Brian Masse

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, during the start of the debate, the member for Kings—Hants noted that there was a moral obligation to not borrow money and bring in a new tax. However, we have seen, with the Liberals and the Conservatives, that they have borrowed over $6 billion to bring in the HST.

Could the hon. member answer this question? Why can the Conservatives borrow money for the HST, which is shifting a business tax on to consumers? An independent parliamentary research papers states that if we have to pay this over 10 years, it will cost us approximately $7 billion. Why is it morally okay to borrow money to bring in the their HST policy?

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise on this important issue, as I have so many times in the past. It is interesting to see the Liberal position on this. I remember quite vividly, even months ago, that whenever we spoke about the failing corporate tax cut reductions not leading to job improvements, the Liberals would literally light their hair on fire and scream at the socialist agenda. We would see that go on. It was like the sky was falling in.

Now we see this reversal of policy and it is interesting. The former Liberal finance critic said:

We're the party of deep corporate tax cuts, and I'd like to see Canada as the Ireland of North America.

That is a real good suggestion from the Liberals. Basically, we have seen Ireland having to be bailed out now, and one of the reasons is because it has no income stream coming back in even for government services.

I would like to pose this question to the member. If it is morally inappropriate, as the member for Kings—Hants said, to borrow money to pay for corporate tax cuts now, why did the Liberals join with the Conservatives to borrow $6 billion to bring in the HST, which is going to cost $8 billion to $10 billion after the interest is paid, according to an independent economic analysis?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are acting like the American government's doormat. American politicians continue to slag Canadians as terrorists and they go uncontested every single day.

Every deal this Prime Minister has made has led to a thicker border, not a thinner border. Canadian businesses in places like Windsor are being hit hard by increases in fees and longer delays. Countless other communities along the border, like Trail, Welland, Fort Erie, and St. Steven rely on the quick delivery of goods.

Will the government, at the very least, tell this House what demands it will make to address the serious shortcomings at Canada's border with the United States?

[Canada-U.S. Relations, February 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, when the Americans started threatening that Canadians would require passports at the U.S. border, the previous Liberal government did nothing.

Now this administration is no better. Every time the Americans have pushed, the Conservatives have capitulated and rolled over. Meanwhile, the border keeps getting thicker and more expensive for travel and trade; Canadian jobs are being lost; and border communities are suffering.

Why is the Prime Minister keeping the latest border deal with the U.S. secret? Our sovereignty, security, personal privacy, and governance are at stake. Canadians deserve answers and accountability. Why won't they get it?

[Criminal Code, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up with the member for Burnaby—New Westminster not only in terms of investing in summer employment for youth but also the issue with regard to the cut in the gang file. Once again, Conservatives have money for a vase but no money for gang-related prevention work.

We have seen that being proactive and having police resources is a real advantage. Ironically, the government talked about how it was going to increase the number of police officers out on the street and never did so. It failed on that promise. Making sure it lives up to its promise of putting more police officers on the street has been very frustrating. At the same time, if they cannot do that, those funds could go to prevention. Gang projects are very important. Organized crime is a very serious issue. Why does the government not take organized crime seriously, as it says it does with its other types of initiatives?

[Criminal Code, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as I noted earlier in the debate, the Conservatives have cut back on the summer employment programs for youth in my area of Windsor West, where they cut thousands of dollars. What that means is that more youth will not find employment.

We have an unemployment rate of 20%. I have worked directly with youth at risk. One of the most important things we can do is to ensure their training and schooling and that they actually have employment during the summer.

It is interesting, because this is the government that talks about its fiscal record, and just the other day, it spent another $650,000 on a vase made by an American.

We have to wonder about the priorities of the Conservatives when the people who are on the streets right now, the youth who are actually spending record amounts of money and getting into debt to go to school, have no opportunities. It is not only important that they actually make some money, but also that it keeps them out of trouble and gives them hope and opportunity. It is also important for the Canadian economy for productivity, because if they get into their field of study, they are getting experience and we are not losing them to the United States or other jurisdictions because there are no jobs and they have no experience.

I would like to ask the member for Burnaby—New Westminster about choices like these. In his riding, is he seeing the youth being left behind? Will that cause a problem in the future? I just cannot believe the government could buy a vase for $650,000, but does not have enough money for one of the regions with highest youth unemployment rate, my riding, which has 20% youth unemployment? Where are its priorities?

[Criminal Code, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have not seen from the government is a follow through on programs and services for youth.

