with the whole question of judicial error, wrongful
conviction and the setting up of new procedures in respect of
that. Again, this is something that could have been done better
on its own. After what we have learned with regard to Donald
Marshall, Guy Morin, David Milgaard and variety of other
occasions, surely an attempt to put in place new provisions with
respect to how we deal with wrongful conviction or judicial error
would have been something that would have merited its own
legislation and debate and yet the government has chosen not to
do that.
For all those reasons I want to register our strongest objection
to the way in which the government is dealing with the bill and
the fact that it brought in the bill in the first place as an
omnibus bill.
1345
The minister in her presentation said that we had an omnibus
bill in 1994 and 1996 and she cited examples as if it were some
kind of virtue or justifying precedent. The fact is omnibus
bills have always been offensive to members of parliament.
Omnibus bills have always allowed governments to put members of
the opposition, and presumably many of their own backbenchers, in
a difficult position. Members who want to vote for A and are
against B must choose to vote for A and explain why they also
voted for B, or vice versa. It does not make for good
law-making. It does not make for good politics in the sense of
having clarity as to what people are for and against.
This is the same government that brought in the clarity bill
which said it was important that the question and the verdict be
clear. The government is engaged in an exercise that is quite
the opposite. It is engaged in an exercise which, by design, is
intended to confuse Canadians as to who is for what and in what
context.
Having said that, I look forward to the bill going to committee
and to hearing what I am sure will be a great many witnesses. I
am sure we will hear concerns about its cruelty to animal
clauses, its firearms control and registration clauses and
perhaps a number of other issues. I regret very much that we
could not have dealt today with some of the clauses having to do
with child pornography, luring on the Internet, home invasion and
disarming a police officer. I regret that we could not have
dealt with that in the same way we dealt with Bill S-4 earlier. I
do not think we would have or should have dealt with it that
quickly. It certainly could have gone to committee, witnesses
could have been heard and this kind of thing could have been on
the books very soon. Instead, because the government chose to
play politics with other things in the bill, it may well take a
lot longer. The Liberals will answer to the public for that, not
the opposition.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise to take part in this debate.
[English]
This is a very important debate. To pick up on the tone of my
learned colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona, opposition and
government members alike find themselves in the unfortunate
situation of having to debate a bill of substance and importance
that has been essentially cross-threaded and put together in a
way that is unsettling and disquieting for many Canadians outside
of parliament. The bill brings together a number of criminal
code amendments that are inconsequential and do not connect in
any rational way.
Bill C-15 touches upon issues of wrongful conviction, disarming
a police officer, cruelty to animals, amendments to the Firearms
Act and the National Defence Act, and home invasion. Some of the
issues are straightforward and deal with changes or modernization
within the criminal code. One such change would acknowledge the
seriousness of trying to take away a police officer's weapon.
Such changes to the act would allow the judiciary to respond in a
more proportional way.
However the bill has controversial aspects as well, particularly
as they relate to firearms legislation which a growing number of
Canadians are finding cumbersome, unenforceable and intrusive.
Perhaps more graphic are concerns over the cruelty to animals
provisions. However, because of the omnibus nature of the
legislation, it is before us as a package. Hon. members opposite
applaud that because they know it forces members of the
opposition to vote for the entire package. Such members may
support nine-tenths of the bill yet find in it something
unacceptable to themselves, to their constituents or to the
interests they represent.
1350
We saw unanimous consent today for Bill S-4. The bill went
through at record pace. We debated all stages and passed the
legislation with the greatest spirit of co-operation. Bill C-15
is the antithesis of that. The government is force feeding the
opposition and saying that while we may not like some of the bill
we must take it all. The bill contains very good and needed
legislation. However, it is like vanilla ice cream with a little
motor oil poured on that the government is telling us to eat.
Short of dividing up the bill, taking out the offensive
legislation and studying it separately, there is no way to allow
opposition members the opportunity to deal with it when it comes
to a vote. They can do nothing more than put comments on the
record. At the end of the day the final verdict will be whether
we support the legislation or not.
Let us delve into the substance of the bill. The brave new
interconnected world is posing new and sadly innovative ways in
which to transport information. That of course has implications
for things like pornography. Purveyors of child pornography have
in recent years taken advantage of the new technology. Internet
sites and chat rooms are not generally controlled or monitored.
That raises questions about the responsibility of owners and
managers of computer networks, such as private Internet access
providers and universities, for the content of the websites and
chat rooms they offer their customers.
Courts in Canada and elsewhere have given little direction in
this new area of technology. The Canadian Security Intelligence
Service, CSIS, 2000 annual report states:
The distribution of child pornography is growing proportionately
with the continuing expansion of Internet use. Chat rooms
available throughout the Internet global community further
facilitate and compound this problem. The use of the Internet
has helped pornographers to present and promote their point of
view.
This is a very disturbing trend. The legislation would at least
attempt to control or police the Internet.
Bill C-15 deals with the issue in the following ways. It talks
about the luring of a child via the Internet. Clause 14 of the
bill adds the offence of luring. The clause states that every
person commits an offence who, by means of a computer,
communicates with persons in various age groups and does so for
the purposes of facilitating the commission of the following
offences: sexual touching, making of child pornography, procuring
prostitution of a child under the age of 18, sexual assault,
sexual assault with a weapon or threats, and aggravated assault.
These of course are some of the more serious and damaging
offences that can be committed under the criminal code. Any
means, therefore, by which those offences can be perpetrated
should be governed by criminal legislation. The bill would do
that.
It is not a defence, I might add, for the accused to say they
believed the child was over a certain age, whether 18, 16 or 14,
unless reasonable steps can be demonstrated to ascertain the age
of the child. This is a responsible interpretation and expansion
of the criminal law and it would certainly stabilize efforts to
police the Internet.
Further to that point, sub-section 11(2) of Bill C-15 adds a new
offence. Under the bill, the making, distribution and sale of
child pornography would also be criminal code offences when
committed via the Internet. This is in keeping with supreme
court decisions, the Queen v Sharpe being the most recent case in
which the judges had an opportunity to deliberate on the subject.
The sentence for this type of offence would lead to a person
being liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or
an offence punishable on summary conviction. The Conservative
Party is in favour of this type of policing.
This new provision would not criminalize the inadvertent viewing
of child pornography on the Internet. The accused must have had
knowledge of the presence of child pornography on the site or the
specific intention to use it. However, the bill would perhaps
open the door for the justice department to further expand on the
ways it can prevent and hopefully deter pornography on the
Internet.
Bill C-15 gives a rather vague commitment to do so in the future
and any type of sexual exploitation is something that we must
condemn in the strongest possible terms. The Liberal government
could have passed measures in advance of the supreme court ruling
in Sharpe. One of the minister's favourite phrases “In a
timely fashion,” is code for “When we get around to it”.
1355
Recent examples are the Youth Criminal Justice Act which has
taken seven years to reach fruition. It is now of being jammed
through without proper consultation on some of the changes it
would bring in.
In the last general election, the Conservative Party was the
only party to propose a national strategy to combat child
pornography. Our proposal would have included Internet safety
education for children, the training of police in the tracking of
pornography and the revamping of current laws to ensure we were
not facilitating high tech prostitution. We would suggest, in a
constructive way, that this is another area the government and
the Minister of Justice look at exploring.
Concern has been expressed by Internet service providers and the
high tech industry generally that subclause 163.1(3) would
subject Internet servers to criminal liability for third party
content unless they could prove they did not have actual or
constructive knowledge of the existence of the material. We will
perhaps have an opportunity to delve into those issues at the
committee level when we hear from those affected by the
legislation. We look forward to getting their perspectives in
the hope of amending or tightening up the provisions.
It is certainly a positive step, as I indicated. We must ensure
that child pornography is not stored on or made available through
Canadian computer systems without being subject to the criminal
code.
Possible amendments to the section would require that Internet
service providers, in particular large providers, such as AOL, be
able to police sites and access information. This would come at
great expense but steps have already been taken to do just that.
Service providers hire staff to take complaints from their users.
They also monitor Internet chat rooms and supply information to
the proper authorities if they have reason to believe these
nefarious activities are taking place.
Other aspects of the bill that have been touched upon are the
provisions that affect paintball operators. That is the extreme
sport, as it is sometimes called, with respect to the use of
paintballs. The limit of velocity at which paintballs can leave
the guns is, I understand, 5.7 joules. I suspect the minister's
intention was to ban certain types of pellet guns but the limit
also affects paintball users and operators. There is concern
that the technical description of the velocity limit may need to
be amended with respect to paintballs.
It is my understanding, from talking to people who manage those
activities, that they are already taking steps to adhere to
safety standards. The bill as it is drafted would have serious
implications for those types of businesses with respect to the
pointing of a firearm. If the description of the velocity is not
amended it may make it a criminal offence to participate in such
activities.
Home invasion and criminal harassment are other areas of
the bill that we support unequivocally. Under clause 23 of the bill
the courts must consider break and enter, robbery and extortion
as aggressive and aggravating circumstances. They must consider
whether a dwelling house was occupied at the time of the offence.
I realize we must start question period so I will continue my
remarks at the conclusion of question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
COMMUNITY TELEVISION
Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in February,
the CRTC asked the parties for their comments and observations
with respect to policies for community television channels.
1400
Television in the 21st century offers viewers an endless number
of channels, with programming of national and international
interest.
However, community television has always been a voice for the
local community. As the voice of the people, it has reflected
the interests, culture and needs of a community that wants to be
heard. Since 1998, cable companies have no longer been required
to support community channels.
Today is the deadline for submitting comments to the CRTC.
I add my voice to that of all the parties, including the
Fédération des télévisions communautaires autonomes du Québec,
in order to emphasize the importance of introducing policies
which will guarantee the survival and financial independence of
community television channels throughout Canada.
* * *
[English]
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give special
recognition to Roland Dadeneau, Delores Bouchey, Olga Bodnarchuk,
Cal and Judy Croy, Bill Brace, Myrtle Barnett and Irene Tillett.
Each has been recognized for generosity by receiving awards
ranging from the Governor General's caring Canadian award to the
make a difference community award presented by the
lieutenant-governor of Manitoba. They are representatives of the
thousands of volunteers of Selkirk—Interlake.
I have attended many events that would not have been successful
if it were not for the many outstanding volunteers who donate
their time, efforts and skills. These people are often
overlooked and do not receive the recognition they deserve.
The town of Teulon and its residents exemplified this spirit in
recent fundraising efforts for young Jonathon Watson and his
fight against cancer.
I express thanks to the people in my riding who generously
contribute untold hours of their precious time to help improve
the quality of life for others. Through their efforts
Selkirk—Interlake truly is a great place to live.
* * *
[Translation]
SIMON GAMACHE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
May 4, 2001, will go down in the annals of the Quebec junior
major league as the date on which Simon Gamache of the Foreurs
de Val-d'Or topped Mario Lemieux's record for the most points in
a series.
In the second match of the Coupe du Président hockey final,
number 22 of the Foreurs de Val-d'Or scored three goals and made
two passes, giving him a point total for the 2001 series of 53,
one more than Mario Lemieux's record in 1984 with the Voisins de
Laval.
Supporters of the Foreurs de Val-d'Or gave Gamache an ovation
lasting several minutes when he broke the record. At the end of
the game, his fellow team mates lined up to honour him when he
skated out as the first star.
* * *
DUNAMIS AND MERITAS GALA
Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I
would like to draw the attention of the House to the Ville de
Laval business community.
Last Thursday night, more than 1,000 Laval businessmen and women
took part in the twentieth Dunamis et Meritas Gala, organized by
the local Chamber of Commerce and Industry, headed by François
Plourde.
The twenty Dunamis awards were competed for by 192 companies,
which is a clear reflection of the entrepreneurship that exists
in that community.
Two individuals were also honoured for their contribution;
Ludwig Melik received the “Young Meritas,” prize and Clément Joly
the “Tribute Meritas”.
I was proud to have the opportunity, on that evening, to
congratulate all the winners for their magnificent contribution,
on behalf of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Secretary of
State responsible for Economic Development.
I congratulate all those who contributed to the great
success of this evening.
* * *
[English]
AIR CADETS
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
in the House today to announce that Canada's air cadet movement
is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year. Individual
squadrons are marking the occasion with various activities
throughout this anniversary year.
Since 1941 approximately 1.2 million young Canadians have
participated in air cadets. Membership is free and cadets are
not expected to pay for their uniforms or training.
The focus of today's air cadet movement is on citizenship and
leadership, with an orientation toward aviation. Through cadet
training young people between the ages of 12 and 19 years of age
learn the value of initiative, respect, self-reliance,
discipline, teamwork and leadership.
I offer congratulations to all air cadets, past and present, and
commend and thank the officers, instructors, parents, volunteers
and sponsors, in particular Captain Javed Khan, commanding
officer of Banshee 778 Squadron, for his dedication and efforts
over the past several years to the air cadet movement in my
community of Richmond Hill.
* * *
NATIONAL FOREST WEEK
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, National Forest Week is sponsored by
the Canadian Forestry Association, Canada's oldest conservation
organization.
This year's theme is “Canada's Forests...a breath of fresh
air”.
1405
The whole world looks to Canada for its wealth of forests and
for its expertise and leadership in forest management. Forests
are the economic basis of our high standard of living and play a
major role in Canadian cultural, spiritual and recreational
values.
The mandate of the federal government is for forest protection,
forest health, research and development, and international market
access. The major domestic commitments have been met by the
Canadian Forest Service, which is now 102 years old. In
addition, Canadians look to the federal government for
international leadership to ensure continued prosperity.
I encourage all Canadians to reflect this week on our forest
heritage or to participate in forest week activities.
* * *
NATURAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, last Thursday the Secretary of State for Science,
Research and Development announced an investment of $21.7 million
toward the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of
Canada, NSERC.
This money will create three new research networks in
environmental studies. These programs will help to make Canada a
leader in the field.
NSERC supports research that will provide Canadians with the
knowledge and skills to help Canada flourish in the 21st century.
We wish the best to each of the over 300 researchers, graduate
students and post-doctoral fellows who will be funded through
this investment.
* * *
[Translation]
PARENTAL LEAVE
Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal
government continues to arrogantly and disdainfully say no to
young Quebec families, preferring to satisfy its need for
maintaining a high profile rather than support a parental leave
program on which there is a very strong consensus in Quebec.
Why does the federal government insist on treating a woman who
has given birth to a child the same as a person who has lost his
or her job?
How can this government continue to claim that extension of
parental leave from six months to one year is a good thing, when
people on that leave will have to live on 55% of their salary?
What virtual world is the Prime Minister living in, when he
refuses to understand that young families with a new-born child
will find it very difficult to take advantage of this new
legislation, since they will not be able to live for a year on
half-salary?
This is a battle we would no longer have to fight if Quebec were
sovereign. We could then use our tax dollars according to the
needs and priorities of Quebecers.
* * *
[English]
VETERANS
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I acknowledge the presence in Ottawa today of two groups: from
Hebron, Nova Scotia, the more than 200 members of the Maple Grove
and Yarmouth High Memorial Club, and from my riding of
Sarnia—Lambton, Mrs. Wilma McNeil and friends, who together
represent more than 25 years of a crusade to remember veterans in
hospitals, to promote the concept of community and national
service and, most important, to work for November 11, Remembrance
Day, as a national holiday.
These two groups, separated by some 2,000 kilometres, are
meeting on Parliament Hill today to draw attention to their work
in remembering the collective contributions of veterans to our
freedoms.
They know that by joining their efforts together they can draw
attention and convince others to think about and agree that
November 11 can be a true, lest others forget, day of
remembrance.
* * *
BILL C-11
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration has just completed a week of public hearings across
Canada.
The witnesses who appeared before the committee stated that the
new immigration bill, Bill C-11, was anti-immigration, unCanadian
and showed disrespect for the rule of law. Bill C-11 even refers
to permanent residents as foreign nationals.
Canada was built by immigrants. Canada's past history is really
a history of immigration. Canada's future will depend on
progressive immigration legislation.
Bill C-11 is out of balance. It penalizes legitimate refugees
and immigrants to Canada. All members of the committee agree
that the bill needs some major changes so that it does not
jeopardize a fantastic asset to the country. The Canadian
Alliance will not support any legislation that is
anti-immigration like Bill C-11.
* * *
PATRICK JOSEPH CAREY
Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
acknowledge the loss of Captain Patrick Joseph Carey of the Fire
Services West Command while battling a fire on April 30, 2001.
He died protecting the citizens of Toronto, which he did for
almost 28 years.
1410
He was a hero in many ways. He contributed to his community in
his off duty hours by volunteering many hours at different
organizations and he was always smiling. He was known to be a
“happy, happy guy” by everybody who loved him.
I wish to offer condolences to his wife and family and to all
those who loved him. He will be greatly missed by all of us and
by the people of Toronto.
* * *
HOUSING
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister responsible for housing says he will be announcing a
program of affordable rental housing. Tragically, all the
indications are that the program will not help Canadians most in
need.
The National Coalition for the Homeless, in a letter to the
minister, hit the nail on the head. It said:
There is a stark choice coming before Cabinet: to choose a
genuine affordable housing program targeted to low and
moderate-income Canadians or to approve an expedient, less
expensive option that will not reach those who truly need help.
Every single housing group in the country has told the
government loud and clear that rental subsidies are totally
inadequate.
For once will the government not get it right and develop a
genuine non-profit housing program with an adequate budget, not
the measly $170 million it suggested?
We are in the worst housing crisis since World War II. The
government's proposal is cheap and nothing more than political
ass covering.
Let us get real and make non-profit housing a priority.
* * *
[Translation]
WAGE PARITY
Ms. Diane Bourgeois (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
according to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, wage parity
is a fundamental human right that is linked directly to equality
and the dignity of all human beings.
Unfortunately, in Canada at the moment, there is a real lack of
desire to recognize the fact that women's work is underpaid.
It makes no sense to have Canada strutting about since 1977
crowing over its support for wage parity, but unable to
implement it in institutions under its jurisdiction and even
avoiding itself the application of its own law.
The Bloc Quebecois strongly decries the situation of thousands
of women whose work is not compensated at its true value and
calls on the government to fight this social injustice, that has
dragged on for far too long already.
* * *
[English]
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH WEEK
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week marks the fifth annual North American Occupational
Safety and Health Week. Each year this special week gives us a
chance to raise awareness of accident prevention in the
workplace.
Every year hundreds of Canadian workers lose their lives due to
workplace accidents. These incidents take a tremendous emotional
toll on many Canadian families. With an average of three workers
killed every working day, it becomes evident that an investment
in occupational safety and health benefits the well-being of all
Canadians.
This year's theme of “Prevention is the Cure” is designed to
help workers understand the importance of recognizing and
avoiding dangerous situations. I encourage all Canadians to
participate, helping to make workplace safety a national
priority.
* * *
ST. JOHN'S HARBOUR
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow I am sponsoring a private members' debate on the St.
John's Harbour cleanup.
Federal funding for one-third of the $93 million project has
been applied for but to date we have had no indication that our
federal minister is even interested in the project.
This morning the federal minister was in St. John's talking
about his interest in the municipal infrastructure, but he failed
to use that occasion to announce a long term federal commitment
for the St. John's Harbour cleanup.
The declining reputation of Canada's water and sewer system is
very much in doubt these days. Given that the national budget
has a surplus, it is about time Canada put some significant
dollars into our inadequate municipal infrastructure.
I call upon our federal minister to live up to his election
promise and obtain federal funding for the St. John's Harbour
cleanup.
* * *
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Association of University Teachers recently released a
poll showing that 75% of Canadians believe that the federal
government should establish national standards for higher
education, as it does for health.
The poll also showed that only 27% of Canadians believe that
provincial governments should be the primary funders of colleges
and university.
In virtually all confederations around the world, post-secondary
education is already a federal responsibility. The CAUT proposes
a Canada post-secondary education act to provide a firm basis for
the federal government's many roles in higher education and
research.
The government has done fine work for post-secondary education.
It is clear that Canadians know this and believe that its future
efforts should be vigorous, well focused and based on a truly
national vision.
* * *
1415
WORLD WAR II
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, a new dawn broke over Europe's
wartorn land 56 years ago. The crash of shells and the burst of
bombs were replaced with church bells tolling for peace. Peace
at last to a Europe engorged for six long years with war. A war
so cataclysmic that tens of millions perished at the blade of the
war sword and in the gas chambers designed by Hitler's mad men.
The cannons of war would now point to the Far East where soon a
minute atom would in turn extinguish Hirohito's will for war.
Victory in Europe was a celebration for a continent, a pause on
the road to a world free of war. Canada had over one million in
uniform to help quell the rage of World War II. We remember
today the price of this peace, those who fought and lived and
those who never returned home. Lest we all forget.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
ETHICS COUNSELLOR
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, it appears that some in the Liberal
cabinet are beginning to warm to the grand theme of democratic
reform proposed by grassroot citizens of the Canadian Alliance
right across the country. We are excited about that.
We see that the finance minister's surrogates are telling
reporters that there is too much power in the office of the Prime
Minister. That is a revelation to them and we are excited about
that.
Will the Minister of Finance share with us his list of what
specific powers he will take away from the Prime Minister? Does
that list include the requirement to table an annual budget, not
an update, something that does not happen right now?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance is an active and very successful
member of the present Liberal team. I am glad to hear that the
Leader of the Opposition is agreeing that whoever follows the
present Prime Minister in the future it will not be the Leader of
the Opposition. It could well be the present Minister of
Finance.
