Debates of Feb. 16th, 2004

Resumption Of Debate On Address In Reply

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's facts are quite wrong in a number of areas.

He went on with a lot of rhetoric and conjecture in terms of saying that $2 billion have gone to the gun registry, which is absolutely wrong. As I understand the way those numbers are calculated, it is a cumulation of the work done by the police and the courts. He is exaggerating the numbers way out of proportion.

The cost of the registry, yes, is too high. The government has admitted that. It has put in place an action plan to control it. It will be about $1 billion by 2005, but that is beside the point.

The hon. member talked about some failures when he was talking about the throne speech. Yes, the government has been in power 10 years, but would he see the fact that we have now had several budgets with surpluses a failure?

When we took over government there was a $42 billion annual deficit and we brought that under control. The throne speech talks about the emphasis on health care, children and infrastructure programs. The reason we are able to do that is because we manage the funds of this country properly.

Does he consider the fact that we manage the finances right and are doing things for the economy and people a failure? Does he consider that a failure or is he just playing politics?

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the sheer fact that the Government of Canada owes $35 billion more today than when it took office in terms of the accumulated debt tells me that there has been some level of failure on that side of the House. I give credit where credit is due on some files, but the fact of the matter is there are a number of failed policies and the gun registry is one of them.

The member will try to slide out from underneath that one, but unfortunately he lives in a rural riding and he will not be able to. No matter who does the calculation, it is a failed policy and it has failed miserably to the tune of $2 billion.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the Minister of State for Public Health.

Thank you for allowing me to speak to this motion this morning. As Minister of Health, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister responsible for Official Languages, I am pleased to support the vision for Canada laid out by the government in the Speech from the Throne.

As the speech and the Prime Minister's recent comments have made clear, health care is still our country's priority. We are at the dawn of a new era in federal-provincial relations, and linguistic duality will continue to be at the heart of our identity.

Canadians continue to believe in the fundamental values that the Canada Health Act is based on. They also believe in justice and equality, and in government provided services to ensure that access to them is based on need, not the ability to pay. That is the Canadian difference.

This government, along with its provincial and territorial partners, has achieved great things with respect to renewing and strengthening the health care system. We have recognized the challenges that await us and we will meet them without hesitation.

Last February, for example, the first ministers reached an historic agreement on health care reform, an action plan to ensure proper access to quality care according to need, rather than ability to pay, as well as to increase the transparency of the health system and its responsibility to the people of Canada.

By investing $34.8 billion over five years, the Canadian government has indicated its commitment to implement the agreement. The bulk of this amount has been transferred to the provinces and territories to provide them with predictable and growing funding for their health programs. Funds were also allocated to long-term structural reform, as well as immediate reduction of certain tensions within the health care system.

I am pleased to say that, in his initial meeting with Canadian first ministers last month, the Prime Minister indicated to his provincial and territorial counterparts that the federal government would be increasing its commitment by $2 billion this year.

This investment will provide more support for reform and help provincial and territorial administrations meet the major challenges ahead of them. These are substantial investments. Yet, as all those who have looked at our health care system are aware, money alone is not enough.

We need deep and lasting structural changes. That is why the governments have committed in this agreement to improving access to home care, as an alternative to hospital care. This is a cost-effective solution for Canadians.

We are also renewing primary care, in order to facilitate patients' access to the appropriate care from the appropriate source at the appropriate time. We are also looking at a way to provide coverage of the cost of expensive medications for people who are putting themselves into financial ruin by having to buy certain necessary prescription drugs.

It is a good to know that, together with our partners, we are making progress in these vital sectors. I am sure that progress will continue.

We have already achieved a lot. There was the inaugural meeting of the new national health council composed of leading Canadians from coast to coast.

The council embodies the government's commitment toward openness, transparency and accountability. The council will monitor the implementation of the accord and report back to Canadians.

In particular, it will monitor how long Canadians have to wait for important diagnostic results or badly needed treatment. It is information that will be critical to our shared commitment to reduce waiting times. The council's job is not to point fingers but to give Canadians vital information on medical outcomes.