Prior to coming to this chamber, I worked at the multicultural council with youth at risk. We ran an important summer program that gave youth the opportunity to learn skills and get engaged with the community. We had over a 90% success rate of youth either going back to school or finding employment.

It is also important to note that the government has changed some of the actual programs to make it more difficult to acquire funding. One in particular that was sadly lost was the new beginnings project where counsellor Bill Marra and the executive director of new beginnings and his staff did a terrific job on a garden project. During the summer, youth at risk would learn gardening skills and provide food for the community. However, the government made the program so difficult that it has disappeared.

Just recently, our summer employment bank was also reduced in terms of funding. Around $4,000 to $5,000 has been cut from Windsor West so more youth will not get employed. Our youth unemployment rate is 20%. It is critical to have these types of programs in place so young people can get the opportunity to learn skills and further their education and experience because they will be applying it in the field.

We had a press conference, along with the presidents of the University of Windsor and St. Clair College, the student unions and a youth activist group, to bring this issue forward.

I would ask my colleague about the fact that not enough preventive work is being done and that only a small amount of money is necessary to get youth to make other decisions. If we provide them with a choice, they will make the right choice for the most part.

[Patent Act, January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Halifax for her great work on the bill. I also want to thank the members who spoke in favour of the bill. The bill is very important. Since 2003 I have been trying to get the law amended or fixed properly. It was Bill C-56 originally.

I want to impress on members that we can make a difference. We can choose to make it happen. We have proposed under Bill C-393 WTO and TRIPS agreement compliance. By that I mean that it abides by all international laws. There can be no other excuse used during this debate. If members do not believe me, they can believe the Library of Parliament's independent research which shows that what we are proposing here today is legal internationally. If we want to make a difference, we can do it now.

Back in 2004 I spoke in this chamber about the law that we passed and my fear that it was built to fail. It has failed. There has been one application. Apotex got one drug into Africa, despite the obstacles of the bill.

We told the world something. We told the world that we would help, that Canada would stand front and centre, show respect and help people. We said that we would make sure that women, men and children would get drugs that we have on our shelves and in our plants, that they could not get because of the cost. We told that to the world. We promised the world that we would lead the way. However, the way that we did it is despicable. We made a law that does not work, which others replicated, which gave an excuse. Right now people are suffering. People are dying. That does not have to happen. Not only have we chosen to turn our backs on them, but we have given them a phony law and literally slapped them in the face. Canada, the country to which I belong, has done that.

That is a shame. I have seen that over the years as a member of Parliament. I have tried to fix it four times. I feel strongly about it. I thought about that on the way to Ottawa. I used to belong to the AIDS Committee of Windsor. Before that, I had friends in Toronto who were gay, who had AIDS, who suffered. I have seen friends die, and they had medication. It is horrible to witness the disintegration of a human being, and that is in the best of circumstances.

We have an opportunity to make a difference. We continue to hear that it is a great idea and the laurels of the bill are applauded but that it cannot work. It does work, and we need to try. We need to move the bill to the next stage. It has to go to the Senate. Let those excuses resurface there and let us find solutions. As New Democrats, that is what we have done along the way.

I have a brief time to speak today, and I have two amendments that I will propose.

We have agreed to compromise continually in this process, not only with the Conservatives, but with the Liberals and now with the Bloc. There has been an attempt, one way or another, to either gut the bill or pretend that we are doing something and then say that we are doing all these other things. That is not the point. The point is this is one tool that could end the suffering of millions of people. This is one tool in the kit that Canada could use to help people.

Even if members' worst fears occur, we could bring the bill back to this chamber and fix it again. We could bring it back right away. We do not want intellectual property stolen. It will not happen with this bill, but that is one of the excuses that has been given. We have actually included the components of criticism that members have put. Even though we did not think they were warranted, we have agreed to them. Even under the worst scenario, we could bring the bill back to the chamber and fix it right away. New Democrats are prepared to participate every single day to do that. We are here today to do that.

I want to thank some people. I want to thank Richard Elliot and the grandmothers across this country, people who care for people and understand the connection, the values and principles with which this country could lead the world.

We have told them that we have a phony law that does not give them the drugs they deserve, that they could get to actually have good health and take care of other types of problems, as opposed to a solution.