[Translation]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that is very weak. The Canadian
Alliance has long insisted on there being an independent ethics
counsellor for parliament. And, perhaps—surprise, surprise—the
Minister of Finance, it would appear, is of the same opinion.
Why did he vote against this idea?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. leader is speaking of democracy. If he considers he is
truly in a democracy, when will he lift the gag on his own
members?
[English]
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, avoiding the question will not help
the government.
The Minister of Finance has said that he will take powers away
from the Prime Minister's office. It was the Minister of Finance
who wrote the red book on the promise to have an independent
ethics counsellor.
I will ask the question again, and instead of evasiveness, I
would ask for a simple yes or no. Will there be support from the
government when we return with the question about having an
independent ethics counsellor? Will the government follow the
Minister of Finance who has now changed his mind and is saying
that we should have an independent counsellor?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first, the member's premise is wrong. He is not quoting
the Minister of Finance. I read the article very closely. The
comments in the article are not those of the Minister of Finance
himself.
I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition not to be evasive. If
he believes in democracy when will he take the gag order off his
own alleged supporters? Why did he discipline and kick out of
his caucus a member of his group? Where is democracy in the
Alliance? There is not very much in that party.
Mr. Stockwell Day (Leader of the Opposition, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the government cannot get our facts
right and it cannot get its facts right. Nobody has been kicked
out of our caucus.
I will ask the Prime Minister my question. When this came to a
vote in the House of Commons, why did he order all Liberal MPs to
vote against their own word of honour, to break their promise and
to vote against having an independent counsellor? Could he
answer that?
1420
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member were so concerned about parliamentary
democracy he would not break a fundamental rule and reflect on a
vote in the House.
Hon. members in the House voted in the way that was consistent
with their own consciences, and what they did was consistent with
the support of the Canadian people. If we compare the support of
the Canadian people in the last election for the Alliance Party
and the support of the Canadian people for the Liberal Party, the
present Prime Minister and the people on this side of the House,
there is a world of difference. The Alliance Party was
categorically rejected and it will be rejected again if it
continues this course of action.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
it is an interesting juxtaposition. We have the finance minister
over here and the industry minister who is actually in charge of
the ethics counsellor.
I would like to ask the industry minister whether or not he is
willing to bring in legislation, since he is in charge of the
ethics counsellor, and maybe to nudge his cabinet rival a little
bit and say that he can bring in new legislation for an
independent ethics counsellor.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am willing to do exactly what the Deputy Prime
Minister tells me to do. The Deputy Prime Minister is willing to
do exactly what this cabinet under our great Prime Minister
decides to do. Nothing more and nothing less.
* * *
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
April 1999, Groupaction contributed $52,000 to the Liberal Party
and was awarded a $3.5 million contract to manage federal
sponsorships related to outdoor activities.
One month later, that same organization, Groupaction, was
awarded another contract of $615,000 to check if these
initiatives were good for the federal government's visibility.
How does the minister of public works explain Groupaction,
which is a generous Liberal supporter, being awarded a $615,000 to
evaluate its own work?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Groupaction was not awarded a
contract to evaluate its own work.
It was awarded a contract to evaluate our sponsorship system
across the country. Groupaction reported back to us. We also had
an internal audit. We have issued new guidelines. We have also
launched a new competition for agencies.
From now on, we will have an even better program.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
1997, Groupaction has contributed $122,000 to the Liberal Party.
It was awarded a $615,000 contract without any call for tenders.
The minister sees nothing wrong and says that the evaluation was
not exclusively on Groupaction's work, but it was primarily on
its work.
Will the minister admit that this group is not at all in a
position to evaluate a group of companies of which it is part
and to set rules to determine if the work was properly done?
Does the minister not agree that there is a conflict of interest
here?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Groupaction qualified as a
communications agency through a call for tenders in 1997.
As an accredited agency, it receives mandates from us to seek
opinions and it also gets contracts. This is a competitive
process. It is not just a contract.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Groupaction not only received a generous contract from
the federal government to manage outdoor activity sponsorships,
but it was later awarded another generous contract to ensure,
after the fact, that the work had been productive and well done.
In order to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest, would
the minister not agree that it would have been appropriate for
the contract to do follow-up on the operation of sponsorships to
be awarded to a company other than the one that had done the
managing and was then assigned the job of evaluating its own
performance?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is more than one agency.
Several agencies handle sponsorships.
Groupaction was therefore not evaluating just its own work, but
the work in general. We asked it to look into how such a program
could be improved. That is what was done.
Since then, there has also been an internal audit of the system.
We have issued new guidelines. We have launched a new
competition, which is almost over. And, as of now, we have a
better program.
1425
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting to note that Groupaction recommended
that the federal government continue these sponsorships, which
were felt to be very productive.
Ultimately, if the government decided to award the contract to
evaluate the effectiveness of the sponsorships without going to
tender, was it not because it knew that this company would tell
it what it wanted to hear and endorse this new facet of its
policy of propaganda?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think that the last word of the
member's question says it all. That is their problem. Every
time they notice the presence of the Government of Canada in
Quebec, they get nervous.
The company in question was successful in a competitive bidding
process, as were all the other agencies, and a contract was
awarded in order to evaluate whether sponsorship programs were
going to meet the objective we had set. That is what was done,
in compliance with all the standards and all the rules.
* * *
[English]
HEALTH
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
federal Liberals since 1983 have talked about the need for
enforceable regulations to assure safe drinking water. After a
14 year delay, the government finally introduced legislation and
then let it die on the order paper.
Six more months have past since the most recent election and
still no federal leadership and no federal legislation. People
are dying as a result of this shameful neglect.
When will the government address this urgent priority and
introduce tough, enforceable, national standards to safeguard
drinking water?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are national standards. They were negotiated among all
governments and Health Canada took the lead in creating them.
The answer to the issues that arise is not to simply adopt a new
law or a new set of guidelines or standards. If the media
reports are correct, what is wrong with the water in North
Battleford is something that is contrary to the existing
guidelines. The issue is enforcing them and making sure we have
follow through by local and provincial governments. In that
regard, we intend to continue our efforts working with our
provincial partners.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, that is
exactly the operative word, enforceable. We thought the
government was coming to its senses. We actually thought it was
about to do something about mandatory, enforceable, national
water quality standards.
What do we hear today from the member for
Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, the minister of everything? He
said that Ottawa was not about to take a leading role, that the
provinces were responsible. He said that the provinces should
develop a plan to fix the problem and then the feds might
co-operate. That is what I call leadership.
How many Canadians is the government prepared to see die before
it finally acts?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the reality is that we have developed, with our provincial
partners, the very kind of standards that the member is talking
about. Access to safe drinking water is one of the fundamental
rights of citizenship. We are determined, working with our
partners, each doing our own part and playing our own role, to
see that safe drinking water is available.
Let me just note something before sitting down. When we
introduced Bill C-14 some three years ago dealing with materials
through which drinking water passes to establish legislative
standards, the NDP opposed it saying that it was a case of
misguided—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fundy—Royal.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister says “the reality is”. The reality is that Canada has
mere guidelines. We do not have national, enforceable drinking
water standards.
The tragic events of last year in Walkerton and the recent water
contamination in North Battleford have shattered Canadians'
confidence in their drinking water.
Currently, Canada has mere guidelines. Will the government act
now on a law where Health Canada would provide for national,
enforceable drinking water standards to protect the health of all
Canadians?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
working with the Minister of the Environment, I would be happy to
speak with the provinces and territories about building on the
existing national guidelines, determining whether they are
prepared to see federal legislation, and finding out how we can
make them more effective than they already are.
However, I do not want the member to think that we can solve all
the problems in drinking water simply by snapping our fingers in
Ottawa or creating further guidelines or standards. There has to
be follow through.
We had a national infrastructure program, for example. We made
billions of dollars available to provinces so that working with
municipalities they could put new treatment systems in place.
1430
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, this
comes down to leadership. In the January throne speech the
Government of Canada pledged that it would “fulfil its direct
responsibility for water”. The federal government has the
responsibility to provide leadership on this issue.
Tomorrow the House will be voting on a motion that calls for the
government to enshrine into law national drinking water
standards. Will government members join others in the House in
signalling that parliament cares about drinking water in Canada,
and will the government vote for the Progressive Conservative
motion tomorrow?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we recall that party was in office for many years. I do not have
any record before me that during its years in office it created
any such national legislation.
We will look at the resolution tomorrow and we will debate it at
the appropriate time. However let me make the point that the
interest of the government is in seeing that Canadians have
access to safe and clean drinking water.
That is why we worked with the provinces as we have. That is
why we made infrastructure money available, and we will continue
in those efforts.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, statistics released today prove what Canadians
already know, that under the Liberal government we are getting
poorer and our standard of living is falling behind that of our
major trading partner.
In fact Canadian disposable incomes fell from about 80% to only
70% of U.S. levels over the past decade. Why does the finance
minister keep telling us that everything is A-OK when in fact
Canada continues to fall behind economically?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, improving labour productivity is
a complex, long term problem that requires long term solutions,
not the kind of quick fixes they are used to over there. In fact
they cannot even get their own management regime sorted out.
That is why the government introduced policies that would get
our fiscal house in order, and we have made tremendous progress
acknowledged the world over.
Following that, the government has made a lot of investments in
research and development and in policies that encourage
innovation and entrepreneurship. Businesses are responding big
time with investments in machinery and equipment.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance):
Mr. Speaker, no one is accusing them of quick fixes. What is
happening big time is a decline in our standard of living. Per
capita incomes have fallen to 78% from 87% of U.S. levels.
The member talked about productivity. Our productivity growth
is about one-third as high as in the United States. Why does he
continue to give us this kind of warmed over Liberal rhetoric
when Canadians continue to see their standard of living, their
disposable income and our wealth as a nation decline against
those of our major trading partner?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before the government could deal
with productivity, we had to get our fiscal house in order. That
is why we eliminated the deficit. We are paying down the debt.
We are cutting taxes. We have low inflation. We have low
interest rates.
Business is responding to this positive environment. In fact
machinery and equipment investments were up 18.9% in the year
2000, the fifth consecutive year of strong growth. Corporate
taxes will be 5% lower than the combined U.S. state taxes in
about nine of the bordering states. We are making the biggest
tax cuts in Canadian history and our productivity is turning
around.
* * *
[Translation]
MONETARY UNION
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, an internal Bank of Canada document indicated that it
does not in the least reject the idea of a form of monetary union
between Canada and the United States. Moreover, Governor Dodge
seems to be more open than his predecessor to this. The
existence of this document, coupled with recent statements by Mr.
Dodge, suggests that this government is talking out of both sides
of its mouth.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the government
not merely trying to conceal the fact that it has gone much
further than it would like people to think in its consideration
of a form of monetary union between Canada and the United States?
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I attended that meeting as well, and I would
like to quote the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who
said “Mr. Governor, it is not the floating system I object to,
far from it. I think it is the right way to go”.
[English]
The government has said time and time again that we are
committed to a sovereign monetary policy. That is the best thing
for Canada and that is the best thing for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois, the premier of Quebec, Nobel
Laureate Robert Mundell, the Fraser and C.D. Howe Institutes, the
TD Bank, and in particular the Bank of Canada itself are looking
at the advisability of forming a monetary union between Canada
and the United States.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When the Minister of
Finance speaks out against those who defend the principle of a
single currency, is he trying to lead us on the wrong track or is
he indicating real disagreement with the Bank of Canada, which
would surely be a great cause of concern?
1435
[English]
Mr. Roy Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is strangely ironic that a
sovereignist party would propose that Canada give up its monetary
sovereignty.
While some are concerned about the Canadian dollar, and clearly
the Canadian government monitors the situation closely, it has
actually outperformed almost every other currency. We have a
strong currency. It reflects a strong Canada. It reflects the
culture and the determination of Canadians to have a strong
country united sea to sea.
* * *
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in typical Liberal fashion, the
government throws large gobs of money at real problems and then
drags its feet on delivery.
Before last fall's election the government promised hundreds of
millions of dollars to rework sewer and water facilities. Six
months later another community, North Battleford, has a major
contamination. Guess what? The government cannot trigger any of
that promised money.
When will the government get its act together, cut the red tape
and get out the money it promised?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I already made reference to the infrastructure program which of
course is a way for us to work with our partners in provinces and
municipalities to make sure that kind of money is available.
An hon. member: It is $56 million in Saskatchewan.
Hon. Allan Rock: I am reminded that it is $56 million in
Saskatchewan. These sums are intended to go into local works.
They will provide for water, sewage, bridges and other important
infrastructure to make sure Canadians have what they need.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, there is a major problem. The
application forms have not even been designed yet. Time is not
on our side on the issue of safe water.
All communities need access to safe water today, not days and
months from now. Platitudes, promises and public relation spins
will not fix any problem.
The Minister of Health pledged his support this weekend. I will
ask him again. When will he remove the bureaucratic delay and
start the money flowing into communities?
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification)
(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a program they were
against. We had it once and will have it again. The application
forms have come forward. A number of announcements have already
been made.
It is too bad they are not watching what is happening. It is a
top priority. We have said it time and time again. We will have
a number of other announcements within the next couple of weeks.
I know the members of the opposition do not like that. They
grimace, they laugh, they make fools of themselves, but that is
the truth.
* * *
[Translation]
SPACE SHIELD
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are very
concerned by the American administration's decision to go ahead
and implement an anti-missile shield. According to an internal
report, Canada, through its undertakings in connection with NORAD
activities, may have a hard time eluding the final decision of
the American administration.
Could the minister explain how his involvement in NORAD will not
compromise his manoeuvring room in this matter?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, NORAD's agreement has just been renewed for a
further five years between Canada and the United States. It is a
very key defence document and is one that works quite well. Both
countries, working together, can make sure we can survey the
airspace and the outer space areas in which any object, plane or
missile could affect security in North America. It will continue
to be the case.
Meanwhile, we are in a consultation phase on the missile defence
program and are waiting for specifics from the United States on
the matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to know how the government can let us think that no decision
has been made, when the army is proceeding with the joint $600
million space project, which is linked to the space shield
project, according to the Canadian army's documents?
[English]
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is not directly linked to national missile
defence. It is linked to our responsibilities in NORAD in terms
of surveillance. Surveillance of incoming missiles is a part of
NORAD's current responsibility, so the joint space project fits
in well with all that. It does not necessarily relate at all to
missile defence.
* * *
1440
PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker,
according to today's Globe and Mail there was no specific
competition for the Group Action contract worth $615,000.
In the transport and government operations standing committee on
May 26, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said
“Every time there was a sole source contract above $25,000 my
officials came and briefed me and asked my opinion”.
If this is the case, why would the minister agree to such a
blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me say that this
contract was competitive. All communication agencies recompeted.
Once the agencies are qualified then contracts are a given. This
was not a sole source contract. It was a competitive contract.
Mr. Andy Burton (Skeena, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, it certainly looks like awarding large advertising
contracts to friends of the Liberals is becoming a habit of this
minister. First Mrs. Tremblay and now Group Action. Who is next?
If as in the minister's response this is such an acceptable
expenditure, why has the government refused to release the Group
Action report of findings related to this contract? Why are they
not released and when will they be released?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this contract was
given so we could improve our program. As a matter of fact,
besides this study there was also an internal audit. Since then
we show guidelines. All the agencies recompeted. For the year
2001-02 we will have a better program because of this work.
* * *
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Labour. Many of my local Liberal colleagues in the national
capital region, especially the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier and
me, have been very concerned about the tremendous inconvenience
and dislocation caused by the two month old Para Transpo strike.
Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House what the
federal government is doing to help end this strike and restore
vital services to the users of Para Transpo?
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise my
colleague that the employer has agreed to submit this dispute to
binding arbitration.
The union executive has already announced that it will recommend
to its membership that this dispute be settled by binding
arbitration, and the union will actually vote on it this evening.
I am sure that all hon. members join me in encouraging the
resumption of normal Para Transpo operations as quickly as
possible.
* * *
GOVERNMENT LOANS
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, less
than one year after we gave Buhler Versatile Inc. a $32 million
unsecured interest free loan to build farm tractors in Winnipeg,
it now says it is moving the plant to Fargo, North Dakota, and
there is nothing in the loan contract to stop it.
Even worse, it is now revealed that the purchase price of the
plant was only $28.5 million. We gave them $32 million, 115% of
the total value.
John Buhler is breaking his side of the bargain to build
tractors in this country. I want to know what the Minister of
Industry will do to cancel this loan agreement and to recoup
every penny of taxpayer money from this bogus loan?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would be very happy to table a letter for my hon. NDP
colleague from the NDP government of the province of Manitoba,
both from the premier of the province and from the minister of
industry, asking the national government to approve this transfer
without delay, and that we did.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we
all went to bat to try to get a buyer for this plant. I wrote
letters personally on behalf of it and so did Lloyd Axworthy to
get that loan through. We did not know they would write such a
sloppy loan that this company could leave the country with our
money.
Worse than that, it was revealed yesterday that John Buhler
moved all the assets out of the company into a holding company
and now has a secured loan against all the assets. Even if the
company goes bankrupt or leaves the country, we cannot go after
the assets of the company.
Again, what will the minister do? Will he unleash all the legal
resources in his department to get—
The Speaker: The hon. the Minister of Industry.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member is quite right. He and members of the New
Democratic Party and members of the government of the province of
Manitoba all asked that the matter be handled in exactly the way
in which it was handled.
There was no new loan made. What happened was a new buyer took
on the obligation of handling an existing loan. That is all that
happened. By the way, it was done at the request of the hon.
member and his friends in the province of Manitoba.
* * *
1445
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK OF CANADA
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Minister of Industry. Why is the
Business Development Bank suddenly so concerned about the role of
Jean Carle in the Grand-Mère file that it now claims the document
which proves his involvement is a forgery?
Will the minister tell the House whether the bank employees who
have allegedly sworn affidavits to that effect did so
voluntarily, and will he advise why this new alleged forgery is
not going to the RCMP?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is clear now that the Leader of the Opposition had a
brilliant week last week and for the previous two weeks and
managed to steal away the front pages from the leader of the
Conservative Party and had a better night Saturday night at the
press gallery dinner. We are back to the same old tricks from
the leader of the Conservative Party.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Speaker,
my question for the Deputy Prime Minister is about the company
known as 161341 Canada Incorporated, the company in which the
Prime Minister held a one-third interest.
The certified copy of the registered deed of sale shows that on
July 27, 1988, 161341 Canada Incorporated paid Consolidated
Bathurst the sum of $1 for 21 parcels of land. Those are the
golf course lands.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the price the Prime
Minister's company paid was $1?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice. I cannot
confirm the allegations of the hon. member.
I also point out that his question does not seem to have
anything to do with the business of the government.
* * *
HERITAGE CANADA
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has identified a
lack of accountability for $700 million in grants and
contributions of taxpayer money that Canadian Heritage currently
spends.
How could the government justify spending an additional $563
million by that department when it cannot account for what it
currently spends?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am frankly extremely disappointed that the hon.
member, who last Tuesday or Wednesday was standing in the House
looking for almost a half a billion dollars in assistance for a
particular project in her constituency, has the gall to state
only two days later that there should be no money for culture in
Canada. If she continues to pursue that agenda I do not think
there will be any seats left standing in her party.
Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister has chosen to
ignore the auditor general's report. Will the minister delay the
spending of the announced funds until her department cleans up
its act?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have to say is that the reaction
across the country to the announcement made last week by the
Prime Minister was absolutely fantastic.
I know that Alliance Party members have been busy with other
things, but in case they have not had a chance I would like to
recall the statement made by the Edmonton Arts Council executive
director that the government was able to support groups that were
doing good art and the statement made by Bob McPhee, general
director of the Calgary Opera Association, that its number one
mandate was to give culture the resources so that it could—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Rosemont—Petite—Patrie.
* * *
[Translation]
ACID RAIN
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
a study by the Quebec department of natural resources revealed
this weekend that acid rainfall is the cause of the premature
decline of Quebec maple stands. The Minister of the Environment
is still refusing to implement the Kyoto protocol, which would
lead to a reduction in both greenhouse gases and sulphuric acid
emissions.
Does the minister not realize that, because of his own inaction,
he is responsible for an environmental problem in the decline of
Quebec maple stands and an economic problem in the negative
growth of the maple products industry in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has correctly identified the
question of acid rain as being of continuing importance. It is
true that many advances were made in the eighties, in the early
eighties in particular. It is also true that the problem
continues.
1450
We have the acid rain strategy as a result. We are working with
our American partners to reduce acid rain emissions and we hope
that will be successful.
In addition, he is incorrect in stating that the government is
not pursuing the Kyoto agreement and its commitments under that
agreement. As the Prime Minister said in the House on a number
of occasions, that is precisely what we are doing. We are
following through on our Kyoto agreement commitments.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Quebec cut its acid emissions by 65% 10 years ago but
more than half the acid rainfall in Quebec comes from the use
of fuel oil and coal in Ontario and the U.S.
Is the statement by the American vice-president in favour of the
construction of coal, natural gas and fuel oil fired generating
stations, together with the Prime Minister's open attitude to the
non-renewable energy needs of the Americans not cause for Quebec
maple producers to fear the worst?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in December I signed an agreement with my
counterpart in the United States to reduce by 50% the emissions
related to ozone impacted pollution at low level. This will have
a dramatic impact upon acid rain emissions in exactly the area
and from the sources the hon. member has outlined.