Canadians are investing more than $100 billion a year in health care. They have the right to see how the system is performing and how it might work even better. Ultimately, it is about accountability to the people who use the health care system and who pay for it.

In December, the Government of Canada delivered on another important promise by establishing the Canadian Patient Safety Institute. This new, non-profit organization will work with the provinces, territories, and other stakeholders to examine the circumstances that result in patients becoming ill or injured through medical interventions. The goal, obviously, is to decrease the risk of accidents or errors in the health care system.

Another key commitment we have fulfilled relates to new employment insurance benefits for Canadians forced to leave work temporarily to support a gravely ill or dying parent, spouse or child.

These are some of the more prominent steps that the government has taken, but permit me to underline that we are not starting from scratch.

Health Canada and its many partners have had in place for a long time a vast range of excellent initiatives to improve the well-being of children and youth, women, seniors, aboriginal people, the disabled, and indeed all Canadians. Given the complexity of the health care challenge, more needs to be done.

Toward that end, the Speech from the Throne promised that the Government of Canada would take the lead in establishing a strong and responsive public health system starting with the new Canada public health agency. I know my colleague, the Minister of State for Public Health, will want to elaborate on that point. We will be working together on that.

The federal government wants to improve the overall health of Canadians so my government will focus on health promotion with a view to reducing the incidence of avoidable diseases. We look forward to any advice and recommendations that will come from the proposed new chief public health officer for Canada to address the toll of both communicable and non-communicable diseases.

Shortly after taking over the health portfolio, I had the opportunity to travel across the country to meet with my counterparts in all the provinces and territories. I am encouraged to find and to report to the House that there remains a deep and abiding respect for the Canada Health Act. Though there will always be differences of opinion on how best to deliver or organize health care services, there is a strong consensus about the fundamental principles--the idea that we can work together within the act to improve the health of Canadians.

Allow me to say a few words on federal-provincial relations, an area where our government, the government of the current Prime Minister, is determined to change the tone, promote cooperation and consider the provinces and territories as partners in governance, in helping our country adjust to this era of globalization. We want the provinces to be partners and we want to cooperate with them. We know that we can achieve a lot more by working with the provinces.

Of course, there will always be differences and tensions in our federation. This is normal. These differences and tensions can truly generate healthy competition within the federation to better serve our fellow citizens. However, the tone must change. This will be achieved in part through new policies. The Prime Minister indicated his willingness to negotiate the issue of parental leave with the Quebec government. He asked me ensure that we work more efficiently with provincial governments, particularly the Quebec government, at the international level.

So this is the beginning of a new era. The end of polarization is providing us with a unique opportunity. For the past 40 years, the issue of Quebec's independence has created a polarization that, in this debate, has prevented an approach as balanced and rational as it should have been. Last week, we lost a great political voice. My former boss, Claude Ryan, will be remembered for expressing so profoundly such a balanced and rational view.

I believe that, at last, without this polarization around the issue of independence, such political voices can significantly strengthen Quebec's chances of faring as well as it did in the past, before this polarization, when Mr. Pearson and Mr. Lesage were in office.

As regards official languages, we will implement the action plan that our government fully intends to recognize as essential to our Canadian identity.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to question the Minister of Health. I wish him the best of luck.

I have two questions for him. As a Quebecker who is deeply attached to Quebec, something I do not question, is he not a little worried about his government using health for nation building? Does he not remember the Quebec intergovernmental affairs minister saying he was concerned about the creation of a Canadian public health agency when there is a Quebec public health agency? Quebec only has observer status at the Canadian health council because it already has its own health council.

My first question for the Minister of Health is the following. Can he give us assurances that he will not be part of this movement using health for nation building? Second, does he not believe that it is contradictory of his government to appeal parental leave when the minister says his government wants to negotiate, and can he promise that Quebec will be given what it is entitled to, by being allowed to develop a truly integrated parental leave system without an appeal?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two questions. I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, for his interest in this issue. He has been following it for a number of years.