There is no other excuse. The bill is WTO and TRIPS compliant. I have heard that. Witness after witness came to the committee. The same excuses were brought forward against this bill. They were not verified. At the very least, we could try with this bill. The people who are opposed to this are worried that affordable medicines will get to people rather quickly, and even more important, will get to the types of diseases that we need to get to. If that becomes a problem because it is happening too often and too fast, then we could revisit that. The excuses we have heard make no sense whatsoever.

The drug industry has blatantly said that if we do this it is going to cost us research and development and the industry will not invest in Canada. Despite the generous corporate tax cuts, despite all the grants and subsidies the industry is getting for research development and all the other incentives that have been thrown in the mix, the industry would throw the country under the bus just because a bill could pass that would, ironically, give the industry money. The pharmaceutical companies would get money for the drugs. They would get a percentage.

Again, I want to thank every member for participating in this debate. I hope that everybody thinks about this as the bill, hopefully, goes forward.

I would like to amend Motions No. 1 and 2. Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the motion proposing to restore Clause 2 of Bill C-393 be amended by replacing the definition of “pharmaceutical product” with the following:

“pharmaceutical product” means any patented product listed in Schedule 1 in, if applicable, the dosage form, the strength and the route of administration specified in that Schedule in relation to the product and any other patented product, or product manufactured through a patented process, of the pharmaceutical sector needed to address public health problems, especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics, and includes active ingredients necessary for its manufacture and diagnostic kits needed for its use.

The second amendment is long, and it is also WTO and TRIPS compliant. Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the Motion proposing to restore Clause 4 of Bill C-393 be amended by replacing the text after “4.(1) Subsection 21.04(1) of the Act is replaced by the following:” with the following:

21.04 (1) Subject to subsection (3), the Commissioner shall, on the application of any person and on the payment of the prescribed fee, authorize the person to make, construct and use a patented invention solely for purposes directly related to the manufacture of the pharmaceutical product named in the application and to sell it for export to any country listed in Schedule 2.

(2) Paragraph 21.04(2)(c) of the Act is repealed.

(3) Paragraph 21.04(2)(e) and (f) of the Act are repealed.

(4) Subparagraph 21.04(3)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Act are replaced by the following:

(i) sought from the patentee or, if there is more than one, from each of the patentees, by certified or registered mail, a licence to manufacture and sell the pharmaceutical product for export to one or more of the countries listed in Schedule 2 on reasonable terms and conditions and that such efforts have not been successful; and

(ii) provided the patentee, or each of the patentees, as the case may be, by certified or registered mail, in the written request for a licence, with the information that is in all material respects identical to the information referred to in subsection (2).

(5) Paragraph 21.04(3)(d) of the Act is repealed.

(6) Section 21.04 is amended by the following after subsection (3):

(4) The solemn or statutory declaration referred to in paragraph 3(c) is not required in the case of an application to the Commissioner for an authorization to supply the product named in the application to an eligible importing country for purposes of addressing a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency in that country or for purposes of public non-commercial use, but in such cases, the Commissioner shall notify the patentee or patentees of the issuance of the compulsory licence as soon as reasonably practicable after it has been issued.

That is all about compromise by the New Democrats for those who are opposed to the bill.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, December 7th, 2010]

With regard to the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev Ontario): (a) is the Agency subject to the ongoing strategic review and, if so, what is the purpose of this review of FedDev Ontario; (b) how much project funding was allocated by riding in the Ontario region (i) during fiscal year 2009-2010, (ii) to date during the current fiscal year; (c) under the government's Economic Action Plan, how much funding was allocated to FedDev Ontario and how many projects did FedDev Ontario fund using this money; (d) what are the funding and full-time equivalent projections for FedDev Ontario for each of the fiscal years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013; (e) how much core and project funding has been allocated to each Community Development Agency in Ontario (i) during fiscal year 2009-2010, (ii) to date during the current fiscal year; (f) how much funding was allocated to support operations of the FedDev Ontario office in Ottawa during each of the fiscal years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011; (g) how many staff were assigned to work in Ottawa's office (i) during fiscal year 2009-2010, (ii) to date during the current fiscal year; and (h) what programs and initiatives will sunset in 2010-2011 and what new programs will be launched in 2011-2012?

[HIV-AIDS, December 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, today, on World AIDS Day, more than 16,000 men, women and children will die in the developing world because they cannot get affordable generic drugs. New Democrats have introduced a bill to get the antiviral drugs to five million people who desperately need them. The brand name drug companies only have 2% of the African market, so right now their profits will not be impacted by the bill.

The government needs to decide if it is more interested in saving lives or protecting the brand name drug profits. Which is it?