I do not understand why he does not pay attention to the ongoing
process with our partners in the provinces and of course in the
United States to reduce emissions because the problem, as he has
correctly pointed out, is very serious.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, the 1999-2000 military housing inventory obtained under
access to information shows the need for $300 million to upgrade
military housing just to a minimum standard. This is at a time
when there is a need to replace billions of dollars of equipment
and when we have to increase personnel numbers just to meet the
commitments already made.
I would like to ask the minister a very direct and basic
question. Where will he get the money to replace this housing so
that men and women serving in the military have housing that at
least meets the minimum standard?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we want decent and affordable housing for our troops
and for their families. Since the quality of life report of the
Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs was
issued three years ago we have spent some $250 million on
upgrading the housing.
This year we will spend a further $57 million and we will keep
providing the allocations that are necessary until all of that
housing is up to a top standard. Furthermore, we are increasing
our budget in terms of our equipment expenditures. We are either
replacing or upgrading just about every major piece of equipment
in our inventory.
Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, we need $300 million now, just to increase the housing
improvement to a minimum standard.
The minister knows that with the current budget we cannot
replace the equipment needed and increase the numbers to the
level promised, to the 60,000 promised, and at the same time fix
housing to the minimum standard.
Will the minister continue to run dilapidated equipment and to
leave personnel below the promised level? Will he leave the
substandard housing or will he continue to increase rents to men
and women serving so that they can pay for the improvements
necessary to increase the housing just to the minimum standard?
Hon. Art Eggleton (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we take responsibility for upgrading this housing.
The hon. member seems to have forgotten that we have already
spent some $250 million to do that. We are spending more this
year and we are committed to doing the job.
* * *
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week we commemorate the Battle of the Atlantic in which Canada
played a vital role, both in terms of enlisted men and women and
our merchant mariners.
To date our merchant navy veterans of all naval campaigns have
waited a long time for their full payments, a package that the
government committed itself to in previous programs. Could the
Minister of Veterans Affairs tell the House when these aging
veterans will receive their second payment?
Hon. Ronald Duhamel (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification)
(Francophonie), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with the full support of
all my colleagues, including the Prime Minister and the Minister
of Finance, I was able to announce in Winnipeg last Friday the
final payment of $34.5 million to merchant mariners.
This payment is in recognition of the tremendous sacrifices they
have made and of the contributions they made to the war efforts
of Canada and Canada's allies. They will receive the money that
is due to them, those who quality, I expect by the end of the
month of May.
* * *
1455
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the bishops of the Anglican church
have now appealed directly to the Prime Minister for answers to
the Indian residential school debacle. For example, St. Peter's
Anglican church in my hometown of Williams Lake, British
Columbia, where my best childhood friend was baptized in 1938,
while not directly involved in residential schools is now
wrapping up its affairs in bankruptcy proceedings.
Will the Prime Minister step forward with the leadership to
settle these lawsuits and allow victims and the churches to get
on with their lives? As a former Indian affairs minister the
Prime Minister is well qualified. Will he do this?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, some 7,000 former students at Indian residential schools
have brought some 4,000 lawsuits against both the federal
government and, in about 70% of the cases, against various church
organizations.
This is a very difficult, very complex matter. We are working
with the church organizations involved to develop a resolution of
this matter which will be fair to the victims, to the churches
and to Canadians without undue recourse to the litigation
process.
I think we are making progress. We will continue to work in
good faith on this serious matter.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, that non-answer will not do. The
conversations have gone as far as they can. The churches are
appealing for direction and assistance.
The federal government for a hundred years fostered a policy of
assimilation justifying residential schools. The government may
think it has the luxury of time, but those who were abused in the
residential schools still await justice. Litigation is rapidly
draining the resources of the churches. Will the Prime Minister
please move now to resolve this issue?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend makes a point in saying that this is a
very complex matter. We are working to resolve the issue. We
want to do so in a way that is fair to the churches in
recognizing their role as valid social institutions. Above all,
we have to be fair to the victims and reflect the interests of
Canadians generally. That is what we are doing.
We are trying to advance the process and take it out of the
litigation system. This is very difficult and complex. We are
continuing our efforts. I look forward to my hon. friend using a
more constructive tone in the way he did originally. That is the
way to help, not to unduly politicize the matter.
* * *
[Translation]
AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Secretary
of State for Amateur Sport is boasting about working for sport
at the grassroots.
The government of Quebec and the city of Montreal indicated how
much money they will contribute to relocate the Tazmahal, a
skateboard and roller blade centre.
If, as he claims, the secretary of state truly cares about
promoting access to sports to the largest possible number of
people, could he tell us what he is waiting for to announce the
federal government's contribution to this project?
Hon. Denis Coderre (Secretary of State (Amateur Sport), Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of negotiating here. We have
been working on this issue for a few months, unlike the Quebec
government which has been at it for three years.
We wanted to propose an infrastructure program in which the
provincial, municipal and federal governments could have been
involved, but the Quebec government said no.
We are looking at the issue and I am working with my colleagues,
so that we can soon come up with an answer.
* * *
[English]
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of agriculture. The plum pox virus
is a serious disease that infects stone fruit species including
peaches, nectarines, plums and apricots. It has been a scourge
on the Niagara area over the last year.
The plum pox virus has adversely affected the livelihoods of
both producers and the nurseries in the region. Could the
minister inform the House about what steps are being taken by
Agriculture Canada to assist the Niagara region in overcoming the
plum pox virus?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is
taking extensive action to manage and to try to eradicate this
disease. There are eradication programs in the smaller areas in
Ontario and Nova Scotia. They are having consultations with the
industry in the Niagara area.
As well, the Ministry of Agriculture and Agri-Food is consulting
with the industry, the producers and the province of Ontario as
far as compensation for those affected by it. We are stepping up
and intensifying the research in order to find out how this
disease acts in Canada as well.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the complexity of this
situation. I also appreciate that conversations are now stalled
and that there needs to be a push for these to go on.
There are abused victims who are waiting with little hope. There
are churches going broke while the government is stalled in this
regard.
1500
I must ask the government once again when leadership will be
shown to settle these lawsuits once and for all and let those who
are afflicted get on with their lives.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my hon. friend is mistaken. The discussions are not
stalled. They are proceeding.
I want to say that we are working in a way that will allow the
victims who can prove their claims to get on with their lives.
For this we need the co-operation of the church organizations
involved to reach an agreement with us on the degree of shared
liability in this very complex matter.
I look forward to the hon. member playing a constructive role in
this regard instead of trying to politicize it. This is not the
way to reach a fair resolution to the matter.
* * *
[Translation]
TOKAMAK
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in 1997 the federal government announced that it would no
longer provide its annual contribution of $7.2 million to
Tokamak, in Varennes, which was then the main nuclear fusion
research centre in Canada.
We are now learning that the government is part of a consortium
that is trying to attract to Ontario the $12 billion ITER
project, a megaproject for international research in the same
sector.
How does the Minister of Natural Resources explain that his
government forced the closure of Tokamak in Varennes by claiming
that nuclear fusion was no longer one of its priorities, when it
is now injecting billions of public funds in that same sector,
but this time in Ontario?
[English]
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, an organization called Iter Canada, which is largely
involving the private sector, including I would point out a
number of private sector firms from the province of Quebec, is
promoting the notion of an Iter location in Canada at some future
date.
The Government of Canada has not contributed millions of
dollars. One million dollars is what the Government of Canada
has contributed over a three year period to support the
activities with respect to siting.
I would point out with respect to Tokamak that upon the
withdrawal we provided full compensation, as required under that
program.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it has become customary in recent days to want to comply
with an express request of the Deputy Prime Minister that proof
be tabled establishing a link between the Auberge Grand-Mère and
the Grand-Mère Golf Club, in the form of a 10 year lease.
Once again, I seek unanimous consent to table this document.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to table, in both official languages, a
number of order in council appointments recently made by the
government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1) these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of
which is attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 36(8) I have the
honour to table, in both official languages, the government's
response to two petitions.
* * *
PETITIONS
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
under the provisions of Standing Order 36 I have the honour to
present to the House a petition signed by constituents in my
riding of Nepean—Carleton and the surrounding Ottawa area.
They call upon the federal government to enact an immediate
moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition calling on
the Parliament of Canada to uphold the Latimer decision in the
Supreme Court of Canada.
1505
CENSUS RECORDS
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition calling for
the release of census records to genealogists and historians. The
petition is signed by more 2,200 Canadians from seven provinces.
The petitioners point out that an estimated 7.5 million
Canadians are engaged in the pursuit of their family histories
and census records are a valuable tool.
They call upon parliament to take whatever steps are necessary
to retroactively amend confidentiality clauses of the Statistics
Act since 1906 to allow the release of the post-1901 census
records after a reasonable period of time.
[Translation]
FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present a petition regarding the free trade
area of the Americas.
[English]
The petitioners call upon the government to address their
concerns about the impact of the FTAA on the environment, on
children and on all people of the Americas.
[Translation]
Those who signed the petition call upon the Canadian government
to publish the full texts of the free trade area of the
Americas.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Derek Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
PATENT ACT
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that
Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place to begin
second reading of Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act. The
amendments contained in the bill are simple. They are
straightforward. They have one purpose and one purpose only, and
that is to bring Canada's Patent Act into compliance with two
separate rulings of the World Trade Organization, the WTO. They
maintain the balance that has been struck in Canada's patent
regime.
One of the rulings dealt with a dispute with the United States.
The U.S. argued that certain old act patents, that is, pre-1989
patents, do not benefit from a minimum 20 year term of protection
from the date they were filed as required by the agreement on
trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, known as
the TRIPS agreement. In September 2000, the WTO body sided with
the U.S. interpretation of the dispute and ruled that Canada's
patent terms for certain old act patents were inconsistent with
obligations under the TRIPS agreement.
Bill S-17 complies with the ruling by establishing the term of
protection for outstanding old act patents as the greater of 17
years from the date the application was granted or a minimum of
20 years from the date the application was filed in Canada as
defined by the patent rules.
Canada already provides a TRIPS compliant term of 20 years from
the date of filing for patents granted under the new act regime.
The new act regime has been in effect in Canada since October 1,
1989.
The second WTO ruling addressed by Bill S-17 is a dispute with
the European Union. In the second dispute the WTO ruled in March
2000 that Canada's stockpiling exception was inconsistent with
the TRIPS agreement.
This exception allowed generic drug manufacturers to make and to
stockpile their version of a patented product during the last six
months of the patent term.
1510
It is important to recall that as part of the same ruling, the
WTO confirmed the consistency of our early working exception, a
fundamental component of our patent regime. The early working
exception allows third parties to use a patent invention during
its term of protection for purposes of regulatory approval.
The government has already complied with the WTO ruling on
stockpiling, by way of regulation. The repeal of the stockpiling
provisions simply ensures that the Patent Act itself conforms
with our TRIPS obligations.
The bill before us today deals exclusively with the issues of
patent term and stockpiling. It does not attempt to go into the
broader aspects of patent protection in Canada.
As I said when I appeared before the Standing Committee on
Industry, there will be other opportunities to have a broader
consideration of our intellectual property laws, but it is very
important that we proceed expeditiously with the amendments
before us because the WTO has imposed a deadline for compliance
with the patent term ruling. Canada has until August 12, 2001 to
comply. Otherwise we could face retaliatory trade action.
The amendments contained in Bill S-17 would provide extensions
to certain old act patents that are still in force and that do
not benefit from a minimum patent term of 20 years from the date
the patent application was filed. I should point out that there
are, relatively speaking, a small number of patents that will be
affected by this amendment.
As of January 1, 2001, there were 138,800 outstanding old act
patents. Of these, 53,500 had patent terms of less than 20 years
from the date of filing. It is important to note that not all of
these patents have commercial value. The vast majority do not.
To date, only the pharmaceutical industry has identified
commercially significant patents that would be affected by this
ruling.
I would also emphasize that not all the old act patents are
affected by the WTO ruling on patent term. Of the 138,800
outstanding old act patents to which I referred, 85,300 of them
have terms of greater than 20 years from the date of filing.
These patents are unaffected by the present amendments, as are
all patents currently being granted.
Because some have expressed concern about how a change in the
term of patent protection will affect drug costs, let me go into
this issue in greater detail. We estimate that the number of
commercially significant drugs that would benefit from a patent
term extension is 30. Of the tens of thousands out there, 30
would benefit. The number of affected drugs is relatively
insignificant when compared to the 5,200 patented and
non-patented prescription drugs available to Canadians. The
average term extension for the patents on the 30 drugs is about 6
months. The maximum amount of lost savings resulting from these
patent term extensions has been estimated at less than one-tenth
of 1% of drug sales over the eight year period during which the
affected old act patents expire.
These foregone savings can be this great only if two things
actually happen, the first being that every one of them is copied
by a generic manufacturer. This is not likely to happen because
not every drug has enough of a market to warrant a generic copy.
However, let us assume for the sake of argument that a generic
copy is in fact produced. Second, let us assume that the generic
copy would capture the entire market for this product immediately
after its entry. Again, this is very unlikely.
However, let us make our estimate based on these two extreme
scenarios. It gives us the worst case scenario. This is the
absolute maximum that these amendments would cost our health care
system: less than one-tenth of 1%. The amendments contained in
Bill S-17 will have no sustained impact on drug prices. In fact,
the impacts will be barely noticeable.
I am sure that members on the other side of the House will
remind you, that I was once among those who were
concerned about the impact of our patent regime on drug prices.
I remain concerned. When I sat on the opposition benches I
feared that changes to the Patent Act might tilt the balance
between supporting innovation and providing drugs at reasonable
prices. I was concerned that changes would lead to rapid
increases in drug prices but that quite simply did not happen.
1515
I am sure all members of the House, although there may be some
exceptions opposite, will share my satisfaction that drug prices
have not risen dramatically in Canada since the Patent Act was
first modernized in 1989. This year the Canadian Institute for
Health Information has stated:
Given that the drug price index(es) have remained relatively
stable since the early 1990s, it appears that increased
utilization and the entry of new drugs are the main factors
behind the increase in drug expenditures.
Members should quote from authoritative impartial sources when
engaging in the debate and not quote in a partisan manner the
views of members on either side of the House. There are many
reasons drug expenditures are climbing, but I want to emphasize
that drug prices are being kept in check.
Our current patent regime serves Canadians well. According to
the latest report from the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board
prices in Canada are 11% below the median foreign prices.
Canadians currently pay 40% less for their patented drugs than
Americans do. Americans continue to come to Canada to take
advantage of our lower drug prices.
As we sit in the House debating the issue, busloads of Americans
continue to cross the border to buy brand name drugs in Canada at
up to 40% less than the cost of the same drugs available to them
in the United States. I recall that our early working exception,
which was successfully defended before the WTO, would continue to
provide Canadians with access to lower priced alternatives as
soon as possible after expiry.
I would like to point out the simple and straightforward nature
and purpose of the amendments to Bill S-17. They bring the
Patent Act into compliance with our intentional obligations.
Members opposite may say what they will, but unless Canada does
as is suggested by members of the New Democratic Party, which is
to withdraw from international trade rules to establish a fence
around Canada and say that we will trade only with ourselves, we
have to comply with WTO rules.
Is it any wonder that in the province of British Columbia the
New Democratic Party is about to suffer a humiliating defeat when
its members live with their heads in the sand and do not respond
to the needs of ordinary working Canadians? Is it any wonder
that people currently working in the auto manufacturing plants in
southern Ontario and in the province of Quebec have
overwhelmingly turned away from the New Democratic Party? Is it
any wonder they have turned away when all of these people rely on
exports for their jobs, and when all these people have been
described by the leader of the NDP as being rich Canadians not
paying enough taxes because they work an overtime shift at an
auto plant?
No wonder the party is going the way of the dodo bird. It is no
surprise the member opposite lost his pants recently when he was
out in the middle of a melee in the protest of Quebec City.
However, I digress.
In short, now is not the time for a protracted debate about
whether Canada's patent laws need to be changed. Once the bill
is passed we will have other opportunities to engage in a broader
dialogue on the role of intellectual property, building an
innovative economy and sustaining an attractive environment for
investment.
The government's objective is to build a world leading economy,
one that is driven by innovation, ideas and talent, an economy
that produces goods and services which compete in terms of
quality and price with the best in the world. We need a strong
and moderate intellectual property framework, one that protects
creativity and innovation, one that helps us attract talent and
investment from around the world. The amendments to Bill S-17
would help maintain Canada's leadership in the global knowledge
based society.
1520
I would urge members on all sides of the House to work together
to ensure responsible and quick passage of the bill in keeping
with Canada's obligations under the WTO. I thank members for
their consideration of the bill.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate today.
I realize the Minister of Industry was away from the House and
from parliament for a few years. I thought he was down east in
Newfoundland but obviously he was further east than that. He was
in the Middle East on the road to Damascus because he certainly
had a conversion along the way in this drug patent regulation and
on free trade. I would say good for him. He may have been slow
but he finally got there, and I am glad he and the Liberal Party
have.
I rise to speak today on the subject of Bill S-17, an act to
amend the Patent Act. The purpose of Bill S-17 is to bring the
Patent Act into compliance with our international obligations,
obligations that Canada signed many years ago. These obligations
stem from the trade related aspects of the intellectual property
rights agreement, commonly known as TRIPS, which Canada and all
other members of the World Trade Organization, approximately 145
members now, are signatories.
Bill S-17 would amend the Patent Act to implement two rulings
made by the World Trade Organization against Canada.
In October of last year, the WTO ruled against Canada on a
complaint initiated by the United States. At issue was Canada's
term of protection of old act patents or pre-1989 patents that
did not conform with TRIPS. The TRIPS agreement requires WTO
members to provide a patent term of 20 years from the date a
patent application is filed.
New act patents are those patents that were granted since 1989
and already conform with a patent term of 20 years from the date
of filing and are not affected by the WTO ruling. However old
act patents, patents that were made before 1989, were only given
17 years at that time. Bill S-17 would change section 45 of the
act to provide old act patents a 20 year term of patent
protection which is in line with our TRIPS agreement. According
to Industry Canada, the amendment would affect 53,500 patents, of
which 30 are commercially significant drugs.
The second ruling was from 1997. The European Union initiated a
WTO dispute settlement process against Canada over two exceptions
to an action for patent infringement. Since 1992 the Canadian
Patent Act allowed generic drug companies to develop a generic
version of the patented drug in order to obtain regulatory
approval and to manufacture and stockpile a patented drug before
the patent had expired. The European Union claimed that both
these exceptions were inconsistent with the TRIPS agreement.
However the WTO determined that Canada's early working exception
was consistent with TRIPS but not the stockpiling provision that
we had.
Bill S-17 would implement the WTO ruling by revoking the
manufacture and storage of patent medicine regulations,
regulations to prevent the infringement of a patent by any person
that would be enacted by order in council.
The Canadian Alliance recognizes that the right to own property
and benefit from private property is an important aspect,
including intellectual properties.
I would like to briefly mention that a relative of mine from
Peterborough by the name of John Stephenson patented the first
Peterborough canoe in about 1879. I recently had the opportunity
to see that patent when I visited the Peterborough canoe museum.
Canoeing was a way of travel in those days. There were no
railways and no highways. The lakes and rivers were the highways
of Canada. He developed a new cedar strip canoe what eventually
went on to become the Peterborough Canoe Company known all over
the world. He applied for and received a patent for that over
100 years ago.
We recognize that it is important to protect one's property. It
lies at the very heart of our legal and economic systems and it
distinguishes us in a free society. Moreover, the protection of
intellectual property, domestically and internationally, is the
foundation necessary for a knowledge based economy. By passing
the bill, Canada would send the right signals to the
international community that we take our obligations very
seriously.
We need to do that because so much of our trade depends on
outside sources. I believe that over 45% of our gross domestic
product now comes from exports and it is rising every year.
Canada's prosperity depends on trade that is based on rules and
international agreements.
1525
As a medium sized economy, Canada cannot compete with the big
players who can throw their weight around on the world scene in
terms of subsidies, countervailing duties and trade wars. We
simply cannot afford to do that. We need the rules based system
to protect us. However, we can compete and win in an open rules
based trading regime with a dispute settling mechanism based on
law, such as the WTO.
I will digress for a moment and talk about the softwood lumber
dispute that is currently happening with the expiry of the
softwood lumber agreement. This could well end up at the World
Trade Organization. Canada could win that dispute but we need
international organizations, like the WTO, with the rules that
are provided, in order to ensure Canada's prosperity in things
like our forestry industry.
As a result, we cannot ignore rulings when they go against us.
We have to bring our laws into line with the obligations we
signed internationally, which is what we are doing here. We may
not like the decisions that come out against us from time to time
but there is no question that we benefit from the stability and
clarity that the WTO provides to world trade.
As I mentioned, it was the United States that challenged
Canada's treatment of pre-1989 patents at the WTO. Two way trade
in goods and services between Canada and the United States jumped
up from $626 billion in 1999 to $700 billion in 2000. Canada
exported $130 billion more worth of goods and services to the
United States than we imported from our southern neighbours. This
is a fantastic achievement for a small country of 30 million
people.
