Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, pointed out, hopefully by now several U.S. drug importation bills have come and gone. Bills on drug importation do not have a great life expectancy.
We have been hearing about bulk importation of drugs from our neighbour south of the border for more than five years now. During that period, many such bills have been introduced, one after another, and none came close to being adopted. In fact, they all died. They died because they were poisoned by members of Congress. They died because they became unpopular. They died because they were not workable. Why? Because importing drugs manufactured for other markets is simply not the solution.
Again today we see concerned U.S. health care providers commenting in the media. They raise their voices because the harsh reality of pricey prescription drugs in the U.S. is the major reason why people do not take their medication as prescribed, even forcing some people to choose between their medicines and other necessities.
The solution they propose is to control and reduce drug prices by involving Congress and federal agencies. They are not proposing to import drugs from foreign markets. In fact, they are openly and bluntly opposing such action.
Some hon. members present here today remain of the position that the U.S. will imminently open its border to cheaper drugs from other markets. Frankly, I do not understand how they are arriving at such a conclusion.
There is no doubt that Canadians must continue to have access to the prescription drugs they require. The government is committed to the health and safety of Canadians, including protecting an adequate supply of prescription drugs. However, I fail to see how spending taxpayer money to create unneeded laws to address purely hypothetical scenarios would serve that end. Should the time when the government would need to take action, we would want a measured and balanced approach to protecting our drug supply.
Bill C-378 is underdeveloped. Its non-measured, broad-brush approach raises fundamental objections. These are substantive in terms of trade law obligations and procedural in terms of regulation-making processes.
By contrast, the leading U.S. bill to legalize drug imports appears to assiduously cover the waterfront, in terms of administrative details.
I know hon. members are aware that it is most unusual to seek to directly amend regulations in Parliament, as Bill C-378 would do. Such an approach would bypass the Canada Gazette, related consultations and other review processes for regulations.
However, more important, Bill C-378 would not provide any tools for implementation and, worse, would not provide any ministerial discretion to ensure that any government response would be proportionate to the risk.
The member for St. Paul's has been talking about the Tamiflu situation of 2005, when Internet pharmacies were promoting and selling this drug to patients outside of Canada. I am deeply confused as to why this past situation is being offered as one example for moving forward with Bill C-378. I am confused because C-378 would still allow Internet pharmacies to sell drugs to the U.S. It would allow for truckloads of drugs to cross the border, even should shortages occur in Canada.
In short, the bill would prohibit exports and then would exempt most of the exports it purports to prohibit.
It is clear that Bill C-378 would not meet its stated goal. We would find ourselves having to come back in the House to discuss yet another bill, one that would be measured, one that would be consistent, one that would be effective at protecting our drug supply, one that would be carefully crafted knowing the final form of a U.S. bill, not one based on uncertain and ever changing U.S. House and Senate proposals about drug importation.
Canadians have said that they were concerned about cross-border drug sales, but they would be even more concerned with having Bill C-378 as the government's response.
Supporting the bill is not about standing up for Canadians.
Again, I want to reiterate and underscore that the government is committed to effectively monitoring and assessing potential risks to our drug supply associated with cross-border drug sales.
However, it is important not to overstate those risks and it is premature to introduce or pursue new legislation to restrict drug exports when there is no existing threat to the Canadian drug supply.
Real obstacles to the adoption of an effective U.S. drug importation bill remain, particularly the known objections of President Bush and many republican legislators. However, even if the U.S. were to adopt the current leading drug importation bill, its provisions would not allow bulk imports to start until one year had passed, providing the necessary window for this government to develop a measured and relevant approach to protecting our drug supply.
The U.S. bill also contains an extensive oversight regime, including inspections of exporting facilities that would be expected to limit and/or slow the uptake of its enabling provisions. Cost recovery from exporters and importers would also have an impact on the potential cost savings to consumers.
However, what is important to understand is that the drug importation proposal is not at the forefront of discussions in the U.S. It is being used solely as a lever to bring U.S. drug manufacturers to the negotiation table to lower U.S. drug prices.
The real leading proposal is to allow the U.S. medicare program to negotiate drug prices directly with manufacturers, which it is currently prohibited from doing. We know and the U.S. Congress knows that the issue the U.S. health care system is facing is high drug prices.
In summation, we have been hearing for years about drug import proposals in the U.S., but none survived. What we see and what we hear today is a continuing debate about high drug prices in the U.S. and this is a situation that the U.S. will need to resolve within its borders.
Candidly, there is no reason for spending more of the valuable time of hon. members to discuss a risk that does not exist and, worse, to discuss a bill that would not even protect our drug supply, even if there were a risk.
The interest of the member for St. Paul's on this issue is very much appreciated and noted, but for the reasons outlined, the government cannot support Bill C-378.
