Jerry Pickard

[Patent Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I thought that “you” could be considered as plural or singular. It is not a specific member of Parliament. “You” could well be the whole Bloc Québécois. I think your English is good enough to understand that, but just to correct you, so you will remember in the future.

Everyone has cooperated extremely well and I am pleased with that. The question about the annex lists, we have four schedules as I mentioned. One schedule points out the drugs that could be included under the bill. All drugs that could be included are in one of the schedules in that annex. The other list includes different countries. There are three lists of different levels of countries to which those drugs can be sent. Those are specifically laid out as well. I understand that those would be available to everyone in the House and all Canadians who wish to get those annexes.

We have a system in place where drug companies and others can go forward, produce those generic drugs, and ensure that they go to the required countries, so countries could receive those at much less cost if we look at the general cost of patent medicines.

[Patent Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that your comments are well appreciated. I believe there has been cooperation among all parties in the House. You in particular along with the--

[Patent Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and all colleagues in the House for trying to move this forward as expeditiously as possible.

There is no question that sometimes fundamental mistakes can be made. In this case, a drafting error was made. In order to ensure that there was no loss of time, we put those amendments forward in the Senate, had them adopted, and then brought them back to the House at the first opportunity.

We have tried to move the bill forward as quickly as possible without delay. That is why we are back in the House today, looking for the kind of support and the goodwill that we have had from Parliament over this issue.

My colleague from the Bloc asked a very good question. We have attempted to move this as quickly as we can, without delay, by reaching out to the Senate to get the approval of that amendment. We have brought it back to get the approval of the House of Commons, rather than delaying the issue from moving forward.

I believe we are now in a position where we can enact the bill quickly with the amendments before the House. We can look at a technical drafting problem where the schedules were not put into the bill. In a perfect world, that would have been done. In this case, our drafters missed it and everyone who examined the bill missed it. I believe that even all opposition parties that had an opportunity to examine the bill missed it.

However, the goodwill and good spirit of all of my colleagues in the House and all of my colleagues in committee has been very much appreciated. Everyone has worked to ensure the bill goes forward and I do appreciate that.

[Patent Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, as hon. colleagues will recall, Bill C-29 proposes remedial technical amendments to both the Patent Act and the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa.

The Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa, which received royal assent on May 14, 2004, implements an August 30, 2003, decision of the World Trade Organization allowing developed countries such as Canada to adopt legislation authorizing the production of low cost generic versions of patent medicines for export to least developed and developing countries unable to produce their own.

Those who are familiar with the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa may recall that the legislation contained four schedules, which are to be annexed into the Patent Act. Schedule 1 sets out various pharmaceutical products which are eligible for the export licences under the regime and schedules 2, 3 and 4 set out various classes of the least developed and developing countries which would be eligible for these products.

However, because of an oversight in the drafting of these various schedules, they became divorced from the enacting clause, with the result that there is no legal authority by which to annex them to the Patent Act. If this oversight were not fixed, the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa could still come into force but there would be no products eligible for export and no countries to send them to.

In other words, unless the schedules are properly annexed, the Patent Act and the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa cannot be made operational. This oversight, although fundamental from a policy perspective, is a simple technical one from the legal perspective and it lends itself to the simple technical, albeit legislative, solution. The amendment setting forth that solution was introduced and adopted during the examination of Bill C-29 by the committee at the other place.

As a result, the text of the bill now before us differs from the one that appeared before the House in two very minor but critically important ways. First, new section 2.1 provides that the Patent Act shall be amended by adding schedules 1 to 4 of the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa to the end of the legislation, that is, after section 103. Second, new subsection 3(1) provides that both of the provisions in Bill C-29 that deal with the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa would come into force on the same day as the latter instrument.

I should add that the oversight that gave rise to the need for these changes was discovered only very recently and not in sufficient time to bring forward the necessary amendments while Bill C-29 was initially under examination in this House.

In fairness to the government on this point, it will be recalled that the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa received royal assent only three months after it was introduced in the House in the last Parliament. That was a very busy period during which there were a number of amendments made to the bill by all parties.

Quite simply, no one involved with this legislation, from the legislative drafters and the stakeholders who were intimately involved to the members of Parliament examining the bill in committee, caught the technical oversight. Even Carswell's 2005 edition of the Patent Act overlooked it.

While the version of Bill C-29 which we are considering today differs marginally from the one seen and approved in this House earlier, the underlying technical remedial objectives remain the same. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting Bill C-29 as amended by the other place so that it may enjoy the swift passage that characterized the progress of the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa through both Houses during the last Parliament.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there are clearly answers in this program. We have to look at each jurisdiction and each area across this country.