Canada also sells more to the United States than any other
country does by a wide margin. In 1999 Canada's market share in
key markets in the United States was close to 20% of its overall
consumption in the United States. Mexico's market share in the
same markets was just over 10%. A lot of people in the United
States and even in Canada do not realize who is the biggest
supplier to the United States. We are by far. While Mexico is
making inroads, Mexico's market share in the same market was just
over 10%. A combination of all 15 countries of the European
Union together have a market share roughly the same size as
Canada.
The Canadian-American rules based trading relationship is very
important to Canadian prosperity and has been the model for the
world to follow. In fact 87% of our exports last year went to
the United States and it is rising every year. We benefit
greatly by having a terrific neighbour to the south that takes a
lot of the good products that we manufacture. However, we do
need the protection of trade agreements, like NAFTA and the World
Trade Organization, to ensure that continues.
The generic drug companies have expressed their understanding
that the WTO rulings must be implemented. They have also
indicated their dissatisfaction with the way the drug patent
regulations are being implemented. For example, the generic
companies feel that the research based drug companies are able to
extend their patent beyond 20 years through the notice of
compliance linkage regulations. Some argue that this two year
process is not in Canada's best interest.
The debate over the regulatory environment for drug patents is a
very important one but it should not slow down the passage of the
bill. Bill S-17 is basically a technical bill designed to enable
Canada to comply with its international obligations. The WTO
gave Canada until August 12, 2001 to implement the
recommendations and the rules arising from the U.S. and European
Union challenges. It is time to pass the legislation.
Although the debate on drug patent regulations is very
significant, it should not affect the passage of Bill S-17.
While appearing before the Senate banking committee on trade and
commerce, the Minister of Industry had to eat a little bit of
crow about his past comments regarding drug compliance. He
promised to take a much broader look at the drug patent
regulations in the fall.
I applaud him for both admitting that he was wrong in the 1980s
and now looking at how we should handle our new drug patent
regulations. I am also pleased he recognized the current dispute
between the generic and research based drug companies and
promised a role for parliamentarians.
1530
I suggest that the industry committee should do a separate study
regarding the issue of notice of compliance and the two year
stay. It is an important debate and all things have to be put on
the table. It would be a good opportunity to do it at the
industry committee. I suggest to the minister that is where it
should start, but it should not affect the passage of the current
legislation we have before us. Bill S-17 should be passed and
then let us deal with that issue to see who is right on the
notice of compliance. It should be a separate issue.
We will co-operate from our side. We want to see Bill S-17
passed. We think the issue of the generic and patent drugs with
regard to the timeframe pass the 20 year patent, the notice of
compliance and the two year stay are all important issues that
need public airing. I challenge the Minister of Industry to make
sure that happens.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise to speak to Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act.
We in the Bloc Quebecois believe that the issue of intellectual
property is fundamental and important in the context of
stimulating innovation and creativity, especially in the health
sector where access to the latest discoveries and to new
technologies enables us to make extraordinary discoveries that
help treat diseases, old or new. Huge effort and investment in
research and development is required.
In order to encourage research and development in business,
discoveries must be properly protected through the protection
of intellectual property.
The bill corrects two discrepancies that unfortunately had to
go through an international body. We could have done the work
ourselves without waiting for the WTO to reach its decisions,
which informed us that old provisions with respect to products
covered under old legislation dating from the early 1990s
created a problem with respect to the effective protection
afforded these patents.
There will therefore be technical amendments, in short, nothing
basic, to the focus of the policy on the protection of
intellectual property. I hope the bill will not, once again,
become a debate on the need to protect those doing research and
development.
On the contrary, if we were to go in that direction, I hope
we would insist on strengthening and improving the protection
afforded to those who make discoveries. Even though we are
complying with international conventions, the level of
protection of patents is lagging somewhat behind that of the
United States and the countries of the European Union, among
others.
It must be realized that the discovery of a drug is not a simple
process. It is extremely costly. On average, we are talking
about an investment that may vary from $300 million to $500
million U.S. to discover a drug that will be a significant
improvement. A patent for a new product is a huge investment
that must later be recovered by these companies.
The shorter the period the higher the price will be. However,
if the period of protection of the product on the market is
long, the recovery of that investment may take place over a
longer period. We will then have access to a quality drug that
will cost less than if the protection period were very short. It
may well take 10 years before a promising molecule or a
brilliant idea is marketed as a commercial product, given the
process at Health Canada, among others, for certification, the
clinical tests, the four test phases and so on.
1535
In reality, the patent has an actual lifespan of about 10 years
on the average. We are not necessarily talking of those that go
on for 20 years in practice. Obviously the product is patented
as soon as it is discovered but just being discovered does not
put it on the market the very next day.
Given this situation, when protection is given for a certain
length of time, the day that protection expires we hope to see
the dynamics of competition set in. Thus there will be generic
versions that are far less expensive because copying a product
does not require anything like the investment discovering one
does.
What we want to be sure of is that once a patent has expired
there will be a competitive market in which the various
companies operate on the marketplace. There is a special
situation in the Canadian market, however, because of the highly
aggressive nature of the generic industry. It has every right
to be that way. In each of these debates, it voices the same
desire to at last find ways of reducing the true scope of patent
protection.
I have no objections once a patent has expired to the industry
having access to the market within the normal rules of
competition.
We do however have to ensure that there is a proper period of
protection for patented products, so that the public can have
hopes for significant discoveries relating to numerous
conditions and health problems that cannot yet be treated and
investment can be attracted to our country's high calibre
scientific community.
Of course I am most familiar with the situation in Quebec but I
do know that the industry has also developed in other provinces.
Ontario too has a sizeable industry. As well, there is a very
strong emergence of biotechnology research in this area. In
order to develop and maintain our quality of research and keep
our researchers here, however, they need to be able to work
within a framework in which there are advantageous rules on
intellectual property. This we have.
In Quebec, with the university network, for instance, and many
companies, we have know-how that makes us one of the best places
in the world in which to do this kind of research. We have every
interest in further developing this industry, which will benefit
citizens through the discoveries we make in health, as well as
economically, and in having a scientific community such as this
present in our territory.
All this is to say that, although this is a good opportunity to
pay tribute to all the work done by those working in this
industry and to encourage them to invest even more because we
want more research and development, I do not want to see this
debate drag on too long.
It is obviously a bill intended to comply with WTO rulings. We
are therefore going to treat it accordingly. We hope the debate
in committee will be rapid. The committee is obviously its own
master but as a member I can already say that we will be among
those who hope that the debate is speedy, that the bill will be
approved in committee and that eventually it will come back to
the House for final approval in order to clarify the situation.
I hope we are going to send a clear
message at the same time that there is no question of reviewing
or weakening the rules of intellectual property. The Minister of
Industry is with us on this. I know the government has set
itself the ambitious goal of ensuring that research and
development Canada wide will double in the next 10 years.
This will require a framework to protect intellectual property
and freedom from the fear of threat for those working in
innovative industry. These people must be told clearly that
the measures to be taken in the future, if there were to be
others, will not weaken intellectual property but rather
strengthen it and further develop all those who contribute to
it.
In the case of Quebec, they are many, and I hope there will be
more of them in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors,
all of this within certain restrictions but in a context in
which the industry has essentially honoured its commitments to
increasing research. I think over $900 million is spent on
research annually. The number of jobs has grown since the
passage of the legislation on patent protection.
This is what the industry had predicted and this is what
happened.
Before I conclude I would point out that there is an important
body whose role it is to protect consumers. It is the Conseil
du prix des médicaments brevetés. Its role is to ensure that
the price of patented drugs on the market is reasonable and does
not rise inordinately.
1540
Within the limits of a protective framework for intellectual
property, with an efficient Patented Medicine Prices Review
Board, we are in a position to have a balanced approach to permit
the emergence of a very solid industry. We are also in a
position to produce products of increasing value to consumers,
which in some cases will help reduce hospital stays and provide
non-surgical solutions without increasing health costs. There is
often a perception that drugs increase health system costs. In
some cases, drug use can reduce costs because hospitalization
will be avoided.
With our greying population, we have a duty to provide a
context, an environment that is favourable to research and
development, in this sector as in others. This one, however, is
a sector that affects all those whom we represent.
We will co-operate in ensuring that the bill gets through as
promptly as possible.
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of members of the New Democratic Party to say that
we are strongly opposed to this unfair and inequitable bill.
I was frankly very disappointed to hear members of the Bloc
Quebecois, who claim to belong to a social democratic party,
giving such amazing support to the demands of pharmaceutical
companies.
Obviously, there is only one party in this parliament which is
fighting for the poor, for ordinary people, who are saying that
the big pharmaceutical companies do not need more handouts from
their friends in government.
[English]
I see the Minister of Industry in the House today. We have had
the privilege of serving together in the House since 1979. I am
one of the few members of the House who was in the House with the
minister in 1987 when he spoke with passion, eloquence and vigour
in total opposition to Bill C-22. He called it a giveaway to the
multinational pharmaceutical companies. He was absolutely right.
In one memorable quote he said that Bill C-22 would suck the
life's blood out of Canada's poorer citizens. I recall it well.
The minister was up on his hind legs speaking out and screaming
out strongly for justice for Canada's poorer citizens. That was
he and the Liberal Party.
Bill C-22 passed. Then in 1992 what did we have? We had
another bill, Bill C-91, another Conservative bill and another
giveaway to the pharmaceutical drug companies. What did the
Minister of Industry have to say at that time? On behalf of his
Liberal colleagues, along with the member for Dartmouth and many
others, he denounced that legislation and bitterly complained it
would lead to a massive increase in the price of pharmaceutical
drugs in Canada. The minister was absolutely right.
When we look at the increases in the price of drugs in Canada,
it is the fastest growing component of our health care system,
far faster than the increase in the price of physician services.
Indeed it is the biggest single component of our health care
system, as my colleague for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out so
strongly on a number of occasions.
Over the past 15 years I would point out that Canada's
prescription drug bill has jumped by 344%. That is 15 years
since the Minister of Industry warned Canadians about what would
happen.
It is not as if these pharmaceutical drug companies are
suffering.
[Translation]
The Bloc Quebecois is suggesting that the poor pharmaceutical
companies must be defended. It is sad, such a pity, the poor
pharmaceutical companies need defending by the Bloc Quebecois.
Let us look, for example, at the largest pharmaceutical company,
GlaxoSmithKline, which made profits of some $11.9 billion in one
year. It does not need the Bloc Quebecois to defend it. That is
clear. Those who need defending are consumers.
1545
[English]
It is the consumer, patients, the poor and provincial drug plans
that need defence from the government and from their allies in
all of the other opposition parties. What an unholy alliance the
Liberal government, the Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois and the
Conservatives. At least the Conservatives have been consistent.
They have been consistently wrong but at least they have been
consistent, not like the Minister of Industry who has done the
most extraordinary flip-flops.
It was a sight to behold in Davos, Switzerland. I wish I could
have been there to see the Minister of Industry speaking in
Davos, Switzerland and saying “I fess up, I was wrong Brian”.
Brian Mulroney was standing there as proud as punch as the
Minister of Industry stood and said he was wrong, the Liberals
were wrong and that he was right, NAFTA was a good thing.
A few weeks later he stood in front of the senate, that great
bastion of democracy. That was another occasion when he said he
had it all wrong back in 1987 on Bill C-22, that the
Conservatives were right and the pharmaceutical industry was
right. He was there to defend the interests of those poor,
suffering pharmaceutical companies. Why? Because the WTO told
him that they no choice.
What a shameful spectacle this is. Why should we ever believe
anything the minister and the government have to say. I know the
Speaker, a man of integrity and respect, will recall those
debates because he was in the House. Indeed I dare say he
participated in one or two of them. I am not going to pull out
the speeches of the Speaker because I know that would be entirely
unparliamentary. However it is certainly appropriate to remind
the Minister of Industry of exactly what he said. We used to
have the lowest priced pharmaceutical drugs in the world. Now,
as we have seen, drug prices have risen dramatically.
As the minister indicated, the purpose of the legislation is to
implement a WTO tribunal order. We were challenged by the
European Union and the United States that our existing generous
provisions for patent protection were not good enough.
Until this bill becomes law, the generic drug industry is at
least allowed to stockpile and to get their drugs ready six
months before the expiry of a patent so that when that patent
expires consumers, Canadians who are sick, will be in a position
to buy those generic drugs quickly. That is something the
Minister of Industry supported long ago, but not anymore. Now
they are saying no. Even that six month stockpiling opportunity
is gone.
The minister is retroactively extending from 17 years to 20
years the patent protection. This is a retroactive gift to the
pharmaceutical industry approved by the Bloc, the Alliance and
the Conservatives. Why on earth would the government give this
retroactive gift to the struggling pharmaceutical industry that
just reported massive record profits? In another day the
minister would have been the first on his feet condemning this
largesse to an industry that has already been treated far too
generously.
As New Democrats, we say that this is unacceptable. When we
look at the history of this legislation, it is quite shocking to
know that not that long ago under GATT there was no reference at
all to intellectual property. In fact it was only after the
Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade that
intellectual property was protected in these so-called trade
deals.
1550
That is another reason why as New Democrats we are deeply
concerned about the impact of the proposed FTAA, the free trade
of the Americas agreement. We know what the Americans are
pushing for even more protection. Let us be very clear, it is
only the Americans in this hemisphere that are exporting that. It
is only those big, multinational American pharmaceutical
companies that benefit from this.
Is the Government of Canada and the Minister for International
Trade standing up on behalf of Canadians and people throughout
the hemisphere and saying to the Americans that there is
something wrong with this picture and that they do not support
extending the patent protection to 25 years from 20 years? No,
there is not a word, not a peep. There is silence.
The trade department keeps telling us to go to its website to
find out what Canada's position is. If we go to the website,
under intellectual property rights is a summary of Canada's
position. Where is the leadership? Is the government speaking
out for consumers? Is it speaking out for the poor? This is
what the department had to say on intellectual property rights.
To date, Canada has made no submissions to the Negotiating Group
on (intellectual property rights). Any submission made by Canada
will be made available on the website.
There is the leadership. The government has nothing to say.
The Minister for International Trade has nothing to say about one
of the most shameful abuses of power by pharmaceutical drug
companies. That is their attempt to muscle the government of
Brazil in this hemisphere into increasing dramatically the prices
of drugs that are made available for people living with HIV and
AIDS.
Recently there was a major victory in South Africa when under
tremendous international pressure 39 pharmaceutical companies,
which were suing the South African government under the WTO, were
forced to withdraw that suit because it was obvious they were
suffering from international shame. They were trying to tell the
South African government and health ministry that they had no
choice that, even in the face of a catastrophic epidemic of
HIV-AIDS throughout sub-Saharan and South Africa, the interests of
multinational drug companies had to come ahead of the interests
of patients. Profits before patients.
In the case of South Africa, they were shamed into backtracking
and with no thanks to the Government of Canada or the Liberal
government. We called on them to show some leadership in a
situation of absolute crisis.
There are 25 million people infected with the AIDS virus in
sub-Saharan and Africa out of 34 million globally. The
multinational pharmaceutical companies want to prevent them from
having access to affordable drugs. That is absolutely shameful.
However we see the same thing in this hemisphere in Brazil. We
know that in Brazil the government has shown some extraordinary
leadership in making generic drugs available. It has had a very
powerful and significant impact in reducing the incidence of
HIV-AIDS. In 1994 the World Bank predicted that by the year
2000, Brazil would have 1.2 million AIDS carriers. Today there
are less than half of that. There are about 540,000. There are
still far too many. Thanks to the courage of the Brazilian
government in taking on these multinational pharmaceutical
companies, it was able to make a difference.
As New Democrats we do not want to see the intellectual property
rights of pharmaceutical drug companies enshrined and enhanced in
the FTAA.
We want to see a new regime where people are put before profits
and pharmaceutical drug companies are accountable to the people
in the hemisphere and globally.
1555
I am not speaking in any way on behalf of my party, but I often
wonder why we believe that in an industry as fundamental to
public health and security as the pharmaceutical industry should
be driven on the basis of profit. We have a situation now in
which only a tiny amount of money, something like $300 million
globally, is being spent by the pharmaceutical drug industry in
the struggle to find a vaccine. Why is that? Because if it
finds a vaccine, it finds a cure and then shares in the
pharmaceutical drug companies will not be worth as much money.
There is something obscene about that.
We have a situation as well where researchers are working for
this pharmaceutical drug company or that pharmaceutical drug
company. They are all working in splendid isolation, not
co-operating with one another and desperately trying to find what
will make them more money.
I suggest that instead of accepting that the market is God when
it comes to pharmaceutical drugs, it would make a lot more sense
for us to say that this should be in the public domain, those who
serve in the health care industry, those who research, those who
try to find cures and the government. The public domain should
be involved. Health care, and in particular the pharmaceutical
industry, should be owned by the people not by those who seek to
maximize global profits.
Once again, as New Democrats we do not accept this loss of
democracy through the WTO, through the TRIPS agreement, the
expansion of GATT and now the FTAA. More and more we are losing
democracy in this country. More and more as elected
representatives we are losing our ability to make decisions about
what is in the best interests of the people who we represent.
Bill S-17 is an other example of that.
As elected representatives, as members of parliament, why should
we not be in a position to have a public policy debate in Canada
about whether 17 years is good enough, or 20 years is good enough
or whether compulsory licensing is acceptable as a means of
ensuring that, as long as this is in the private sector, there is
still an incentive to bring new drugs on the market? However not
in a way that jeopardizes access to affordable drugs for
Canadians.
That should be a decision we make. However, the Minister of
Industry comes before the House and says, “Tough luck. Forget
it. You no longer have an option”. As an elected government we
no longer have an option. We have no choice because the WTO is
forcing us to do this.
One reason why every member of the New Democratic caucus marched
in the streets of Quebec City against that FTAA agenda was
because we believe in democracy. The agenda of the FTAA, the WTO
and GATT is an assault on that democracy. This bill is an
example of that.
Instead of moving forward with this legislation, which we
vigorously oppose as New Democrats, I call on the government to
take a strong stand at the WTO and in the negotiations on the
FTAA for affordable accessible drugs for people who are suffering
from HIV-AIDS and other life-threatening diseases.
Recently, Médecins Sans Frontières called on the minister of
trade not to bow to pressure from pharmaceutical drug companies
to further strengthen drug patents. John Foster from the
North-South Institute said “It's is absolutely tragic that the
minister of trade has absolutely no position on this issue”, the
issue of access to affordable pharmaceutical drugs in Brazil. He
went on to say “although from prior positions we believe he goes
along with United States, drug companies and those in favour of
even firmer patent laws”.
We call on the government to stand up for democracy and
affordable drugs. Not extend even further the patent protections
that are afforded to pharmaceutical drug companies, but recognize
that they have already done very well under this legislation.
They say they need resources for development of new drugs, yet
the reality is that these same drug manufacturers spend twice as
much money on marketing their drugs, on pushing their drugs, as
they do on research and development.
1600
All hon. members have to do to see this is open the Medical
Post or any other major medical journal. Our spokesperson on
health has pointed out the absolutely obscene amounts of money
that are spent by these companies in marketing drugs.
We also know that we are seeing more and more corporate
influence in post-secondary education and universities. Recently
a university professor who challenged some elements of the safety
of Prozac had his offer of employment at a university in Ontario
summarily withdrawn because one of the pharmaceutical companies
that funds the university objected vigorously.
Corporate influence is very dangerous in post-secondary
education. Corporate influence on this Liberal government is
growing and is stronger than ever before.
Once again, we as New Democrats say no to Bill S-17 and yes to
affordable drugs for all Canadians.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
want to thank the member for Burnaby—Douglas for a passionate
speech and a speech that I know comes from the heart. As a
veteran in this place, he has seen this debate come and go
through many incarnations.
The member pointed out some things that took place before I came
to the House of Commons. One is the unbelievable reversal in and
around 1992 and 1993 when the Tory government brought in Bill
C-91. I remember it well. There was outrage, a hue and cry, and
activists were taking to the streets over Bill C-91. The Liberal
Party, at that time in opposition and running for government,
condemned Bill C-91. It actively hammered away at the ideas that
Bill C-91 would jack up and spiral and escalate drug prices. The
Liberals said it would limit the ability of generic drug
companies to put necessary drugs into the hands of Canadians at
less cost.
I even remember when the member of parliament for Winnipeg North
Centre at that time, David Walker, the candidate I ran against,
toured a task force on Bill C-91 right around the country. In
fact, on the behalf of some people there was great hope and
optimism when the Liberal government took power that this task
force would come back with some relief, some hope, some optimism,
and that we would be able to get out from under this millstone of
this lengthy patent protection.
However, the results of that touring task force, chaired by the
member for Winnipeg North Centre at the time, were that the
members came back and said there was nothing we could do, that we
had traded away our ability to have a domestic pharmaceutical
policy and even our ability to look after the interests of
Canadians before the interests of multinational drug companies.
Frankly I would like to hear more recollections from the member
for Burnaby—Douglas in regard to exactly what transpired in that
period of time. I would like the member for Burnaby—Douglas to
explain what he thinks the Liberals' thought process was to
enable them to do such a dramatic flip-flop.
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, certainly I appreciate
the comments and the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg
Centre, who has been in the forefront of the struggle in the
House, and indeed in his previous life, for affordable,
accessible drugs for Canadians.