Essentially, I know that the Bloc Quebecois tells us, and I think the people of Quebec know it well, that because we are different, we must achieve independence. With the slogan last fall of “Parce qu'on est différents”—because we are different—we can see that the Bloc Quebecois's platform has always been to focus on differences, on what divides, rather than on what unites us with others.

If there is one way Quebeckers are not different: germs do not stop at political borders. When we see crises like SARS or any other similar situations, while we respect the expertise developed by the Government of Quebec, like the excellent expertise developed in British Columbia, naturally, we do not want to duplicate research or reinvent the wheel.

Nevertheless, to us—in the light of the what we have experienced, particularly in the case of SARS—it seems imperative to develop Canadian expertise which will, of course, rely on what exists in each provinces and allow better coordination among the various jurisdictions. That is the reason we want to take this course of action.

As for the second question, concerning parental leave, the decision about an appeal will be made by our government, on the basis of a judgment that goes far beyond the issue of parental leave. The Attorney General of Canada and cabinet will make a decision on this. I think this decision to appeal or not—with respect to the entire decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal—should not be interpreted as a refusal to negotiate.

The judgment goes far beyond parental leave. Perhaps we will need to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court. It will be up to the government and the Attorney General to decide. Nevertheless, we could open parallel negotiations with the Government of Quebec on the subject of parental leave. That is what the Prime Minister of Canada suggested to Premier Charest of Quebec at the first ministers meeting last month.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want the Minister of Health to state clearly in this House that there is no question of implying that our sovereignty plan is dividing Quebeckers and does not respect the anglophone or francophone communities.

I would like him to explain the following. How can he, on the one hand, say that there is room for negotiations and, on the other hand, appeal the ruling on parental leave? Does he recognize that this has been going on since 1998? Will he be a bit more aggressive, vocal and active in cabinet? This matter has remained unresolved for far too long.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1997, when I was Minister of Human Resources Development, I received a mandate to negotiate parental leave. I tried to resolve this issue in 1997. If it has taken so long, it is perhaps because, in 1997, the Quebec government did not make budget decisions that would have allowed Quebec to implement a parental leave program.

If the Quebec government wants to provide a more generous program, we encourage it to do so. The Canadian government is a strong believer in this federalism which is a kind of race toward better programs, where the experience of one jurisdiction will benefit other jurisdictions.

We are delighted with this. This is what happened in 1997. We were completely open-minded, and we made a generous financial offer to the Quebec government, but Mr. Landry did not want to allow Ms. Marois to allocate the necessary additional funds to implement such a program.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Minister of State (Public Health)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on the address in response to the Speech from the Throne, in my new position as Minister of State for Public Health.

I would like to thank my constituents in the riding of St. Paul's who over the past six years demonstrated the civic literacy and participated in the two way accountability that are the prerequisites of a robust democracy. From 9/11 to SARS, their understanding of the complexity of the problems and their commitment to finding real solutions have inspired me and informed my work in every way.

I would like to start with a point on which I believe we can all agree: health and health care are our nation's first priority. Both the Speech from the Throne and the Prime Minister's reply have made this clear.

Canadians have made it clear to us that their main priority is health and health care.

Canadians expect us to be serious about ensuring that this most cherished Canadian social program is sustained for our children and our grandchildren. As Roy Romanow said, it is “Building on Values”, most important, the Canadian values of that double solidarity between the rich and the poor and the sick and the well.

Our only real hope of sustaining our publicly funded health care system is to help Canadians stay healthy so they do not have to use it. Protecting and promoting health is the key to achieving that goal.

Last year's public health crisis from SARS to BSE to West Nile taught us that we were all in this together. This means that no one can be forgotten, no community is worth less than another, no threat can be dismissed. The planet has never been smaller and germs do not respect borders. Therefore, as the Prime Minister has said, working in partnership with the provinces and territories, we will design an effective, co-ordinated Canadian public health system that serves our citizens and allows us to play our part in global health.

That partnership is already in place. We want to strengthen the foundation by building on it. The federal government will start by getting its own house in order to re-energize a national partnership that can truly protect Canadians.

The government will therefore be getting its own house in order and re-establishing a national partnership that will truly protect Canadians.