As far as we are concerned, when a company is doing research in technology that money does not get repaid in one year, two years or three years. It is the development of a product. It is that product going to market. It is the whole operation of the corporate interests of this company.

If we look at the investment that we have done this year alone with Ford, with General Motors, if we look at the investment with internationals I mentioned, if we look at our BlackBerry operations and research investment there, we know that those corporations put products on the market but it might take several years, and we do not require them to pay back. But the TPC program is only a loan to the corporations. They do pay back the money eventually, but in the early years, it may be five years, six years or seven years before they are ready to pay that money back.

[Criminal Code, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the member has asked some very specific questions. We could get the list of corporations and the number of jobs and so on from statistics in the department.

The point is that we have a program that has facilitated business opportunity very well. There are privacy rules. My colleague well knows that if a corporation does not want all information about that corporation released, there is a difficulty in releasing all the information about a corporation that is actually working within a program.

I have been here as long as my colleague has, and quite a bit longer as a matter of fact, and I can assure all members of the House that no minister to my knowledge has said the moneys will be repaid in five years. Certainly Mr. Rock did not say that. Mr. Rock may have said paybacks will start at a certain point and continue to build over a time period but not pay back the money in five years.

The government's priority is to ensure that scientific advances in research and innovation in Canada translate into jobs and into productivity in this country. We play a critically important role in risk sharing partnership with Industry Technology Canada and its key instrument is this program. It is a program designed to partner with companies to make technology investments possible in Canada.

Technology Partnerships Canada targets key strategic technologies: wireless, biotech, environmental and aerospace. Without a vital instrument like TPC, many of our R and D project advances would not occur. TPC investments are risky and there is no question about that, but the program is not intended to be a chartered bank. It is intended to give opportunities to those who would advance technologies in Canada.

Some 89% of the projects were invested in small and medium sized businesses, companies that often experience difficulties in securing traditional private lenders for money. TPC takes risks that result in innovative technologies being advanced in this area. The risks are assessed project by project and TPC performs rigorous due diligence tests in order to ensure that the risk is within reason. This procedure returns the optimum in investments and opportunities.

I can talk about the opportunities in my own riding of a corporation that announced it was going to Mexico and as a result of the TPC investment, it is now investing $300 million in the Chatham-Kent area. It is advancing and bringing diesel technology to Canada which we otherwise would not have had, and we are looking at some very positive results as the result of that corporation creating a thousand jobs which would have gone elsewhere.

These kinds of investments are not just in one area, but they go from area to area right across Canada. Without that type of investment and without that type of opportunity, we would lose a tremendous number of jobs. We would not remain competitive in many industries, and research and technology would not happen in Canada.

[Gasoline Prices, April 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address Motion No. 165 now before the House. It contains two distinct proposals. One concerns the establishment of a petroleum monitoring agency and the other concerns unspecified amendments to the Competition Act. I will address each proposal in turn.

The first proposal is not novel in any way. As everyone in this place recalls, the petroleum industry has been monitored many times over the last several years and we have found through that monitoring that there are high and low fluctuations.

Following studies of the gasoline price increases during the winter of 2003, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recommended the establishment of a petroleum monitoring agency to be responsible for the collection and dissemination of data on gasoline pricing.

The committee's report found that significant increases in prices had been as “the result of competitive reactions to a series of international crises and abnormally cold weather that gripped northeast North America last winter”. Furthermore, the report also found no evidence that prices were being fixed or that market participants were engaging in any anti-competitive business practices.

The purpose of this report and the committee's recommendation was to increase the awareness of consumers regarding the dynamics of gasoline pricing and the competitive nature of Canada's petroleum industry. Members on this side of the House would agree that it is important to make information about the setting of gasoline prices widely available to the public.

However, we do not believe that an independent petroleum monitoring agency is necessary to accomplish this objective. Establishing a government agency charged with monitoring gasoline pricing may create a perception that the federal government is regulating gasoline prices. Retail price regulation is by and large the jurisdiction of provincial governments.

Also, current government activities, coupled with the data on gasoline prices collected and disseminated by the private sector and provincial governments, represent the most practical and cost effective means of raising consumer awareness about the competitive nature of Canada's gasoline industry.

Moreover, the Competition Bureau already exists to promote and maintain fair competition in all sectors of the economy, including the petroleum industry, by educating businesses and consumers, promoting compliance with the Competition Act and taking enforcement action when necessary.

In the past 15 years, the Competition Bureau has conducted five major investigations into allegations of collusion in the gasoline industry. The most recent one concluded in March of this year. Each time it found no evidence to suggest that a rapid rise in retail gasoline prices resulted from a national conspiracy to fix prices.