I would not for a minute suggest that the flip-flop of the
Liberals from their position in 1987 on Bill C-22 and from their
position in 1992 on Bill C-91 had anything to do with the massive
amount of money that they get every year from pharmaceutical drug
companies as donations to the Liberal Party of Canada. Of course
not. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. I know that the
Bloc position has absolutely nothing to do with that either. J'en
suis certain.
I do want to take advantage of the opportunity that has been
afforded to me by the member for Winnipeg Centre to share with
the House some of the statements that were made by the Minister
of Industry, then a member from Newfoundland and Labrador. On
November 16, 1992, the Minister of Industry spoke in the House,
then in opposition of course, on Bill C-91.
1605
He said we have lower health care costs in Canada on a per
capita basis than they do in the United States largely because of
our prescription drug program, which this government wants to do
away with. What are we to conclude from that other than that the
government wants to increase the cost of health care in Canada?
It will do that at the expense of the taxpaying public and at the
expense of the provincial governments because provincial
governments in many cases will buy, through their drug plans,
significant quantities of these same pharmaceutical drugs.
The Minister of Industry went on to read from a text that talked
about the burden of changing patent legislation. He said
“Extending the patent life of drugs is likely to cost consumers
immediately and also add to the burden on the government health
plans, which are already under economic pressure. Compared with
hospital and doctors' bills, prescription drugs are a relatively
small though rapidly growing expense”.
The member pointed out that even in the United States people
were lauding Canada's generic drug system, saying “However, here
in Canada the government wants to do away with it”.
I would note, and my colleague from Regina pointed this out a
few minutes ago, that the cost of just this one amendment to Bill
S-17 will be over $200 million to Canadian taxpayers, both
through pharmaceutical drug plans and of course directly for
those who are not covered.
Why is it that we are giving a $200 million gift to
pharmaceutical drug companies in this country? There is
absolutely no excuse whatsoever for that. For that reason as
well, we as New Democrats strongly oppose this legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want to
clarify a couple of things for the benefit of those who are
following this debate.
In my view, the hon. member just made a very simplistic speech
that borders on demagoguery for a number of reasons. His
position can be summarized as follows: if a private company in
which individuals invest does research and makes a discovery,
the next day anyone should be allowed to copy this discovery.
Basically, companies are expected to discover drugs and develop
new products in a philanthropic fashion. That pretty much sums
up the NDP's position.
I am glad that the hon. member mentioned AIDS. I will tell him
about 3TC, a medication he knows a great deal about, which was
discovered by BioChem Pharma, precisely in an environment that
provided some protection to intellectual property. A drug must
be discovered before it can be made accessible. And for it to be
discovered, we must invest in research and development.
Under the hon. member's model, the state must engage in research
and development so that everything will be fine. I doubt it. It
is a very good thing in an industry to have motivated people who
are knowledgeable in their field doing research in partnership
with health care and educational institutions and discovering
new products. Naturally, some are motivated by profit, but so
what? It just makes them spend even more time and energy on
research. What we are doing is providing some protection to
these people for a while.
If the protection is reduced or the protection period shortened,
it will not result in cheaper prices for drugs, on the contrary.
The less time these companies have to recover their investment,
the more they will charge for their products.
The solutions proposed by the NDP would result in drug prices
that would be even higher than they are now. I hope that the
hon. member does not really believe what he said.
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Bloc member will
take another look at history, because he totally lacks any
historical perspective on this issue.
Before the Patent Act of 1987, pharmaceutical companies were
making huge profits. They had one of the highest levels of
profits among Canadian industries. In the meantime, because of
the compulsory licensing program set up in 1969, under a Liberal
government I must add, drugs were quite affordable, especially
for the poor.
The suggestion that we cannot have at the same time drugs being
sold at a reasonable price and large pharmaceuticals ringing in
huge profits is patently false.
We, in the NDP, do not agree with the Bloc members that we have
to focus on the profits of the pharmaceutical companies.
It may be their objective but that is not a very social
democratic position for the Bloc to be taking.
1610
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I as well listened to the
Minister of Industry's speech, the general drift of which was
that we should just let Bill S-17 pass and there would be ample
opportunity in the future for us to revisit the whole idea of
lengthy patent protection and some sort of domestic
pharmaceutical policy.
Does the member for Burnaby—Douglas believe that we still have
the domestic ability to negotiate these things or have trade
agreements limited our ability to have a domestic policy in that
regard?
Mr. Svend Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that
we have ceded much of our sovereignty already. Surely before we
succeed in dismantling democracy and sovereignty in Canada, we
have to stand up and fight back and say no to the WTO forcing
this kind of change on Canadians in our pharmaceutical drug
policies. Unless we say no now there will be no opportunity to
change this in the future.
Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to say a few words on Bill S-17. It is an
interesting day in the House as we see the debate unfold.
A lot of people across the country think that when one is in
government one agrees with certain things but when the shoe is on
the other foot one always objects to whatever government does. In
a couple of cases here, that is not factual.
After listening to the debate from our friends in the NDP, I
would say that it is quite clear that they stand where they
always did on the issue. I will be making it quite clear that in
my party we stand where we have always stood on the issue. In
this case, we support the bill, as we did when the original bills
were introduced by the Tory government and, as has been pointed
out a number of times today, objected to strenuously by the then
opposition party, which is now the governing party. It is
amazing how the tide turns.
I did not think I would be supporting my friend and colleague,
the minister of trade and industry. It is very difficult to do
in light of several issues about which we thoroughly disagree.
However, my party does support him on this issue because the bill
itself was a Tory initiative.
I will explain to my friends from the NDP why we support it and
I think by the time I am finished they will also perhaps agree
with us and support the bill.
However, it is interesting to note that the government of today
was against the original bills, Bill C-91 and Bill C-22, when
they were introduced in 1987 and 1992. The more interesting
parts of all of this are some of the comments made by those who
are now government members. Some of the people who voted against
those bills, by the way, were the present Deputy Prime Minister
and present government House leader.
In 1992 during the debate on Bill C-22, the minister of industry
and trade, who is sponsoring this bill, said “It is
inconceivable to me that parliament finds it necessary yet again
to deal with yet another measure proposed by the government
because it is bound and chained to some ideological dictate which
says this kind of patent act is necessary”.
I am sure he was reading from a prepared speech when he said
that. However, at the time he was against the very bill which he
is now proposing.
Here is another interesting quote from him, which leads into
what I have to say. He said:
The citizens will need more than generic drugs to recover from
the festering wounds which are about to be inflicted on the
exposed ankles of Canada's poorest citizens when the Minister
sinks his teeth in past the bone, into the marrow and sucks the
life's blood out of Canada's poorest citizens with Bill C-22.
Those are strange and interesting words, which came from the
present Minister of Industry.
1615
People are allowed to change their minds. People see the light
and become converted. The minister said today that he had been
concerned about the increase in drug prices at the time, but they
did not happen. He said indirectly that Prime Minister Mulroney
had been right to bring in such a bill. Just a short while ago,
as has been pointed out today, the minister said that Prime
Minister Mulroney was right about free trade.
It will be interesting to see over the next while how many
things the minister agrees with that he fought so hard against as
a rat packer before his party became the government.
The NDP has expressed a concern, of which all of us are
conscious, that the bill might lead to increased drug prices for
people with major illnesses, many of whom cannot afford the drugs
they need.
One of the most memorable occasions for me during the last
campaign, and I am sure members on all sides of the House
remember talking to people affected by the cost of drugs, was
meeting a gentleman who had just been diagnosed with Alzheimers
and whose wife was trying to cope with it. A drug had been
prescribed to retard the advancement of the disease, a drug
called Aricept I believe. The drug was not covered by medicare
and the family had to pay the extremely high cost themselves.
That meant other pleasures of life had to be sacrificed,
including a little car that enabled them to get back and forth to
the cabin. They had to sell the car to pay for the drugs. That
is not the way it should be in Canada.
Can we blame pharmaceutical companies for that? The answer is
no. We blame governments for that, because if an effective drug
is brought on the market, tested and approved, the government
should immediately sponsor it under medicare.
The NDP has expressed major concerns about drug companies
getting rich and the impact of drug costs on poor people.
However one important element has not been raised: Those who
need drugs would not have them if somebody did not put the time,
effort and money into their development.
Let us look at cancer. Very few of us in the House are not
affected, directly or indirectly, by that dreaded disease. Will
we ever find the cure for it? The answer is that we are hopeful.
Will we find the cure for AIDS and other dreaded diseases
worldwide? Luckily our country is not affected to the same
degree as other countries but certainly we are affected by it.
Will cures be found for dreaded diseases? They will be found in
only one way: If somebody puts the dedicated research into
coming up with a drug that will kill or retard the growth of the
agents causing those diseases. That can only be done, as I said,
by time, concentration and funding.
My colleagues to my right, ideologically to my left, are very
supportive of the arts.
1620
I would ask them about the art industry. What if a recording
artist made a big hit which took a lot of time, involvement,
practice and rehearsals? What would the hon. members think if
other performers, who were not as dedicated or bright or could
not put together that one great hit, knew it was coming on the
market, copied it and pirated the copies around the country? How
would it affect the person who put the time and dedication into
developing the product?
Drugs are not unlike that. Our hope of combating the major
illnesses that affect people across the country may lie in the
hope that a pharmaceutical company will develop a cure.
We could say governments should be the ones doing that and
pumping money into research. I certainly would not disagree.
However, if governments were the ones responsible for doing
research, I would question whether the work could be done.
Government cannot be as efficient as the private sector. That
has been proved over and over.
My concern lies with the people across the country who are faced
every day with having to buy drugs. I point to the government
opposite and say that should be its main concern. It has the
mechanism to alleviate the costs shoved upon people for drugs to
treat illnesses. In a lot of cases there are drug assistance
programs to do just that. There are always those who fall
between the cracks but a smart, sharp government could deal with
such cases if it had any vision.
If the people who put their time, effort and money into
developing the needed drugs are not given the freedom and
protection to do so, they will not do it. They are not in the
business of trying to make a breakthrough only to have it taken
away from them. When another company immediately starts making
generic drugs or starts to stockpile so it can wipe out the
company that developed the original drug, that is not fair
competition.
The fallout can be handled by government. We could have the
best of both worlds if we had a government with brains and
vision. Protection and help can be given to those who develop
the drugs we need, but assistance can also be given to those who
rely on them and cannot afford to pay for them.
It is interesting to see the government trying to solicit
support for a bill it was once so much against. I know the NDP,
even if it does not agree with us, is saying what it has always
said. It has not changed its opinion because the stripe of
government has changed.
We are saying the same thing we have said and the same thing the
Bloc is saying. I agree totally with its last speaker. The
Alliance is also saying that if we are to produce the drugs
needed to combat the concerns the NDP talks about, freedom and
protection must be given to companies that put the time and
effort into developing the cures that are so badly needed.
The government, however, has switched back and forth, which
shows that its concern is not for people or companies in Canada.
Its concern is for itself. That has become more and more
evident.
1625
As we debate the bill further we will all have more to say on
it. However we stand on the principles we announced when the
original bills were brought in. We think this protection must be
provided. Hopefully government will address the other side of
the concern.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to make a slight comment. I
enjoyed the member opposite's speech. I think on this side we
all agree that if research in pharmaceuticals is to go ahead then
there has to be some sort of profit incentive for that research.
I would also like to make the observation that the generic drug
producers, the people who sell generic brand drugs, do not do
research. One of the ironies of the whole situation is that the
generic manufacturers of drugs produce drugs at low cost and
these low cost drugs are consumed in great quantities. One of
the ironies in the situation that has always struck me is the
fact that the easy accessibility, for example, to new antibiotics
has created a situation where we have growing and more rapid
resistance to antibiotics.
We have a very ironic situation where the more we make drugs
available cheaply through generic manufacturers, the harder the
pharmaceutical companies have to work to design new drugs. We
have a very, very difficult situation.
I do not know what the solution is. I do know that we certainly
have to put incentives in place as best we can to make sure that
those who are designing new drugs have the incentives to do so. I
am one who believes that I would like to see government
involvement, but I really do think this is a private sector
initiative that needs to be encouraged.
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member
that there are concerns in this area. Because of the amount of
drugs we see, the cost of drugs, the effect of the cost on our
population and the need to develop drugs to combat major diseases
such as cancer and AIDS, perhaps it is time for somebody, whether
it be the Minister of Industry, who is by the way a constituent
of mine, or someone else, to take a hard look at the whole drug
operation.
It is difficult perhaps for people to think that after they put
time and effort into developing a product others will duplicate
it quickly and sell it at a lower cost. If people do the
original work developing something, whether drugs, cars or
records, as I talked about, and others are allowed to copy,
reproduce and make money on those efforts, the original investors
will get fed up with it.
What happens if new drugs are not developed? That is the
question we must face. How can we create an environment in which
everyone benefits? It can be done. It takes leadership,
co-ordination and proper legislation. If protective measures are
not there for the forerunners in all this I am not sure what the
result will be. We will have a lot more concerns than just the
cost of drugs.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
would the member for St. John's West agree that the goal, for all
the moral and ethical reasons one could cite, must be to get
drugs into the hands of the people who need them most at the most
affordable cost? Would he not agree that our single and most
primary objective as legislators is to put in place a legislative
slate that would enable drugs to get into the hands of people who
need them at the cheapest possible cost?
That raises the question. We have heard the argument in
speeches today and on other occasions that even prior to the
existing intellectual property patent protection the drug
companies were making good, vast, healthy profits. What we are
seeing now is their relentless effort to increase profits more
and more.
1630
We heard earlier that not all their costs go into research. Over
half their costs go into advertising, glossy promotions, TV ads,
et cetera, trying to promote their products. We cannot argue
that the costs of all drug companies are in research and
development.
What does the hon. member think is a reasonable patent
protection period of time? Would 10 years be adequate? Have we
ever studied this issue in an objective manner? Where is the
market research to say or where is the empirical evidence to
prove that drug companies need 20 years and now 25 years?
Would he change his mind if we could illustrate to him that if
we gave a five to seven year patent protection drug companies
could make a good profit? Would he not agree that generic drug
companies should be able to take over and get more drugs into the
hands of people who need them?
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, there are probably three
points tied up in the overall question. In asking the question,
I think the hon. member agrees with me that it is time we looked
at the whole issue. Perhaps there will be some variation in
time. However the other side is that generic groups, not only
generic drugs but all generic groups, would have nothing to copy
if somebody did not do the original work and put the money up
front.
The change being asked for in Bill S-17 is because of compliance
with World Trade Organization rulings. NDP members are against
free trade. They are against the private sector. They are for
getting money into the hands of average people and making sure
their costs are minimal.
We also agree with the last one point, but unlike the NDP we
know we cannot help people have access to cheap drugs, receive
the social services they need and obtain the health care
assistance they need unless somebody generates the dollars which
enable us to reinvest in that. We could only do that through
trade, commerce and investment by the private sector.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the Conservative member whom I respect
very much in terms of his honest contribution to this debate and
other issues. However we are obviously at fundamental odds
philosophically and politically.
There is no question that on the one hand we are dealing with a
party determined to seek progress through commercial interests
and through aiding and abetting private needs in society, versus
a philosophy epitomized by the NDP of putting the public good
first.
How could the hon. colleague justify his pursuit of private
control and international control over something as fundamental
as access to necessary medications when many people are being
left behind and not served by that kind of shortsighted policy?
Mr. Loyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I
agree with the hon. member's opening remarks that we are
fundamentally different in many of our views. I suggest there is
no one in the House perhaps more concerned about the plight of
average citizens, of which I am one, than I am. As I mentioned
earlier, I also know full well that to be able to assist those
who need assistance somebody has to pay the bills. People say
that government should do it, but from where does government get
the money?
If there are people who because of illness, disabilities or
whatever cannot contribute to the public coffers, it is our duty
to make sure they get every benefit they deserve. The dollars
needed to do that have to be generated by someone, and that
someone has to be the private sector.
If government is conscious of what is happening we can have, as
I said earlier, the best of both worlds.
1635
The people who need help should get it, but those who are
producers will be protected in a proper legislative framework.
Also the people will be protected from any rip-offs. I think we
have to be very conscious of that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Before resuming debate,
it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House
that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
is as follows: the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Gun
Control.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this important debate today on Bill S-17.
I listened carefully to the member for St. John's West who just
spoke on behalf of the Conservative Party.
It is important for people who are listening at home, as well as
members in the Chamber, to know that we are talking about part of
a bill which would extend patent protection from 17 years to 20
years. It is not a question of a company coming up with a new
discovery for AIDS, for example, and the next day a knock-off of
the drug is put on the market by a company that specializes in
generic drugs.
We were talking of 17 years worth of patent protection. Now the
WTO has come along and said that Canada is not in compliance with
that. Therefore, in order to comply with the WTO, we have to add
another three years to make it a full 20 year patent protection
act.
I listened to the Minister of Industry say that this would only
involve about 30 patents, but he neglected to say those were
worth an estimated $200 million that will be absorbed by Canadian
consumers as they purchase higher priced drugs.
The WTO found Canada not to be in compliance with the idea that
a generic drug company could manufacture and stockpile drugs so
that on the day the patent protection ended they could have their
products on the market and ready to go. This too has been termed
illegal by the WTO and is dealt with in the bill. We are rushing
against the clock to come up with a bill by August 12 of this
year to comply with yet another adverse ruling by the World Trade
Organization against the Government of Canada.
In 1987 a number of significant changes were made to the Patent
Act. Five years were added in 1992 when the infamous Bill C-91
passed in the House of Commons. A number of concerns were
expressed at that time by provincial governments about the impact
Bill C-91 would have on prescription drug prices.
Shortly after that bill became law I had the privilege of
working in the department of health in the province of
Saskatchewan, the province which pioneered prescription drug cost
and benefits for its people. The government at the time felt
that it had no alternative except essentially to gut that
legislation as a result of the changes brought about by Bill
C-91.
We have seen the costs of prescription drugs increase by several
hundred percentage points over the last number of years. They
have increased to the point that now, as the member for
Burnaby—Douglas noted in his remarks, it is the single biggest
expense on a line item as to what any province pays for its
medicare system. It is far more than doctors, far more than the
cost of hospitals. Prescription drugs now top the list.
That was not the way that it used to be, but that was then and
now is now. Some members have done some serious somersaults on
this issue over the past 10 years. I will get into that in a few
minutes.
1640
Predictions are that prescription drug prices will soar even
higher under trade pacts like the one being negotiated now and
scheduled to come into effect in 2005.
From heart drugs to chemotherapy, essential medications
represent the fastest growing expense in health care today. In
the past 15 years, from roughly 1987, Canada's prescription drug
bill has jumped by 344% according to a study last month by the
Canadian Institution for Health Information.
There are many reasons for the increase. As the member for St.
John's West indicated, new drugs have been approved for
everything from arthritis to Alzheimer's, adding to the total
drug bill. We recognize demographically that an aging population
is demanding and requiring more essential medication.
International trade deals like the agreement on trade, related
aspects of intellectual property rights, or TRIPS as it is known
by its acronym, have strengthened the patent protection enjoyed
by big name pharmaceutical companies.
The TRIPS deal has allowed these companies to keep their prices
high for the 20 year lifespan of drug patents. It has helped
pharmaceutical companies net unbelievably high profits on
billions of dollars on research into new medicine. The argument
goes that without the profits derived from those patents
innovative medicine would languish. I do not think there can be
much doubt.
Scott Sinclair, a trade policy analyst, put it well when he said
that there was no coincidence escalating drug costs occurred
during this period of excessive patent protection. He went on to
add that 20 years was a very long time, particularly when we are
talking about access to essential medications.
Other comments were made by Médecins Sans Frontières and Dr.
John Foster, a principal researcher at the North-South Institute.
They are also very concerned and urge the countries in the free
trade area of the Americas agreement not to bow to pressure from
pharmaceutical companies to strengthen further drug patents.
According to some of those opposed, pharmaceutical companies are
not interested in making drugs that help poor people, and most of
the people in the world are poor. They say that it is a matter
of political will that we can put solutions in place but
political will is very weak from what they have seen. We in this
caucus would certainly agree with that.
There are members on the government side who were on the
opposition benches 10 or 15 years ago. It is a veritable who's
who. In some of the time I have remaining I would like to make
some reference to them. The Minister of Industry, as member for
Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, talked about the changes that were
brought in by the Mulroney government. He asked this question:
Are they really serious when they say that the sick, the poor,
the elderly, and those who live on fixed incomes have to
subsidize R and D in Canada?
Are they really serious when they say that the only way the
universities, the post-secondary institutions, the centres of
excellence of Canada will have any money for R and D is if we
take it out of the pockets of Canada's senior citizens and
Canada's sick.
Those were comments of the Minister of Industry, the minister
who is piloting the legislation through the House of Commons.
An hon. member: What a disappointment.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Indeed, what a disappointment. The
current government House leader, the member for
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, read into the record on November
16, 1992, a stack of postcards.
He guesstimated them to be four or five inches thick. One
postcard read:
“On June 23, 1992, the federal government introduced Bill C-91,
legislation intended to extend retroactively to December 20,
1991, patent protection for brand name pharmaceuticals and
eliminate Canada's system of compulsory licensing. This
legislation will result in significantly higher drug prices in
Canada and its retroactive provisions will cripple the Canadian
owned generic pharmaceutical industry”. This is not what I
said. This is what hundreds and hundreds of Canadians have said.
1645
He used to care. That was then and now it is another day.