We will begin by naming the first chief public health officer for Canada who can sit at the table with the medical officers of health from every province and territory. This officer will be a woman or man who Canadians will come to see as the country's doctor, a health professional who can be trusted to advise citizens and advise the government.

The chief public health officer for Canada will also speak for Canada to the world and build upon the strong relationships existing in other organizations, such as CDC in Atlanta and the WHO in Geneva.

We will create a Canada public health agency, the federal hub of a network built on partnerships and collaboration that is pan-Canadian and global in scope and that is accountable to Canadians. This agency will operate on three principles.

The first principle is collaboration with the provinces and territories. Public health is a shared responsibility between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. This means that we must work together to ensure that we have a strong, viable Canadian public health system, one that recognizes and respects the differences between jurisdictions.

We will be negotiating agreements with the provinces and territories, which will together form a solid public health system, one capable of managing both health emergencies and long-term strategies in the best interests of Canadians.

Working together will ensure that the various jurisdictions help each other progress. By setting aside old quarrels, we will join forces to create a vast network that is respectful of each jurisdiction.

That collaboration must also extend to aboriginal communities. Too many aboriginals in our country face enormous public health challenges, ranging from suicide to tuberculosis to bad water. We can build effective strategies to address those problems by working together with aboriginal communities, another important function of the federal public health system.

The second principle is value for money, transparency and accountability. Canadians expect us to use their money wisely, and public health experts have told us what they need us to invest in first. They need better surveillance, better information systems, better labs, more people and better co-ordination.

Some look to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and ask where CDC north will be. It will be first and foremost in the systems and procedures that link our best scientists with one another and with the frontline doctors and nurses who care for Canadians.

Let us be very clear. Our public health boast will not be about a single, shiny complex. Our achievement will be an outcome, a network that has shown its ability to protect Canadians and help put us among the world's healthiest people. It will be about Canadians feeling that we are prepared for emergencies, can minimize a threat of infectious disease and turn around the growing epidemics of chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes and obesity. In addition, we must be accountable for the results.

Canadians have made it clear that they prefer clean air to more puffers and respirators. We know what we have to do. We know where we have to invest. All we have to do is focus on getting the job done right.

The third principle, the one that will drive all others, is this. The interests of Canadians will stand at the very centre of the agency. Citizens, not just governments, will help us guide the mandate of the agency from one year to the next. Citizens will help us set priorities and strategies so they have a meaningful effect on the quality of Canadian life. Citizens will tell us what we get right and what we need to improve. Any effort to protect the health of Canadians must place the confidence of citizens at its centre.

As a physician, I have recognized that often the best solutions can be found in our own communities. They are the public health professionals, patients and ordinary Canadians armed with information and experience and instincts.

I also have to mention the enormous contributions stakeholders will be able to make to this process. It is clear that we will need to engage them, as well as citizens, in guiding the mandate of this agency from one year to the next because they will always let us know what we get right and what we need to improve. Citizens will tell us what they need us to do. Our obligation is to listen and act.

Therefore, Parliament itself, with a revitalized democracy, stands on the frontline of health protection and promotion, for these citizens are our constituents. They are the ones who walk into our offices, who ask for help and whose support we each seek.

Each of us in the chamber is an officer of public health. The democratic reform restores to each of us, regardless of party, the power to protect our own neighbours. That is why I need Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic, Bloc Québecois and independent colleagues to ask the same questions in their ridings over the next few weeks that I will be asking across the country. What do Canadians need from a new public health agency? How do Canadians wish to interact with it?

The House has the power and now has the democratic culture to rebuild a partnership with provinces, territories and communities that is truly capable of protecting Canadians.

Canadians expect us to do better, to collaborate, to communicate and to co-ordinate across government departments and across jurisdictions. We must know what is working and what is not and who does what and when. We need a real public health strategy for Canada. We will build upon the existing excellence across Canada, from the fabulous BCCDC, which I visited on Friday, to the remarkable Winnipeg labs to the Institut national de santé publique in Ste. Foy. We will learn from one another and then keep learning.