Establishing a gasoline monitoring agency will not do anything to further the objective of inspiring public confidence in Canada's competition framework.

That being said, we think this Parliament can do more for consumers than simply create a petroleum monitoring agency. That is why in November 2004 we tabled Bill C-19, an act to amend the Competition Act in Canada.

This bill represents a necessary step in strengthening Canada's competition framework so that it can adapt and respond to the rapid pace of economic change in the 21st century. By strengthening Canada's Competition Act, we can ensure that consumers have confidence not only in the competitiveness of the petroleum industry but in all sectors of the economy.

Bill C-19 follows extensive consultations with the public, including large and small businesses, consumer advocacy groups and legal and economic experts. The proposed legislation would provide concrete measures to address their concerns. Bill C-19 would give the Commissioner of Competition the authority to seek restitution for losses of consumers resulting from false or misleading advertising.

It also would increase the level of administrative monetary penalties imposed for deceptive marketing practices and introduce administrative monetary penalties to address the abuse of dominance in any industry, including all sectors of the petroleum industry.

This legislation would repeal the criminal pricing provisions dealing with price discrimination, geographic price discrimination, predatory pricing and promotional allowances. These pricing behaviours would be addressed under the abuse of dominance provision with the administrative monetary penalties.

The bill would also return the Competition Act to a law of general application by repealing the airline specific provisions of the act which were adopted in response to Air Canada's merger with Canadian Airlines. These measures are necessary to ensure that as an economy grows and evolves the Competition Bureau has the necessary tools and remedies at its disposal to effectively address the anti-competitive business conduct of industries and markets, and to encourage compliance with the Competition Act.

The motion before us proposes the government bring forward amendments to strengthen the Competition Act. As described, we have taken concrete steps to do exactly that. The motion proposes measures to ensure that the competition commissioner has the power to launch investigations, summon witnesses and ensure confidentiality.

We believe that the motion is proposing that the commissioner of competition be granted additional authority to conduct inquiries into the competitive nature of the market sectors where there is no reason to believe that the Competition Act has been breached.

While some of the stakeholders support allowing these types of general or market inquiries in recent national consultations, many raise serious concerns regarding these proposals, such as the types of procedures that would be used, the length of time they would take and how much they would cost.

The Competition Bureau is carefully examining the concerns raised by stakeholders regarding these market inquiries. Similar initiatives have found some support in jurisdictions, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, among others. The Competition Bureau is looking into the approaches taken by these countries to determine if these types of inquiries should be incorporated into our competition framework, while addressing the concerns of Canadian stakeholders.

We urge the members of this House to allow the Competition Bureau to complete its work on the issue so that we can ensure all proposed amendments to the Competition Act are carefully considered and well measured.

All factors taken into account, there is no evidence that a petroleum monitoring agency is needed or even desirable.

Furthermore, as the motion does not address the serious issues, such as jurisdiction of the provinces over gasoline pricing, and as we have already tabled Bill C-19, I urge all members of the House not to support the bill.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-236 proposes a substantial change to the existing rules respecting the treatment of student loans in bankruptcy. It is therefore essential that we do a thorough assessment of the proposals that are being made to make a proper determination.

The present rule is that an individual who goes bankrupt cannot have his or her student loan debt discharged unless at least 10 years have passed since he or she was last enrolled. This is in sharp contrast to the rule applicable to the debts which are typically discharged nine months after assessment in bankruptcy has been filed.

The 10-year rule was introduced in 1998 following a period in which losses to the Canada student loans program through personal bankruptcies had risen greatly. Many of these bankruptcies were occurring shortly after the individual left school. This type of behaviour represented a risk to the viability of the Canada student loans program. Indeed for the 1995-96 year alone, the fiscal cost of bankruptcies involving student loans totalled more than $100 million.

Since then the cost of bankruptcies has been reduced dramatically. In 2000-01, the last year where complete data is available, the cost of bankruptcies to the Canada student loans program was only $5.8 million.

While curbing the potential scope of abuses under the bankruptcy system, the government proceeded with vast improvements to the financial assistance to a student under the Canadian opportunities strategy, including improved access to the Canadian studies grant program, the investment of $2.5 billion in Canada millennium scholarships, a tax credit on student loan repayments, extension of interest relief periods, and the introduction of the debt reduction in repayment measure. These measures have been designed to provide students in financial need with viable alternatives to declaring bankruptcy.

Under the interest relief program it is now possible to go five years after leaving school without being required to make a payment on a student loan. During that time the Government of Canada bears the cost of interest on that loan. In 2001-02 over 140,000 Canadians took advantage of these generous provisions at a cost of $77 million.