The current Solicitor General of Canada, the member for
Cardigan, also entered the debate at that time and quoted from
Green Shield. He said:
The average cost of a prescription claim has risen at a rate in
excess of 11% compounded annually for the period 1987 through
1991, well above the CPI rate.
The Minister for Veterans Affairs and Western Economic
Diversification, the member for Saint Boniface, said:
When I talk about Canadians who will need assistance with drugs
and medicine, I am of course referring mainly to seniors. Except
in rare cases, the need for medical attention tends to increase
as we grow older. I suggest it is unfortunate that legislation
such as this be allowed to cause hardship to the elderly.
There are those who are sick often, sometimes over the course of
several years, and who will require medicine during most of their
lives. Costs are already prohibitive. We suggest, and there is
evidence to back this up, that they will only go higher with this
legislation. I find it is absolutely irresponsible on the part
of this government to go ahead with this
He wound up his diatribe against Bill C-91 by saying:
The chief government whip, the member for Ottawa West said:
I think it is important to reiterate what this bill is all about.
It is not about extending patent protection for pharmaceutical
drugs. It is about completely eliminating, for the entire
20-year patent period, the right of any generic manufacturer to
produce a drug that is under patent and to compete with that drug
on the open marketplace.
What is the impact going to be? The impact for Canadians is
going to be higher drug costs. Right now, generic drugs being
produced while the original is still under patent cost 53 per
cent of the cost of the patent drug. That is a saving of 47 per
cent for Canadian consumers.
What we have in Canada is branch plant drug companies. We do
not have basic research. We do not have the kind of foundation
that this country wants to see in this industry that is the most
profitable in our economy and it does not deserve the kind of
protection that this Conservative government is now proposing to
offer.
This bill would limit competition. It says that for 20 years
one does not have to compete against anyone else.
She concluded by saying:
If NAFTA tells us what we can and we cannot do to provide health
care for Canadian citizens then we do not need NAFTA. That is
just one more reason to vote against it.
There was one more dissertation that I would like to acknowledge
and that is the member for Kenora—Rainy River currently the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The minister said in December 1992:
It is a fact that Americans pay 62% more for prescription drugs
than the average Canadian citizen. If we were to follow that
through, that means by the year 2010 we will be on a level
playing field with the Americans. Our drugs should rise
proportionately to the point where we will be equal to the
Americans as far as the price that we pay for drugs.
The question has to be asked in this place. That is why we are
debating this, not because we are the loyal opposition and we
disagree with the legislation. It is our responsibility, as
members of parliament, to put the facts before the Canadian
people so that they can decide whether the legislation that the
government is presenting today is a good piece of legislation for
the good of all Canadians.
1650
We have the minister who negotiated the free trade agreement and
is now the Minister of Industry negotiating on our behalf another
agreement, the legislation we are talking about. His negotiating
skills are what we are talking about today. The minister of
Indian affairs also said:
—Canadians, as consumers, are going to give up roughly $4
billion out of their pockets for higher drug prices because now
what we are talking about is going from the Canadian system to a
level playing field similar to the American system.
We can see from that lineup that this is one reason we are very
concerned about it. The flip-flop by the Liberals on this issue
is absolutely breathtaking.
In Canada today we spend more on drugs than on doctors.
Prescription drug costs are the fastest growing cost of health
care forcing provincial and territorial governments to pay more,
causing fewer families to be able to afford the drugs they need.
I had the opportunity on Saturday night to hear from a well
known physician in the Saskatoon community, Dr. John Bury,
who was talking about
the impact that prescription drugs have had. He recalled the drug
benefit plan the Saskatchewan government put in place many years
ago that worked so well for such a long time. Essentially it was
eroded because the government in the early to mid-1990s could not
afford to continue as drug prices increased by the 344% that I
talked about earlier. His point now is that there are people in
Saskatoon who are unable to afford to purchase drugs. Drug
prices have risen so much they are now out of the reach of many
ordinary and poorer Canadians.
A personal friend of mine is in hospital recovering from a
stroke brought about, almost certainly, by the fact that she
neglected to have her blood thinners upgraded or the prescription
renewed. In some ways we are putting additional costs on our
medical health system by examples such as that.
In a country with $100 billion to spend on tax cuts, one in ten
Canadians do not fill prescriptions because he or she cannot
afford it. Since 1990 drug prices have risen by 87%. If drug
prices are not brought down increased health funding will not go
to patients but to multinational pharmaceutical companies.
Public health care needs to get its fast rising costs under
control. Families need lower prices to afford the drugs they
need. However that is not what the government has been offering.
It chose to break promises it made as recently as 1997, let alone
in 1987 and 1992 in its red book on a national pharmacare plan.
It chose to ignore new ideas for health care like a national bulk
buying project that would bring costs down. I note that
Australia has such a program.
1655
It chose to keep Mr. Mulroney's drug patent law, Bill C-91,
which provides for longer patents. When in opposition, the
Liberals promised, as I have tried to point out in my speech, to
rescind the law. The Liberal government chose to support more
powerful trade agreements even though these agreements make it
harder for Canada to use cheaper generic drugs. It chose to
accept one trade ruling that made it harder for Canada to use
cheaper drugs.
All of this leads me to recall the old Irish proverb, and we
have seen it time and again over the years since Confederation,
“You can vote for whichever party you want but the government
always wins”.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for Palliser for a very good speech. I learned
a great deal, and I know that all who are listening here and at
home probably benefited as well from the historical references
that the hon. member made about what those who currently sit on
the government side felt about Bill C-91, the drug patent
protection act, when they were in opposition.
I would like to point out that I come from the third poorest
riding in all of Canada. I know personally of stories brought to
my office of senior citizens who actually cut their pills in half
to make their medications last longer because they cannot afford,
on a month to month basis, the drug prices for the regime their
doctors have given them.
Given that we know this to be true, and it is not the first time
it has been raised in the House, one would think that the bill we
would be debating today would be some kind of intervention by the
government to advocate on behalf of those people and to put in
place changes in the system that might champion this issue. One
would think the government would advocate on behalf of those
seniors who are having such a difficult time. Rather, we are
seeing what has been called the greatest corporate giveaway in
Canadian history, Bill C-91, augmented, added to and made even
worse by Bill S-17.
Would the hon. member give us some indication as to whether he
has heard stories of senior citizens struggling to cope with the
costs of their monthly medications? Would he not agree that
there is something completely ass-backwards having us debate a
bill that will actually make the situation worse rather than
having a proactive government intervene on behalf of Canadians to
try to remedy this terrible situation of rising drug prices?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question, and yes, I think all of us in the House could
probably point to examples of people who have diluted their
prescription drugs in order to make them stretch a little
further. Sometimes that can complicate their health and
well-being. Instead of helping, it often adds to their
difficulties.
What my colleague is talking about is the need for a concerted
effort by government to campaign for cheaper medicine. Some
countries, and the name of Brazil has come up a couple of times
today, have basically thumbed their noses at the multinational
drug companies and have said that they will do something, that
they will provide drugs for people who are victims of HIV and
AIDS. The South African example has been instructive on that
topic as well. These are the sorts of things and the kind of
leadership we are looking for.
In the case of South Africa, the decision of the drug companies
to drop the case amounted to a huge victory for millions of
people who are suffering from treatable diseases. It is all well
and good to talk about being on the leading edge and coming up
with drugs that will cure very nasty and lethal diseases.
However, if the vast majority of people in the world can in no
way afford to buy those kinds of drugs, what does that say about
a public health care system such as the one that has been
pioneered in Canada over the years? It was pioneered first by
the CCF and then by the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan and
extended to the rest of Canada.
1700
I think Canadians are desperately looking for leadership in this
area and the drug patent protection of 20 years is not the way in
which most of them want to see the country continue.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad for the opportunity to participate in the
debate. I have patiently waited for my turn so I could have my
say and join with my colleagues in expressing our absolute anger
and opposition to Bill S-17.
It has been fascinating listening to the debate. Although I
have enormous respect for some of my colleagues in the
Conservative Party, including the hon. member for St. John's West
who spoke this afternoon, I want to put on record that we are
vehemently and fundamentally opposed to the kind of logic and
reasoning that has come from the Conservative benches and in fact
from all sides in the House.
As I sat and listened to the hon. member for St. John's West and
heard some of the heckling from the Liberal benches across the
way, I tried to think of what was most disturbing about the
debate. What I found most disturbing about the debate was the
question of whether or not the public good was being served.
We are talking about the issue that when private gain surpasses
the public good then government must act. The responsibility of
government is to ensure that Canadians, regardless of their
income, where they live or their family circumstances, have
access to basic public services. One of those basic services is
health care. What is very essential and very key in terms of
health services is access to medications that people need when
they are sick. We are talking about medicare. We are talking
about universally accessible, publicly administered health care
and the threats that are causing the system to be eroded and to
come undone.
I think about the debates we have had in the House over the last
while on the problems facing medicare. I have heard the Alliance
and sometimes the Conservatives talk about questioning the wisdom
of our public system and that maybe we should look at some
private elements. I have also heard them say that perhaps we
need to bite the bullet and go to two tier health care. Does
anyone know what they did not address in that debate? They
refused to address the fastest growing cost of our health care
system and the fact that it falls almost entirely within the
private sector.
If we were truly concerned about dealing with a health care
system that is in a critical state of affairs, then we would look
at the root causes of those problems. We would look at what
causes the prices to rise beyond our abilities as a government
and as citizens to support a universally accessible health care
system. A prime example of those problems is our drug system and
the control brand name drug companies have over of our health
care system. It is these Liberals and the Conservatives before
them who have catered time and time again to every whim of those
brand name drug companies.
I have sat here and listened to the heckling from the Liberals
asking who will pay for all the new drugs, how will new
breakthroughs happen, who will make them happen, and that we need
the private sector. Yes, we need the private sector. We are not
here to say we will stamp out the private sector. We are saying
that there needs to be a balance, that the government's role must
be to ensure that drugs are available at a reasonable price so
that everybody in our society can have access to them.
As all my colleagues have said, drugs constitute the most costly
item of our health care system today. This is partly due to the
fact that it is dominated by the private sector and where the
government has abandoned the field, ignored the public good and
dropped the ball.
We are paying the price today because the government keeps
breaking its promises, flip-flopping and abandoning its
commitment to serving the public good.
1705
It is very hard to sit in this place and hear Liberals today
speak on this issue when we consider the record, what they have
told the Canadian public and what bill of goods they have sold
the people of the country.
Let us go back to before the 1993 election when the Liberals
regained power after a long time in the wilderness. Let us go
back to those debates leading up to the 1993 election when the
Brian Mulroney Conservatives brought in Bill C-91. This is again
where I have problems with the Conservatives' participation in
the House today. The root of our problems today in terms of
health care and in terms of trade organizations, unaccountable,
unelected bodies having authority over this place, was the
decision made by Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives to open up
the floodgates and allow world trade organizations and
international bodies to set the rules and brand name drug
companies to set the price.
Most of my colleagues have pointed to the Liberal rhetoric
leading up to the 1993 election. We heard all about how the
present Minister of Industry, part of the rat pack back in those
days, was champing at the bit to get after the Brian Mulroney
Conservatives for daring to bring in patent protection
legislation. We heard about some of the words he used and how
they managed to fool the public with false promises and fake
rhetoric.
Let us go over it one more time. The present Minister of
Industry, then the member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, said
on December 10, 1992:
I want to ask the member and all these members who at some time,
when they screw up their backbones and courage to do it, have to
go back and face their constituents:—
That was quite forceful and powerful rhetoric. It was a
vigorous, vehement statement and a strongly articulated position.
It was good before the election. It was good for leading up to
1993 when the Liberals were able to con the public into believing
they were on the side of truth, goodness and light and that they
would correct all the errors of the past caused by Brian Mulroney
and his Conservatives.
I was in the 1993 election. I gave up a good seat in the
provincial legislature in Manitoba to run federally and had to
face that kind of con job by the Liberals, and of course we know
the results. The Liberals swept the polls and got into office.
All of us, no matter what side we sat on, looked to the Liberals
to keep their promise to uphold their commitment to rescind Bill
C-91 and stop the tremendous hold patent protection had over drug
prices.
Well, the rest is history. I remember well that the only thing
the Liberals did was to set up a committee that would consult
with Canadians on Bill C-91. I was part of those hearings in
Winnipeg, part of a community that spoke up and said “Keep your
promise. Do not back off this very important issue because it is
fundamental to our ability as citizens to access quality health
care today”.
That charade of a consultation process went on and on. Finally
in 1997 the Liberals won another election after pulling off
another con job on Canadians by promising a national pharmacare
plan. Does any member of the House know where the national
pharmacare plan is today? I think that says it all. We returned
to the House after the 1997 election to finally get a report from
the government about the results of its consultations. I do not
need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, how it soon became apparent that
there was some discrepancy between the first report of the
industry committee and the report that finally was tabled.
We raised questions at that time about the evidence suggesting
that the minister or the minister's office had in fact seen the
draft minutes and had a role to play in ensuring that the
recommendations were more in line with this new direction of the
Liberal Party.
1710
It did not stop there. The Liberals did not stop at breaking a
promise and not rescinding Bill C-91. They went on to make a
number of regulatory changes, actually bowed to the international
trade organizations and catered to the brand name drug companies,
and extended the patent protection and the provisions for brand
name drug companies. Each time the government took a step it
made it harder and harder for provincial governments to provide
drug coverage to their citizens so they could to access the drugs
they needed to stay healthy.
We are paying the price now. As my colleagues for Palliser and
Winnipeg Centre have said over and over, many of us have had
calls and direct contact from constituents, especially seniors,
who cannot afford to fill their prescriptions or follow their
doctor's orders.
Who pays the price? The senior citizens who end up getting
sicker because they cannot afford the medicines they need and, of
course, all of us, because the senior citizens will now be in and
out of hospitals, in and out of their doctor's office and will
need to seek home care and other support. We pay the price
because of the shortsighted decision making of the government and
its absolute preoccupation with catering to multinational drug
companies.
I suppose we should not be surprised at Bill S-17, given the
whole history of broken promises, but could the government not
have at least put up a fight? Could it not have at least tried
to pursue another path instead of catering so quickly to the WTO?
The World Trade Organization made its decision on September 19,
2000. The government leaped to the pump and brought in Bill S-17
on February 20, 2001, only a few months after the WTO decision.
We know from the facts of the case that the government has many
more months left to pursue its decision. It has time to talk to
Canadians and to get support for a different path. It has until
December 2001 before it actually has to make a final decision.
The government has time to rally Canadians and to pursue some
alternatives. It has time to develop a national pharmacare plan
based on bulk buying and on the use of generic drugs. It has
time for all kinds of options if it is truly committed to serving
the public good, as opposed to catering to private gain.
Not only is the haste in which the government proceeded to
implement the WTO ruling to Bill S-17 disconcerting, but the way
in which it did it is also disconcerting. If the government were
not embarrassed and ashamed by this deed and by this obvious
breach of a commitment to the Canadian people, why did it not
bring the bill directly to the House where it could have been
debated forthwith? Instead, the government slipped the bill in
through the other place, which has now found its way here for
debate.
That kind of secrecy and speed, and that kind of failure to be
direct with the Canadian people is the obvious result of a
government that should hang its head in shame for the kinds of
actions it has taken on this fundamental element of our health
care system.
1715
There is so much that needs to be said. However, the most
important issue today is that what we are really talking about is
access, access by the Canadian people to a necessary component of
our health care system. It needs to be said over and over again
that drug costs are going through the roof, that rising
pharmaceutical costs are creating enormous difficulties for our
provincial governments and that people are feeling the squeeze
day in and day out.
The government had several opportunities to redress the
situation and bring balance to this serious matter. It had an
opportunity through the last federal-provincial meeting of
premiers in September to actually bring to fruition a plan to
ensure that the concerns of provincial governments around rising
drugs costs were dealt with and that there would be some
meaningful plan in place.
The national pharmacare plan did not make it to the final
accord. The government was not interested in using that
wonderful opportunity to advance the agenda and to pursue its
commitment to the Canadian people for a national drug plan that
would ensure equitable access for all Canadians and deal with the
incredible pressure on medicare today. The government had a
wonderful opportunity. It was not mentioned. It was not on the
table and it is not being pursued.
It would be very wrong for the government to suggest, as it
tried to do in the last election, that it did not have the
co-operation of provincial governments to pursue a national drug
plan. The fact of the matter is that there was ample willingness
on the part of many provincial governments to ensure that
collectively we would deal with one of the gravest problems
facing our health care system in recent times.
The minister of health in Manitoba was quite direct and blunt
with the federal government about the need to have the item
pursued. He was actually quoted in the press as saying, tongue
in cheek, that he would gladly give up the transfer payments the
federal government provides to provincial governments if the
federal government would look after the drug bills and take
charge in terms of the pharmaceutical pressures on our system
today. That was wishful thinking on the part of the Manitoba
minister of health, because the federal government not only
refused to take up the challenge of a national pharmacare plan,
it has not even made an attempt to bring all parties and players
together to develop a national pharmacare plan.
There are many options. There are many models with great
possibilities. My colleague, the member for Palliser, will
probably remember that it was in Saskatoon in 1998 that the
Minister of Health brought together all the players in the field,
all the experts around drug prices. They pooled their ideas and
talents in order to develop the idea of some kind of national
pharmacare plan. There were great ideas and all kinds of
studies. There is no shortage of proposals that are workable,
that would make a difference, but the government refuses to act.
The real question in all of this debate is why. Why did the
government have to jump to the pumps when it came to the WTO
ruling? Why did it break its promise in 1993 on Bill C-91? Why
did it, through the back door and different regulatory
procedures, actually augment and improve the situation facing
patent drug companies? Why in each and every case did the
government put private gain ahead of the public good?
I do not know the answer, other than to say that in every part
of the government and in every aspect of its decision making
process it caters to the private sector and pursues an agenda of
deregulation, privatization and off-loading to minimize the
barriers facing our private sector, to create an unfettered
marketplace for our multinational corporations, and to buy into
this agenda of globalization and corporate control over the
welfare and well-being of all our citizens.
1720
That is a shame. We are paying the price today. We would hope
that somehow this government would reconsider, pull Bill S-17 off
the books and get down to a serious discussion in parliament and
with the Canadian public about a national drug plan.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, beneath the rhetoric that you are hearing
today lurks a very, very serious issue. The member opposite has
asked why members of this party have changed their attitude
toward giving patent protection to drugs, why they have changed
their position in 10 years.
I can tell her why they have changed their position in 10 years.
It is that in 10 years there has been an enormous advance in
antibiotic resistant bacteria. The classic case is tuberculosis.
We now have a strain of tuberculosis out there that is resistant
to every known antibiotic but one. There is a great number of
these old diseases that have developed resistance to the drugs
that we counted upon in the past. Much of this has occurred in
the last 10 years. What is happening is that we have to, as a
government, do everything in our power to encourage private
industry or anyone else to develop new drugs to resist these
diseases that have developed resistance to the antibiotics that
we have had to date.
This is a serious problem. It is a deadly problem, Mr. Speaker.
It is a problem in the scientific and biological communities.
They regard it with great trepidation. If we do not do something
very quickly about it, if we do not develop new drugs as fast as
possible by encouraging the incentives of the marketplace, we are
going to be in a lot of trouble and some people, and I do not
want to sound overly dramatic, are going to die. We actually
have to develop new drugs and if we have to encourage
manufacturers by extending the patent protection law, then we had
better do it.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I hear the member's
question and I have heard it before in his previous questioning
of some of the speakers. Frankly, I do not quite understand the
logic. Is the member in fact saying that the only breakthroughs,
the only scientific discoveries of importance to humankind
developed in our history, are a result of commercial interests?
Mr. Pat Martin: The profit motive.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Are they the result of the
profit motive, as my colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre,
has said? I do not understand. We could spend hours listing the
kinds of improvements that have occurred in our society. I think
of the polio vaccine. These breakthroughs occurred because of a
commitment on the part of individuals to improve the condition of
humankind, not because they were in it for the money or to make a
profit.
We are not here to say that no one should ever make any money on
developing drugs and other scientific breakthroughs, but we are
saying there has to be a balance. My question for the Liberal
member is this: how much profit does a company have to make
before it is prepared to invest in improving society and
operating in the best interests of our community? How much
protection do they need in order to contribute to the welfare of
our society? That is what this debate is all about. Why do we
have to go toward more protection with every step the government
takes? How much profit do these multinational brand name drug
companies have to make?
There is another question that has to be addressed. There is a
lot of emphasis being put on the incredible investment made by
these brand name drug companies in our society and on meeting
their needs in order for us to have any breakthroughs. I do not
know if the member has read all the information on this topic,
but the fact of the matter is that the brand name drug industry
has benefited enormously from taxpayers and from government
subsidies. That industry has not taken the bulk of that
investment and used it to ensure that we have drugs on the market
available to everyone in our society regardless of where they
come from and how much money they make.
1725
In fact, we often see a lot of that public investment going
toward the development of me too drugs. We see a great deal of
that money going to advertising and promotions. We see a lot of
that money going to ensuring better benefits and salaries for
executive officers in these drug companies. We see a lot of
money going toward the consolidation of an agenda that has a
reach around the world.
What we are asking for today and what I think Canadians want is
some balance in this issue. We want to see the government take
some action to ensure that public investment goes toward the
public good.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to
follow up on the question that was asked a minute ago by the
Liberal member and I would like a comment from the member for
Winnipeg North Centre.