A real system is a complex, adaptive model that measures, adapts and measures again. Canadians deserve a real public health system that will be a learning culture. It will be an example for the whole country of a distributive model that can break through the jurisdictional gridlock by articulating the strong common purpose and then respecting local wisdom and local knowledge to get the job done.

The Speech from the Throne focused upon three themes: securing Canada's social foundations; an economy for the 21st century; and Canada's place in the world. I hope that in my role as Minister of State for Public Health that I will be able to make a positive contribution to all of these, particularly as it affects the special foci of our communities and of our aboriginal people.

Our report card will be closing the gap in the health status of our aboriginal people. I am confident that we have the support of all Canadians in our ultimate goal of keeping as many Canadians as possible healthy for as long as possible.

I am confident that we have the support of all Canadians in achieving our ultimate goal of keeping all of them healthy for as long as possible.

Good health. Meegwitch.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my learned colleague. I enjoyed her remarks.

What I am about to ask strictly falls under her department in that the Government of Canada is spending millions of dollars warning everyone of the health hazards of smoking cigarettes--and I think it is paying off--but I am also somewhat worried, with more scientific evidence coming through and after talking to respiratory specialists, about the dangers of pot smoking, of marijuana and hashish. It is becoming clearer that it is a real health hazard.

I wonder if the minister would consider doing the same thing against pot smoking that the government has done for cigarettes.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed gratifying to hear the hon. member speak to the real problems that we face with tobacco in this country, and to the fact that we must do everything in our power to let our young people know the dangers. We must make sure that we do everything in our power before they become addicted to this extraordinarily addictive product.

It also important that as we develop the drug policy for Canada we learn from what both Senator Nolin and the special committee have told us: that we must move, I think, to a therapeutic approach, that making criminals out of young Canadian who are experimenting is not the way to go.

We have to start very early on. We have to teach kids about respectful relationships and about self-esteem and let them then make good choices in their lives. We know that if we work on all of the things that promote self-esteem, including exercise, nutrition, and just feeling good about ourselves, we find that kids make much better choices in terms of what might be an experiment with drugs.

I firmly believe that the present policy to decriminalize marijuana and to move it to a much more therapeutic approach, one that understands the reasons behind that kind of behaviour and which explains the consequences other than a criminal record, will be far more satisfying. Indeed, in the rest of the world, the hon. member should know that this is the only thing that works. We as a society must take the responsibility and not rely on the Criminal Code.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really surprised at the comments that were just made about a more therapeutic approach to drugs and marijuana and about this idea that decriminalization is a much more sensible approach.

The fact is that the way the government has approached this whole issue of drugs is rather pathetic. Having been the vice-chair of that committee and knowing what happened, I know that the real problem in this country is that there is no national drug strategy out there.

Also, there is the issue that when we talk about decriminalization of marijuana, the government says we are going to have maximum penalties for grow ops. Maximum penalties for grow ops are useless: the current penalties today are not being used. Judges and lawyers across this land are getting people off for any amount of grow ops. It happens in my community every day.

How can the member justify that this whole issue of decriminalization in legislation is great and therapeutic when the whole darn issue of drugs among the Liberal government is a mess?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the legislation being promoted now will be very satisfying in terms of actually providing that the people pushing the drugs, the people growing the drugs, are the people we actually want to punish.

The hon. member should know that yesterday morning I was in Vancouver's downtown east side; it is unbelievably sad. I want to tell the member some facts that he maybe does not understand. At Women's Own Detox in downtown Toronto, 85% of the clients are incest victims. When we look at a lot of the problems of addiction, we see that these are people who were abused themselves. These are people who therefore did not have respect for authority and did not have any understanding of their lives or of their parents.

I think we must begin with those kinds of facts. We must begin with the fact that in some places home is not a safe place before we begin to make policies that actually may make us feel good in terms of criminalization but actually are not dealing with the individual Canadians who are really in trouble. We have to do everything we can to turn their lives around.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the consent of the House to share my time with my hon. colleague from Drummond. Each of us would have 10 minutes to speak.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve does not have to ask for the consent of the House to share his time. If that is what he wants to do, he only has to mention it.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will therefore share my time with the hon. member for Drummond.