Moreover, for borrowers who still experience financial difficulties after interest relief measures have been used up, there is then an actual debt reduction mechanism available allowing the borrowers to permanently dispose of over $26,000 in student loan debt.

I would also stress that the government has stayed on top of this issue. It has responded to the concerns regarding these support measures. In the last three years alone the budgets have contained measures to extend relief or to make relief measures more accessible to people experiencing hardships.

While some may argue that students are unfairly singled out, it is clear from these details that the Canada student loans program is quite generous to those legitimately facing financial problems.

We must also respect the fact that student loans are made available based upon a drastically different basis than a consumer loan. There is no examination of credit worthiness of the borrower. No collateral is required. The loans are interest free during the study periods. The schedule of repayment is flexible and accounts for the financial situation of individuals.

With these mechanisms available, there is some question as to the need for further relief through the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. It is reasonable to assume that any provisions for discharge of student loans must show coordination between the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the provisions of the Canada student loans program.

Bill C-236 creates unnecessary overlap between the relief provisions of the Canada student loans program and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The point is that there are relief measures available short of bankruptcy. Should those not be used as the first step?

Unfortunately, the bill therefore does not reflect existing relief measures, preferring rather to simply dismiss the debt when other options exist. This poses a very real risk to many students who take a few years to truly develop their full earning potential. It is at that point that their ability to pay becomes more certain and a fuller assessment of the appropriate relief can be made. The bill before us would bypass the measures in place to assist borrowers in favour of walking away from the debt entirely.

Bill C-236 would result in substantial financial cost to the government. In addition to loans financed directly, there are risk shared loans which could affect a large number of people as well. These risk shared loans are funded directly by financial institutions with a risk sharing mechanism which brings in government. The change proposed would likely require contractual agreements and additional compensation to those lenders.

This is the effect only at the federal level. Provincial student loans programs are also captured by the present rules so any change would result in any further levelling of costs there.

I am pleased to tell members of the House that in keeping with the ongoing improvements that have been made to this program, we are reviewing the bankruptcy discharge provisions in the existing legislation. This follows on consultations across the country held by Industry Canada with the participation of a wide range of stakeholders, including student representatives, as well as a more recent report on solvency law issues by the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. That report recommended a reduction in the discharge period to five years and perhaps less in cases of hardship.

Building on this input, officials of both Industry Canada and HRSDC are now examining the many comments and the existing provisions to ensure the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Canada student loans program are properly integrated and reflect a fair and reasonable standard of discharge for student loans.

In conclusion, the government wants to stress that the period of discharge of student loans must properly take into account measures under the Canada student loans program, the relief available, the continued Liberal access to loans and the costs associated with bankruptcies.

On the face of it, Bill C-236 does not do that. As a result, it fails to provide a fair and reasonable alternative to current provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act pertaining to student loans. The government cannot support Bill C-236.

[First Nations, Métis and Inuit War Veterans, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the comments that I made to the hon. member.

The fact is that all of those reports have been given to the Ethics Commissioner. The Ethics Commissioner has the detail on each one of those and the Ethics Commissioner is examining them and is required to report to the House.

Accusations can be made. Everyone knows that accusations can be made at any time. The proof of what happened is in the reports that were submitted to the Ethics Commissioner. The Ethics Commissioner has full opportunity as a person who does not have a role in that department, but a person who overlooks the security for Canada, to make a decision in a proper way.

Let us let the system work properly. Let us allow the Ethics Commissioner to examine each and every one of those cases and report his findings back to the House. I believe that is the appropriate way and that should be the Canadian way for all of us.

[First Nations, Métis and Inuit War Veterans, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the TRP program is very important to Canada's immigration system which plays a significant role in upholding Canada's humanitarian tradition.

Preliminary numbers show that 13,575 permits were issued last year. Only 6% of these permits were the result of ministerial intervention.

The hon. member has suggested that the program is subject to abuse. The truth of the matter is that TRPs are issued in a transparent manner. The Government of Canada is required to provide the House with full disclosure every year. Today's system is eminently preferable to the discretionary system that was used before the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and which did not require disclosure.

The Government of Canada is firmly committed to providing Canadians with all the transparency that such an important program demands. This is what we have done. Each year a full report is tabled in the House disclosing the total number of temporary resident permits issued and the reasons they were issued.

The hon. member suggests that the former minister of citizenship and immigration has acted in an improper manner. I would like to remind the member that the member for York West requested the Ethics Commissioner to investigate the matter. He has been given a mandate to examine the permits that were issued and whether or not any abuse of power took place.

The final report will be forthcoming. I suggest that the hon. member let the Ethics Commissioner do his job and make a full report to the House on all of those permits.