I was astounded in doing research on this issue to learn that
more than $350 billion U.S. in brand name pharmaceuticals is sold
around the world annually. As an aside, HIV and AIDS drugs
account for approximately $4 billion of that, a very small
percentage. I am assuming, and I know that the member who is our
health critic will undoubtedly know the answer, that there must
be a vast majority of pharmaceutical companies around the world
that would be realizing that combined total of $350 billion in
brand name pharmaceuticals.
I ask the hon. member to comment as well because in her speech
she did talk about this having been snuck in through the Senate.
Maybe it is just a coincidence, but this is the second bill that
we have had today in the House that has come in via the Senate. I
wonder if the member sees a pattern in this.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
questions from my colleague. He raises several important points.
The first point is about the amount of business that a number of
multinational brand name drug companies control and the kind of
power they exert, obviously over this government and over
citizens globally. We only have to look at the battle as
referenced by my colleague from Burnaby, the battle of the
citizens of South Africa to get access to generic drugs to deal
with the spread of HIV and AIDS and the kind of opposition they
encountered from the brand name drug companies. That kind of
power has to be stopped. That is why we have government: to
bring some balance into this whole area.
The other issue pertaining to the Senate is certainly an
important one. It surprised us on February 20 to learn that this
issue was being dealt with through the other House, the other
place, through the back door. We have a lot of questions for the
government. Why did it choose that route? Why was it not at
least direct with the Canadian people and with parliament? The
situation speaks for itself. The government must be embarrassed
by this kowtowing to the these corporate brand name drug
companies and international bodies.
Finally, it is very important to point out again how many voices
are on the other side of the issue. I want to refer very briefly
to a letter from the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, which
expresses anger over the Canadian government's capitulation to
the demands of transnational corporations and international trade
agreements instead of defending Canadian citizens.
In a letter to the Minister of Industry on March 9, the union
says:
Who would deny a pharmaceutical manufacturer a healthy profit for
an effective drug? But is that the reason legislation has been
introduced in the Senate...to extend patents from 17 to 20 years?
No.
Clearly this is not about drug company bottom lines: the
pharmaceutical manufacturers are extremely profitable.
1730
It went on to say:
Contrast this with the plight of many other older Canadians or
the working poor who must spend what little money they have on
prescription drugs. As you know, some seniors face the nightmare
of choosing between heating, eating or prescription drugs. Not
all seniors face this kind of crisis, but most report that
prescription drugs take a huge bite out of their budget at a time
in their lives when few can afford it. In fact, though many are
covered by provincial pharmacare programs, they don't cover the
first hundred or more dollars in drug purchases. Even these
seniors will be affected.
The government should listen to some of the organizations like
the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, the Canadian Teachers'
Federation, the Manitoba Society of Seniors, the Canadian
Association of Retired Persons and other groups that know what it
is like to deal with the pressures on their members and citizens
they encounter on a day to day basis. It is time for the
government to act for the public good.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to start my speech on Bill S-17 by following up on
some comments from the member for Winnipeg North Centre in answer
to questions from the member for Palliser. The member asked why
we were dealing with this bill which originated from the Senate
and why did we think the bill originated in the Senate?
There is no secret there. It is obvious why the government
chose to introduce this bill through the back door, through the
unelected Senate. It was put forward by the hon. leader of the
government in the Senate, a member from Winnipeg. It is to her
great shame and discredit that she is doing the government's
dirty work.
The government did not want to introduce this bill in the House
for fear of reprisals from Canadians and from seniors'
organizations. There is a growing and mounting movement against
this regressive step that this was the path of least resistance
for the government. It was an expedient move to introduce this
bill through the Senate so it would come up for debate without
the usual public announcement from the minister.
The Minister of Industry spoke at length on this bill earlier
today. He was quoted extensively, when he represented the
opposition, as speaking against any such move to extend patent
protection. He is now the champion for international
pharmaceutical companies to increase their profits yet again.
I would like to address another point which was very well made
by the member for Winnipeg Centre. Just how much profit is
enough profit to keep drug North companies doing the important research
work they do?
Speaker after speaker has said that the NDP does not understand
how necessary it is for drug companies to do research and should
they not be compensated for doing that research. There is no
disagreement on this side. We value the scientists who work hard
to find new cures to many ailments. We are balking because we
have never really tested the water. We have never had a debate
as to what a reasonable profit would be for these companies. How
many years of patent protection do they really need to not only
pay for their research costs, but to appreciate a reasonable
profit?
Notwithstanding the whole debate, some of us believe that this
sort of scientific pursuit should be above and beyond the realm
of the free market altogether. Perhaps we should start with that
basic premise. Some of us still believe that some things are too
important to leave up to the profit motive and to the free hand
of the marketplace. That it is somehow the be all and end all
and the only thing that would motivate people to do something as
humanitarian as finding cures for illnesses and getting necessary
drugs into the hands of people that need them most.
I believe there are a significant number of Canadians,
scientists and business people who would agree that the single
most important thing we could do for moral and ethical reasons
would be to find a way to get drugs into the hands of people who
need them without bankrupting our health care system and our
seniors who find it difficult to meet the costs of the
medications they so desperately need.
This bill further accentuates the problem of the high cost of
drugs. It makes us wonder whose side the government is on. Whose
side is it championing here?
1735
We find this inexorable link between the Liberal party and the
pharmaceutical international drug companies. It makes one wonder
whose interests it is bound to represent in the House of Commons.
Canadians hoped that they would have a champion in their
government and that someone would be there advocating on their
behalf to represent their interests in this very serious problem
that faces the nation. Yet what do we find? Rather than
legislation being introduced that might provide some relief or
some plan to reduce the cost of drugs, we are once again fighting
this decade long battle of trying to hold back the length of the
patent protection on intellectual property, so that the generic
drug companies can start to replicate these necessary drugs and
make them cheaper and more affordable so our health care system
is not crippled or hog-tied by this.
Bill S-17 builds off of Bill C-91. Bill C-91 was called the
greatest corporate giveaway in Canadian history. I remember the
challenge and the demonstrations in the streets. Canadians came
out en masse to voice their disappointment with the then Mulroney
government when it introduced Bill C-91. They were furious and
outraged. The Mulroney Tories were crazy enough to take on
senior citizens again. They did it once when they wanted to
de-index the pension and they got their wrists slapped pretty
quickly and they withdrew.
Yet, just like a kid who puts his hand on the hot element of a
stove, they chose to do it again and infuriated citizens all
across the country. They introduced another bill that would cost
them more in direct out of pocket expense than even the dastardly
plan to deindex the pension. When Bill C-91 came along, it
mobilized a whole cross generation protest movement to fight
against this thing.
I believe it was one of the key issues in the 1993 election, on
October 25, 1993, when Canadians kicked the Tories out in the
most humiliating defeat in Canadian history and reduced them to
two seats. They did this partly to voice their strong objection
to the changes proposed under Bill C-91.
When the Liberals took over in 1993, rather than do what they
promised to do and bring in a national pharmacare plan that would
relieve people from the crippling costs and spiralling out of
control drug costs, they embarked on a cross-country national
tour, a task force, and the best way to buy time. We They did
not do away with Bill C-91 or reverse its terrible impact.
The findings of the task force were the most disappointing
flip-flop in recent memory. The Liberals were elected on the
promise that they would champion the interests of Canadian people
in terms of high drug costs. What did they do? They came back,
shrugged their shoulders and said that they had studied the issue
to death. They said they had investigated it thoroughly and
heard from Canadians, but there is nothing we can do. Therefore,
the 20 year patent protection stood. In other words, there was
no relief is in site.
This was in spite of predictions from people in their own party.
Prominent Liberals of the opposition, some who are now cabinet
ministers in the Liberal government, issued dire warnings. They
said that if they went ahead with Bill C-91 and the 20 year drug
patent protection, it would cause an enormous compounding
escalation in drugs costs to ordinary Canadians. That did not
deter them one minute. That did not hold them back one iota.
I guess that is the beauty of being a Liberal. They do not see
any contradiction in that kind of flip-flop whatsoever. They
seem to hold their heads high, take a 180° turn and say the
opposite to what they were elected on in the fall of 1993.
We have quotes of prominent Liberals of what they said in the
House of Commons. Dramatic speeches were made on this issue.
Some of my favourites came from the current House leader of the
Liberal party who was absolutely passionate about this issue. He
was making the case that this kind of a drug patent protection
would be devastating to our health care system. Even then many
of us who were monitoring these things knew that the single
biggest cost to our health care system was soon to be drugs, and
that is the case now.
1740
On a chart on the wall we can see the costs of hospitals and
doctors are going up. Drug costs are skyrocketing through the
ceiling. Our worst fears have been realized. In fact the worst
fears of the hon. House leader for the government were realized.
In 1992 he said “I turn the argument right around on the
members across”, meaning the government side members. “Doing
something that will damage our health care system in Canada is
not going to make us more competitive”. That is a given. “It
is perhaps one of those things that in the long run and perhaps
even in the short run are going to make us less competitive as a
nation because it is removing from us one of those useful tools
that we have now”, meaning affordable health care and affordable
access to pharmaceutical drugs.
I appreciate those remarks and can associate them. I would have
been proud to know that individual when he that thought that way.
I am not so crazy about the point of view that seems to be
adopted by those same people across the way today.
We have a situation now where the Liberal Party and the
government of the day are being the champions and advocates for
the multinational drug companies or chief apologists for the
multinational drug companies. Whose side are they on? Canadians
are desperate for somebody to advocate on their behalf. They are
desperate to have somebody speak out loudly for them, to stand on
hind legs and if necessary oppose the WTO or at least put up a
good fight instead of kowtowing.
Every time we send one of our representatives to one of these
meetings, whether it is in Davos, Switzerland or wherever the
ministers are meeting to deal with the WTO, they always come back
the bearers of bad news. They say they thought they might be
able to do a little something or a little horse trading, but in
actual fact they could do nothing.
We as a parliament are being rendered more and more irrelevant,
because we have lost our ability to put in place a domestic drug
policy that would act on behalf of the people of Canada. We are
being told that we have traded that ability away. It is
shameless. Whoever traded away that ability, frankly has not
done a service to Canada. If our chief negotiators cannot do
anything better than that, if they cannot come back with a better
package than that, we better start looking for better
negotiators. They are clearly not representing the interests and
the points of view of Canadians very adequately.
There are certainly other prominent Liberals who spoke out over
and over again on this back in the days when Liberal members
stood up in defence of Canadians who needed relief on drug
prices.
The current solicitor general pointed out that the average cost
of a prescription claim had risen at a rate in excess of 11%
compounded annually for the period of 1987 through 1991, well
above the CPR rate. That was a good observation. I have bad
news for the current solicitor general. Even though he was
concerned back in 1991-92 about the escalating costs of drugs, he
would be surprised to learn that cumulatively from 1987 to today
the cost of drugs increased 340%. That is the single highest and
fastest growing cost in our health care system. It is out of
control. He was worried about 11% annually.
Again, rather than some plan from the Liberals on how they might
cope with this and help us deal with the crisis, all we have is
another bill, which came in through the back door through the
unelected Senate, that will compound the issue and make it even
worse. It will extend the 20 year patent protection to the
remaining 30 products which are still at 17 years.
The NDP caucus argues that even if we do accept that the private
sector has to be involved in research and development of new
drugs and that they deserve to recoup their costs and make a
reasonable profit, we argue that 10 years is more than adequate.
I challenge them to make the case as to why they need more than
10 years. I do not think the debate has been put to
legislatures. We have not debated here.
We know that prior to the free trade agreement having imposed 20
year patent protection, the pharmaceutical drug companies were
the most profitable industry sector in our economy. If people
owned shares in those companies they did well. We found it
necessary to buy into their line, and they always wanted more.
1745
There is an old adage where I come from that says capital has no
conscience. These guys have an insatiable appetite for profit.
They have an obligation to their shareholders to show the best
possible rate of return. If they can increase their profits just
by coming to government and saying they deserve and need 20 year
patent protection, and if we blindly tell them to take their 20
years and let them compound their profits yet again, we are not
doing our job in representing the interests of Canadian people.
We are yielding far too readily. We are not putting up a good
fight. We are not even putting up a good debate or a good
argument.
The 11 or 12 lonely NDP speakers in the House of Commons are the
only people we have heard today advocating on behalf of the
Canadian people. All the other parties are advocating on behalf
of multinational drug companies. Not even our domestic generic
drug industry is being represented here today. We are hearing
speaker after speaker on the government side say the poor
international drug companies do not make enough money or have the
tools they need to find cures to the illnesses we have.
Is anyone speaking for Canadians here, for senior citizens who
must cut prescriptions in half to make them stretch for the whole
month? Does anyone even care about that any more? In listening
to the speakers one would not think so. They are not advocating
on behalf of Canadians. They are advocating on behalf of drug
companies that do quite well around the world, frankly, without
gouging Canada.
Bill S-17 would go even further. It would tie our hands further
by limiting the ability of generic drug companies to ready
themselves for the day they are allowed to sell their product. It
prohibits them from producing and stockpiling new drugs so that
on day one after the 20 year patent expires they would be ready
to release them into the community and into the hands of the
people who need them.
Under Bill S-17 that would be limited and restricted, and I know
why. Although pharmaceutical companies enjoy a 20 year patent
protection a bit of a charade goes on. When the companies get
close to the 20 year deadline they modify their drug a bit and
ask for an extension. They explain that it is not the same drug
it was 19 years ago when they first developed it. They say it is
now a new and improved drug. They negotiate and are often given
another five to seven more years of holiday, of exclusive
monopoly.
Is that competition? Is that what the champions of free
competition support? I hear the Canadian Alliance Party and
people like it advocate giving one company an exclusive monopoly
for 20 years in spite of all reason and logic, in spite of all
the moral and ethical arguments associated with getting drugs
into the hands of people who need them. They are willing to turn
their backs.
They are almost as chameleon-like as the Liberals in this
regard. They are willing to change their colour all of a sudden
and say competition is good and healthy, but in this case these
companies should be given an absolute monopoly for 20 years. Let
them really rake in the dough and then maybe they will find a
cure for cancer. If their only motivation is to make money they
will not do the type of research we need them to do.
There are a lot of medical conditions for which it is not
economically viable to do research. Let us imagine an obscure
condition which is probably curable but which perhaps only
afflicts 5,000 people across the country. If profit, not the
well-being of humanity, is the sole motive no one will bother
doing the research to find a cure for that condition.
I point that out to illustrate what is fundamentally wrong with
accepting that drug companies can, will and should be driven only
by profit. That is the only interest here. There is a broader
public interest to be served than just enhancing the profits of
international drug companies.
I pointed out the inexorable link between the Liberal Party and
the international drug cartel, arguably the single most effective
and powerful lobby group in Ottawa. That is probably why we are
seeing this rammed through by the parties which benefit so
greatly from the largesse of the drug companies.
Prominent Liberals like Judy Erola did not even miss a step when
she went from being a member of parliament to being the chief
lobbyist for international drug companies. It seems that any
Liberal hack who runs out of gas in his or her political life can
find a job in the offices of the drug companies. There is a
connection there.
There is a link that borders on conflict because we are not
looking after the best interests of Canadians. We are being
coerced more and more, through powerful people, their powerful
contacts and their powerful cheque books, to look after the
interests of drug companies before we look after the interests of
senior citizens and Canadians.
1750
I find it harder and harder to sit here, and frankly I find
myself more and more disappointed that nobody in the House of
Commons has the courage to stand and advocate on behalf of
Canadians instead of the drug companies, except those in the NDP
caucus today. There will be a record of this debate. I hope
Canadians are well aware of what is going on here today as we put
the final stake through the heart of any notion of a
comprehensive plan to make drugs affordable for the Canadian
people.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments on Bill S-17. We
have similar constituencies. Our constituencies are
predominantly made up of people on modest or fixed incomes who
have a hard time keeping up with the rising drug costs they are
experiencing on a day to day basis.
I have one example and I wonder if my colleague could indicate
whether his constituents have had similar experiences. Not long
ago a woman wrote to me and indicated that the price of a heart
drug, digoxin or lanoxin, had gone from $18.30 for 120 tablets in
May 2000 to $30.67 for 120 tablets in August 2000.
That is an incredible jump for a drug that has been on the
market a long time. In this case it appears to be the result of
one pharmaceutical company being taken over by another. It
illustrates the point we have been trying to make today that this
is not about breakthrough drugs or about more public support for
scientific discoveries. It is about brand name drug companies
trying to make every penny they can off drugs that were invented
a long time ago.
I have two questions for my colleague, the member for Winnipeg
Centre. Is this the kind of experience he is hearing about in
his own constituency? What other impact is patent protection
having on the ability of ordinary citizens in our constituencies
to get access to necessary medications?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I too have had residents of
my riding come forward with horrifying stories of seemingly
arbitrary increases in drug prices. The stories pertain to
standard drugs that are commonly prescribed and have been around
a long time. Out of the blue the cost often goes from $30 to $50
for a bottle of pills.
As the member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, if
competition is to keep prices down, who will regulate the
industry to make sure a monopolizing force does not gobble up
other companies for the sole purpose of taking out the
competition? When a larger firm gobbles up its only competition
in the manufacture of a certain drug, what is to stop it from
arbitrarily increasing the price of that drug?
It hearkens back to some of the points made earlier. Without
intervention or regulatory review the free market does not serve
Canadians well in terms of the provision of health care. Some
things, frankly, are too critical and too important to be subject
to the free hands of the market.
1755
I would like to quote the member for Ottawa West when she spoke
to Bill C-91 while sitting in opposition to the Tory government.
She was trying to make the same point and maybe did it better
than I did when she was aggressively arguing against the
implementation of a 20 year drug patent period. She said:
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise to speak against the
bill. It is about completely eliminating, for the entire 20 year
patent period, the right of any generic manufacturer to produce a
drug that is under patent and to compete with that drug in the
open marketplace.
In other words the government was granting an absolute monopoly
to a certain company, ostensibly to help it make up its research
and development costs. Our party would argue far beyond that.
She went on to say:
The hon. member for Ottawa West must have had a crystal ball
because she was right. From 1987 to today there has been a 344%
increase in drug costs, far beyond the cost of expanded research
and development and far beyond any increase in the cost of
living. It is wild gluttony in terms of gouging Canadians and
the health care system for as much profit as it can possibly get.
The New Democratic Party would like to ask a question. Is there
not a moral and ethical argument that we in the House should be
searching for ways to get those necessary drugs into the hands of
Canadians who need them, and not finding ways to further pad the
pockets of the brand name drug companies that are now seeking 20
year patent protection, even on the 30 products that were left
behind 17 years before?
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I want to follow up on the very eloquent comments of my colleague
from Winnipeg Centre and to note that earlier in the debate one
Liberal member suggested that the only way we could develop
quality pharmaceutical drugs was if a healthy profit went to the
private sector to develop those drugs.
I remind the House of the pioneering work of Jonas Salk who
refused to patent the polio vaccine. He said that it would be
like patenting the sun.
When the Liberals prattle on about how we have to make sure that
the profit levels are high enough for the pharmaceutical
companies, I say that there are dedicated women and men,
scientists working in this field, who would be quite prepared to
ensure that the product of their deliberation and research goes
into the common good and does not go to contribute to corporate
profits.
My colleague from Winnipeg Centre referred to the member for
Ottawa West. I have a speech here that the member for Ottawa
West made on December 9, 1992, an eloquent and passionate
denunciation of Bill C-91. She went on about the obscene profit
levels of the pharmaceutical companies and said:
I think we have to ask who pays for these great gains? As I
said, there are billions of dollars of revenue to be gained by
the drug companies. Seniors will pay. Taxpayers will pay
through medicare. Anybody who is too poor to have a drug plan or
who works for a company that does not have a drug plan will pay.
That was the member for Ottawa West then. Where is the member
for Ottawa West today?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad we have a written
record of all the great speeches made in the old days and that
they are so easily accessible. We can remind people of what they
said those few short years ago.
I could not agree more with the member for Burnaby—Douglas. He
asked what is a healthy profit, how much was enough of a profit
for drug companies.
Members could put forward their arguments, even if we accepted
the fact that there would be private sector involvement in the
research and development of drugs. However we have never debated
what is a reasonable markup. Yes, people should be able to
recoup their research and development costs. Yes, they should be
able to make a reasonable profit, but how much is reasonable?
That debate has taken away our ability to even review it in the
House of Commons.
1800
I would argue that we have lost or have voluntarily forfeited
our ability to implement a domestic strategy that might put drugs
into the hands of Canadians a little more readily and in an
accessible way. Through the free trade agreements that were
cited back in the Bill C-91 debate, we have sent negotiators to
the table that bargained and traded away our ability to dictate
our own domestic wishes.
I feel that most Canadians are of the view expressed by the NDP
today. Most people see the common sense in doing everything we
can to be the champions and advocates of Canadians. We should
take the courageous steps necessary to make sure we can get drugs
into the hands of people who need them at an affordable price.
However, if we voluntarily go into these trade agreements with
blinders on and without any ability to dictate our own domestic
control, it is not progress. It is retrogressive.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have this opportunity to speak to Bill S-17, an act to amend
the Patent Act.
It is a pleasure for me to talk about the bill but I find it
quite unfortunate that the current government, the Liberal
government, cannot solve the problem with patent drugs here in
Canada.