There is something of a paradox with the throne speech. With the House not sitting since November, we are finally able to see where the government is going.

I was very glad to have the opportunity earlier today to put questions to the health minister, to whom I wish good luck in his new duties.

We now realize that the Liberal government wants to use the health issue to do some “nation building” and to become more centralizing than ever. What the federal government has put forward is quite a paradox.

Following a suggestion made by the Bloc Quebecois and supported by the NDP, the Standing Committee on Health travelled throughout Canada these last few months to consider the issue of drug costs.

We found out that there is a huge problem with on-line drugstores. U.S. citizens are buying drugs in Canada.The problem is particularly serious in Manitoba.

Consequently, there are Americans who manage to buy drugs without a prescription. Without a prescription, people can buy drugs, which are exported under mechanisms established by online drugstores.

The federal government wants to establish a Canadian public health agency, although it is not responsible for public health. It did not, however, intervene to counter Internet or online drugstores, which threaten our drug supply in Canada and Quebec.

For example, I was talking to one of my friends who works for the Centre québécois de coordination sur le sida or CQCS. She told me that pharmaceutical companies—such as Pfizer, to name just one—threatened to impose drug quotas, because obviously they are unhappy that Canada is selling drugs to the United States, when the Americans sell those same drugs for more money.

On the one hand, the government did not intervene with regard to Internet drug sales although it is responsible for drug exports, but it is proposing to intervene in areas not under its jurisdiction by establishing a Canadian public health agency and a Canada health council.

Earlier, I was listening to the Minister of Health say that this was not something we should be concerned about. I want to voice my disagreement. Drug costs will be the number one issue facing Quebeckers and Canadians over the next few years.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

And patents.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

And we will have to think about the Patent Act. My colleague from Burnaby—Douglas is saying, “And patents”.

I strongly support a review. of patents. This does not mean, as some neo-Bolsheviks are proposing, eliminating all forms of intellectual property. I do not believe that this is the direction we will go in. Intellectual property must continue to exist.

However, I am not afraid to recognize in this House that innovative pharmaceutical companies have abused patents and obtained a new patent from the commissioner of patents, despite the fact that there have been very few therapeutic innovations. This is extremely worrying.

All these mechanisms must be reviewed and, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I moved four motions. I would be quite disappointed if hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas has not read them. I will review them for him.

Here is the first proposal from the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve: review the role of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Does anyone really think that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has no control whatsoever over the price of generic drugs, which cost 30% more in Canada than in the United States?

I would remind the member for Burnaby—Douglas, who is approaching his fifties, that the second proposal from the Bloc Quebecois is to tighten the rules with regard to drug advertising. He himself wisely warned the Standing Committee on Health about this. He brought the journal of the Canadian Cancer Society and eloquently demonstrated to us that even though it is prohibited under the Food and Drugs Act, there is advertising that refers specifically to various drugs or pathologies.

There is a third proposal. Yes, we want to have better control over generic drug prices and we want to look at advertising, but the most important proposal—a stroke of genius on my part—is that we must ensure that clinical monographs submitted by pharmaceutical companies deal with products that are truly innovative.

It is unacceptable that companies use patents to extend their intellectual property rights. That does not mean, as some members suggest, that intellectual property should not exist. If marketing a new drug costs $800 million or $900 million, it is normal that companies get a return on their investment.

What is not normal though, and the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board looked at this reality, is that a company can apply for two, three or four patents for the same drug, when there is absolutely no difference from a therapeutic point of view. This is what we should look at. The Bloc Quebecois proposed that Health Canada be provided with new tools to conduct more in-depth studies of the clinical monographs that are submitted. I hope I will have the support of the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

When a patent is issued, it is very important to ensure that the period of time will not be unduly extended and that Canadians will not be prevented from having access to a cheaper drug.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

What does the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques think of this?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas is asking, through the Chair, a question that is almost a subtle one. He is asking what the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques think of this.