It is well known that there is a problem with the health system
everywhere in the country and not only in New Brunswick. I am
sure that it is not limited to Quebec or to Ontario. It is a
problem everywhere. However, there is another problem related to
that one and it is the issue of patent drugs.
We could tell all sorts of stories about this.
Usually it is the people from poor families who are the greatest
consumers of patent drugs. Poor families do not have enough
money to feed their children properly and they often end up in
the hospital. They are the ones who consume a lot of patent drugs.
Moreover, they do not have enough money to take care of their
children's well-being, and not only their children's.
I will tell a little story. It deals with patent drugs. The
story even made me cry, and the member for Acadie—Bathurst
usually does not weep easily.
One day I received in my office a tape that was sent to me by a
man from Val Doucet, in New Brunswick. The man could neither read
nor write and he had sent me a tape on which he told me a sad
story. I took the tape and brought it home.
I sat in the living room and listened to it.
It was a sad story. It made me cry. It had to do with the
document I have here.
The man was telling me that he drew $404 a month from the Canada
pension plan and had a card to get free prescription drugs
through welfare. When his pension was increased by a few cents,
he fell into a new bracket and lost his drug card.
In the tape that he sent me, he told me that now, when he went
to bed at night, he cried in pain because he could not afford to
buy drugs. The patent drugs he needed were too expensive.
He also needed to go to the dentist but because he could not
afford that either he had blood on his pillow when he woke up
in the morning.
It is sad when people in Canada have to go through that because
they cannot afford to buy patent drugs.
I met families last week who were saying the same thing, that
drugs were too expensive and that they did not have a drug card
and could not get one.
As reported in Hansard on December 8, 1992, the government House
leader said this:
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's
debate and speak to the first motion, the first amendment to the
bill.
I congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth who so ably
defended the interests of Canadian consumers and all Canadians
who will suffer the disastrous effects of this Tory policy.
1805
The hon. members across the floor are engaged in the process of
passing a bill from the other place that they did not have the
gumption to introduce themselves. They brought it in by the back
door from over there.
In 1992, the present Liberal leader said the following, which I
shall quote because it is worthwhile:
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in today's
debate and speak to the first amendment to the bill. I
congratulate the hon. member for Dartmouth—
That person had to be a Liberal.
Today, Liberals are standing up to say “We are doing this to
save the world”. Where were they in 1992? This is shameful.
They are working along with the drug companies on drug patents in
the same way they operated with the GST.
They said that if they were in power they would do away with
the GST. Once in power, they continued it. They said that if
they were in power there would be no free trade. They now are
and we did get free trade. They said that if they were in
power they would remove the patents so the sick and the poor
could buy drugs at affordable prices. That is what they should
have done.
Well, they changed their mind and now, because they are the
government, they do not have a choice.
We have lots of stories to tell about the Liberals. We could
talk about the $35 billion they took from workers who lost their
jobs. We could talk about that too.
We could tell stories that are rather funny. We know, for
example, that one company gave $100,000 to the Liberal Party,
including $33,000 from Glaxo Wellcome, $25,000 from Merck Frosst
and $10,000 from Dupont in the same year. I understand why they
are saying today that the drug regulations should not be changed.
This reminds us of the U.S. health care system. Why is the U.S.
health care system private? For the same reasons. It is because
corporations pay politicians to keep it private and in turn get
money from them. This is what is happening here.
The Liberals do not care about people who are sick. The Liberals
do not care about people who suffer from liver disease or other
ailments. The Liberals could not care less.
It is a disgrace.
Yesterday I spent a whole day at the Bathurst
hospital. There were people, women and children, on stretchers
while on the third floor some departments were closed and beds
were empty. The situation is that bad in this country. It is a
disgrace to see such a thing in Canada, the most beautiful
country in the world. We should be ashamed to go around claiming
we have the most beautiful country in the world when sick
children spend three or four hours crying in the emergency
department. They cannot get service.
When people enter hospitals, nurses tell them “I am exhausted”.
They also told me “Sir, I am exhausted, I cannot cope with the
situation any more”. Doctors say the same thing “I worked all
weekend, all week and I am exhausted”. I have a nephew who is in
hospital in Quebec City. As soon as he came back from the United
States he was hospitalized in Quebec City. This was the third
hospital he had gone to. Overnight, we found ourselves without
any services. That is what the health care system is like in
Canada.
When the Liberals were in the opposition they boasted. They
shouted out “Vote for us, we will change everything”. They gave
us back the GST. How very kind of them.
This week, I spoke to some employers. One of them told me “The
only thing Liberals did is that they gave me their work; I
collect GST from people and every three months I have to do the
books for them. After that, they put us into debt”. Thanks a lot.
The only thing Liberals did for us is that they privatized
everything around us, even Petro-Canada last week. Liberals were
supposed to be on the left, in the centre or wherever. However, I
know where they are. They are in the Pacific and in the Atlantic
but they have forgotten to come to Canada.
1810
This is where the Liberals are because they do not care about
Canadians. They make promises but in fact they are lies. Mr.
Speaker, excuse me for using those words, but this is the truth.
This is what is really happening. This is what people in my
region and all over are saying. You are smiling for a good
reason, Mr. Speaker, you know I am right.
This is no joke.
I talked earlier about all the money the government stole from
the EI fund. I also mentioned that more than 800,000 workers are
not eligible for EI benefits and that 1.4 million children go
hungry. Can the members imagine how destitute these people are?
During the weekend, as I toured my riding, some people asked me
“Where are we going as a country? What are politicians thinking
about? Are they not supposed to stand up for us?”
The only thing we hear from right wing governments is: how can
this large company make a profit, how can this big insurance
company manage, how can we protect this business here and that
business there? But then in the throne speech the government
tells us that it wants to take care of children.
In 1989, the House passed a motion calling on the government to
eradicate child poverty in Canada by 1999. Children would no
longer go to school on an empty stomach. Nowadays, not only are
these children still hungry but they also cannot afford whatever
medication they need.
We could be considering a bill to set the price of drugs and
make them more affordable but no, we need to take care of the
large companies, those that make $100,000 donations to the
government party. Those are the people we need to protect.
I went to the United States and talked with some people who have
a private drug plan. Life can be tough for workers with a
private drug plan who end up sick in hospital.
If they do not have hospital insurance and have to sell their
house and their car and declare bankruptcy, it is no joke. Is
that what we want as Canadians? The government is doing nothing
to stop this situation.
I am afraid of free trade and I am afraid of NAFTA. I am still
afraid of the free trade area of the Americas as in the
negotiations we had in Quebec City and the way those peacefully
demonstrating were treated. Not everyone went over the perimeter
fence. People were sitting there peacefully demonstrating and
the RCMP shot them with plastic bullets.
They used tear gas on people who were fighting against the big
machine. The big machine was inside. I was proud to be in Quebec
City, to be outside the security perimeter fence with the people
who elected me. I much prefer to be with those who elected me
than to be inside the fence with the Bush gang and all the
others, with the American helicopters flying overhead. We felt
like we were not in Canada any more. This is the way we will be
run by a country called the United States.
It would be unfortunate if the government passed the bill. I
am sure that if the government took just a half an hour, not much
more, and looked back over its years in opposition in 1989, 1991
and 1992, it would say “We were pretty smart then”. We all
complained about what the Progressive Conservatives were doing.
The only problem is that the day after the election the
Liberals had a shot and it was just as if the Conservatives were
there.
[English]
Let us look after the big corporations.
[Translation]
This is what it looks like. You know what? I pray God that I
never become a government member because some magical thing
happens as soon as one is in office. It would seem that one
instantly forgets everything he or she said before and everything
that Canadians wanted.
1815
I do not deny the fact that during the election campaign the
NDP talked a lot about health care. According to the polls,
Canadians felt that health was the number one priority in Canada.
Canadians did not want to go to the hospital and find their
grandfather or grandmother in a corridor. Nor did they want to
find their children in the corridors. They wanted to find them in
a hospital bed and they wanted them to be cared for.
If we go to a veterinarian there are no dogs or cats in the
corridor because they are being treated. Humans, however, are
left in the corridors.
I spent the whole day in the hospital yesterday. I saw a woman
with a child wrapped in a blanket and everybody was just
walking by. It is shameful to have this kind of health care in
Canada. Then the government tells us that it has nothing to do
with money if we do not have a good health care system, that we
should be doing things differently.
Maybe we could do things differently. We see people take to the
hospital someone who is scheduled for surgery in three weeks,
and that person is kept in the hospital for three weeks just to
ensure he or she does not lose his or her place. Maybe it would
be less expensive to send that person home. That would be doing
things differently.
The government cannot come here and say that we must protect
companies by allowing them to sell their pills and make profits
for 20 years while another company could sell the same pills for
less.
Where is the free market the Liberals used to talk about so
much? Now they no longer support the free market because they
know they have to protect a couple of companies that will give
over $100,000 to the government for the next election. That is
what is happening.
If we look at the health care situation in Canada, hospitals are
in pretty bad shape, as are long term care facilities.
Governments send people from the hospital to a long term care
facility and there is nobody to take care of them there.
A few weeks ago I visited a long term care facility. It
reminded me of an assembly line. An elderly man and an elderly
woman were sitting there and somebody had a plate and was
feeding them as if they were animals. That is how it is now in
Canada. It is a disgrace.
This is what is happening in the country. I am not here this
evening to make things up. This is what is happening in the
country and it is a real disgrace.
Who are the people we are talking about? Us. We will
perhaps be the next ones who will need to go into a nursing home. We
will be the next ones sitting in a hospital waiting for care. We
will be the ones asking where the nurse is. The poor nurse is
pretty tired. She works a 12 hour shift five or six days in a
row. The doctor is pretty tired too. The one I met yesterday
sure was. He said “There are people to hand out pills to them
from time to time but they have to come to the hospital”. After
that, they are on their own.
As I said, the way things are going in our country we can have
a great old time here. It is not hard for us. If we are ill, we
go to the pharmacy, get a prescription filled, send it in to the
government and it is paid for. Decisions such as these are all
very fine and well.
But the poor father who works as a logger, for instance, who has
no drug plan or who does not receive welfare will have to pay $50
or $60 dollars for pills for his child who comes home sick after
a day at school. There is also the 64 year old woman who came to
my office and said “The pills for me and my husband cost $200 a
month”. Do people think I am kidding? Do they think this is how
these people want to die? Do they think they want to die
suffering like this?
The Liberals should do some soul searching. They may be boasting
that there is no problem but we are still in this predicament.
The Prime Minister is bragging that he has been here for 38 years
and that he will stay until it is 40. We will soon have a
celebration. It is going to be a lot of fun.
In the meantime, Canadians suffer, people have a hard time
and the government is not doing what it should be doing. It is
not keeping its election promises. During a campaign it makes a
lot of promises but as soon as the election is over, it does not
give a hoot. It is laughing at people.
This is unacceptable. As human beings, Canadians deserve more
than that.
Nowadays, if someone is seen hitting a dog that person is
picked up and locked up. The same thing can happen to those who
do not feed or care for their pet.
1820
However, those who do not feed their child because they have no
money, if the government says the word, will have to pay. There
will be nothing on this point in the legislation. That is the
law in Canada. It is possible to make people suffer.
I say there should be a law against this. We should not be
allowed to make people, youngsters suffer. The elderly, those
who retire should be able to pay for their drugs without skimping
on food.
If the Liberals had a place in their hearts for Canadians, they
would take the appropriate measures. They would change the law
and pass a real bill that would please Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for what is once again
a very passionate presentation. He put across the views of many
Canadians in the way they would expect a member of the House of
Commons to do on their behalf.
It strikes me as we wind down to the final moments of the debate
today on Bill S-17 that there has only been one party, one
collective voice in the House of Commons that is advocating on
behalf of ordinary Canadians.
We have heard from party after party, from the ruling Liberal
Party to the Alliance Party, to the Bloc, to the Conservatives.
All of them seem to see nothing wrong in the bill. It would in
fact further augment and further enhance unreasonable profits for
brand name drug companies. It is a bill which says nothing about
the urgent situation in which Canadians find themselves in terms
of affordable drug costs.
I put it to the hon. member that we are sent here by Canadians
to advocate on their behalf, not to be corporate shills to
advocate on behalf of multinational pharmaceutical drug companies
that are frankly quite capable of taking care of their own
interests.
We were sent here with a message. The message I get from the
people in my riding, and I would like the hon. member for
Acadie—Bathurst to concur, is that they are asking me to go to
Ottawa and do something about the spiralling, out of control,
escalating costs of drugs. Then we could put drugs into the
hands of people who need them most at an affordable price.
Would the hon. member agree that throughout the debate today
there has only been one collective voice, the voice of reason on
behalf of Canadian people, and that is the voice of the NDP
caucus?
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Winnipeg Centre for the comments he made. I am proud of what the
NDP has said today.
During the election campaign the Liberals asked me why I did not
switch to the Liberal Party. I said that the reason I would not
switch to the Liberal Party is that it has no values. The only
values it has is 35 days before an election. After the election
it loses all its values.
Canadians have said very clearly that they do not want to pay
the price they pay for medication. If we had a referendum in the
country today about whether or not Canadians want the bill to go
through, they would say no very loudly.
That is not what the Liberals will do. They have to answer to
the big corporations, the ones that lobby them, the ones with the
big wallets that are nice to them. They give a lot of money.
That is what they do.
The NDP is another thing. On the issues of health care and
pharmacare, we are the ones who have pushed those issues for
Canadians. I am very proud of that.
[Translation]
Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for his
eloquent speech. He spoke with a lot of passion about this very
important issue.
The member has always spoken out on behalf of the elderly, the
poor and the less fortunate, not only in his riding but anywhere
in Canada. As New Democrats, we know very well that this bill
will cost the elderly and taxpayers who pay for provincial drug
programs an extra $200 million.
1825
It is frankly unbelievable that we are now the only political
party in parliament that stands up for the consumers, for the
poor and for sick people, as the member for Acadie—Bathurst has
already done.
For example, I am sorry that the Bloc Quebecois is voting in
favour of the bill. As far as the Canadian Alliance is
concerned, it is understandable since that party has always
supported the large corporations. As for the Liberals, we heard
what they said in 1987. I was here. My colleague from
Winnipeg—Transcona was here. It was in 1987. I remember. The
Minister of Industry said “We will do all we can to stop this
bill.”
It was the same thing in 1992 with Bill C-91.
I am sure the member for Winnipeg—Transcona remembers it very
well. The Liberals were there. They said that they were against
the bill because it was a gift to the large pharmaceuticals.
Now that they are in office, what are they doing? They are
handing out gifts like this one they are bestowing on the large
pharmaceutical companies.
As the member for Acadie—Bathurst pointed out, we were in
Quebec City. All our members, including our leader, the member
for Halifax, were in Quebec City, because we say no. We say no to
this agenda, which would change our hemisphere forever by using
the rules governing intellectual property to protect the rights
of private businesses throughout the Americas, the FTAA.
We are very familiar with what is happening at the WTO and under
NAFTA. We have seen what is happening, for instance, with the
price of patent drugs.
I wonder if my hon. colleague could explain why we were in
Quebec City to protest against these deals that would bestow more
gifts on large pharmaceutical companies.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Speaker, the reason we went to Quebec City
is that we believe in the people. Our place was there in
Quebec City with the people who voted for us.
When the Conservatives were in power, the Liberals were against
free trade. Then, when they formed the government, they started
promoting free trade.
We are not against free trade. We are, however, in favour of
fair trade. We are not willing to bargain away our country, our
environment, our water and our drugs as this government is doing,
and go the American way as it is proposing to do.
We are not willing to do that. We are not willing to accept
that. We like our country and we want to keep it. We have no
links to the big corporations such as Bronfman or Irving in New
Brunswick. We are not their puppets. We do not get up in the
morning asking “What should I be doing, Mr. Irving? What is my
agenda for today?”
We do not have to do that. I was happy to be in Quebec City to
speak up for ordinary Canadians. I believe that today Canadians
are happy that we were there so that today we can ask more
questions.
Maybe I could add that the current government House leader had
continued his speech in 1992. As I have a couple of minutes left,
I will continue quoting what he said:
The Canadian Medical Association told us that the amount now
spent on drugs exceeds the amount spent on physician care in this
country. It is a large component of our healthcare costs.
The CMA should know something about it. It appeared before our
committee and said that unless the bill—it was a Conservative
bill—was amended, it could not support it.
The Liberal House leader said “I challenge any member across to
say otherwise”. That is what he said to the Conservatives.
Because of that, there is no doubt about it, the people across
the way are two-faced.
1830
It is the government House leader who said that and he is now
sitting across the way. He should be ashamed of himself for
changing his tune like that. This is how the Liberals lose the
people's confidence. The Prime Minister of Canada may have been
in the House for 40 years but one day he will be kicked out,
perhaps for a long time, along with the rest of the members who
support him because they do not care about Canadians. I am
convinced that Canadians will see the light one of these days.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian
Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in the House on February 12 the
Minister of Justice and the Deputy Prime Minister denied that the
government was privatizing the gun registry.
Then in a media scrum outside the House the minister said she
was outsourcing, not privatizing the gun registry. Since that
time she has been unable to successfully describe to anyone's
satisfaction the difference between privatizing and outsourcing.
On March 3 the Moncton Times and Transcript reported that
a crowd of 700 demonstrators protested in Miramichi because they
were upset over reports that the Canadian Firearms Centre would
be privatized.
In the same newspaper on April 24 it was reported that 70
employees were to be laid off on May 6. The article stated:
However the union believes the federal government plans to
privatize the entire licensing and registration system, taking
all the workers off the federal payroll and with no guarantees a
private company would hire any of them.
On February 27 the Edmonton Sun reported that the RCMP
were laying off 130 civilians working the national gun registry.
Lynn Ray, president of the Union of Solicitor General Employees,
said the layoffs and transfer of another 130 employees from the
RCMP to the Department of Justice was the first step toward
privatizing the registry.
The National Post ran a front page story on March 1 which
stated:
In a document that seems to contradict assurances by...the
Minister of Justice, that only parts of the registry and
licensing functions would be outsourced, Public Works Canada has
assured 12 prospective bidders that the successful contractor
would conduct “all transactions with clients except certain
investigations”
“More specifically, we mean that the vendor will own and
operate the business process delivery component as identified in
the letter of interest”—
On March 1 the Edmonton Sun printed comments by Edmonton
city police Staff Sergeant Al Bohachyk. Bohachyk called the
privatized gun registry a frightening prospect because:
On February 16 I received a letter from Mr. George Radwanski,
the privacy commissioner of Canada. The privacy commissioner
confirmed that the justice department did not even consult with
his office about its privatization initiative. In his letter he
stated that he was deeply concerned that justice may privatize or
outsource the Canadian firearms program. He intends to pursue
the matter with the department. This is very serious.
On April 4 the Library of Parliament discovered that there were
already seven private firearms officers working for the gun
registry in New Brunswick. One of these privatized firearms
officers even has his own private investigation firm in
Fredericton. His appointment letter gives him the power to
conduct investigations by reviewing police files and by
conducting interviews with applicants, spouses, relatives,
neighbours and employers.
This firearms officer, a private eye, told my office that he
told a newspaper reporter he was doing firearms background checks
because he thought it would be good for his business. How could
he possibly keep the information he gathers as a private firearms
officer separate from the information he uses to advance the
interest of his own private investigation firm and his private
clients? The privacy commissioner is investigating.
An April 20 headline in the Moncton Times and Transcript
read “Gun registry privatization nears reality”. Union leaders
call what the government is doing with the gun registry
privatization. Every newspaper story written on the issue calls
it privatization. Robert Klassen, professor of operations
management at the University of Western Ontario, told the
National Post that it sounded like privatization.
The documents provided by the Department of Justice to the
private companies bidding on the job say the successful bidder
will own and operate the business process and will conduct all
transactions except certain investigations.
Why does the minister insist on calling it outsourcing? Why
will the minister not admit in public that which everyone else
knows and what she privately tells the private companies she is
negotiating with?
1835
Mr. John Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the question of outsourcing for some services and products to
support the firearms program has become an issue before the
House. This is in no way privatization of the program, as some
opposition members would have us believe.
The Minister of Justice has made it clear to the House that she
will remain fully accountable for the firearms program. However,
if there are private sector companies that can provide off the
shelf technology, then it makes sense to outsource as opposed to
recreating such products.
The Canadian Firearms Centre is simply looking at ways to ensure
that the program is delivered efficiently and cost effectively
without compromising public safety. The centre has solicited for
ideas on how the objectives of the program could be met while
lowering costs and improving client services. This an
exploratory exercise to determine what services and products are
available that could help reduce costs and do the job effectively
and efficiently, while adhering to our high public safety
standards.
Outsourcing is not new to the firearms program. For example, an
Ottawa firm has been providing assistance in processing licence
application forms. Another firm provided expertise in developing
the automated registry system. We know the private sector can be
a partner in support of the program by providing cost effective
and efficient services.
Public safety is paramount and it guides all changes made to the
administration of the program. Public safety and the security of
personal and other information remains the cornerstone of the
firearms program. Security and privacy protection will remain as
stringent as the current system and improved if possible.
As the Canadian firearms program evolves toward a steady state,
it is important to consider all options aimed at lowering costs
and increasing efficiency while maintaining the safety and
security of information.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.37 p.m.)