First, I believe this House will want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, who is such a hard worker. He is a social democrat who believes in the redistribution of wealth.

I agree, however, with the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas that there must be debate within political parties. It is normal and I understand that. I remember the NDP's debate on Bill C-20. Perhaps the member for Burnaby—Douglas will want to speak to us about that, as he was the only one to vote in favour of the rights of Quebec in that file.

So debate within political parties is normal. I would point out that debate within our party is vigorous. We understand that the best way to counteract one idea, in a democracy, is to come up with a better one. I have great hopes that the proposals I made to the Standing Committee on Health may one day be received with enthusiasm by all members of this House.

The question of drug costs is extremely important, and the Bloc Quebecois will continue to address it very specifically.

I would like to address the matter of parental leave. It will represent a test of the truth for the Quebec Liberal caucus. On the one hand, since 1997 and even before, the previous government, the Parti Quebecois government—one of the best to have ever sat on the government side—was prepared to improve the parental leave program so that working parents could be away from their job for one year at 70% of salary.

The federal government refused to make the necessary funds available from the EI fund. Now the appeal court is supporting this, by finding that the amendments proposed to the Employment Insurance Act in 1942 did not allow it to be amended to include parental leave.

I hope that the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry will join with the Bloc Quebecois in recognizing in this House that funds must be transferred to Quebec in order to set up an improved parental leave program. It is a matter of justice and social progress. This has dragged on and on. A good thing that the Bloc Quebecois has been here to defend the interests of Quebec.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of social justice is very important. The member will know that Bill C-204, which was my private member's bill, was adopted by the government to extend parental leave to a full year. I am quite proud of that and I know all Canadians are pleased with it.

There was a line in the throne speech about the health and well-being of seniors, and the member talked about jurisdictional boundaries. I wanted to advise the member that I have been working on a seniors' poverty initiative, which includes matters such as introducing a guaranteed annual income for seniors, establishing provincial, territorial and regional poverty lines, eliminating mandatory retirement at age 65, increasing the caregiver tax credit, extending employment insurance benefits to caregivers, doubling the medical expense supplement, providing the opportunity for Canada pension plan continuity for caregivers, regulating the nursing home industry, as well as dealing with affordable housing and pharmacare.

Seniors' poverty is more acute than it has ever been. There is provincial jurisdiction. Would the member agree that we should collaborate, all parties with all levels of government, to ensure that we address the significant issue of seniors' poverty?

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois calls for the Quebec appeal court's judgment to be respected in its entirety.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passionate speech made by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who always speaks with a great deal of passion.

I would like to make two comments. First, in 1997, the current health minister, then the Minister of Human Resources Development, came up with a very generous proposal that he submitted to Minister Marois at the time. Unfortunately, the then finance minister, Mr. Landry, turned it down, because the Government of Quebec did not have the money to provide all the matching dollars required for the program.

I think it is important to point that out. We often tend to blame the federal government. I can tell the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve that the Liberal members from Quebec will work hard to settle the issue of parental leave.

Second—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the proposal was $300 million short. It is unbelievable to hear something like that from a former member of the National Assembly.

I hope that the Liberal caucus will put the decision of the Court of Appeal of Quebec on its agenda and examine it. They have no business interfering in the area of parental leave. What they should do is hand us the money we all have been demanding since 1997, including the intergovernmental affairs minister and former law professor, Benoît Pelletier. This is not a partisan issue. The only ones turning this debate into a partisan issue are the members of the Liberal caucus. Thank God the Bloc Quebecois is here to watch over the House.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve and I know that he does a good job for his constituents.

I would like to ask my friend a question. He talked about the importance of changing the Patent Act to put an end to abuses by large pharmaceutical companies. However, when my colleague, the member for Windsor West, tried to convince the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to make these changes, it was the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the Bloc Quebecois industry critic, who blocked these efforts. He said that changes to the Patent Act were not needed, that there was no problem.

I have to ask my friend and colleague from Hochelaga—Maisonneuve this question. Who is speaking for the Bloc Quebecois? Is it the industry critic, who deals with issues related to pharmaceutical companies, or is it the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve?