Bill C-393 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

This enactment amends the Patent Act to make it easier to manufacture and export pharmaceutical products to address public health problems afflicting many developing and least-developed countries, especially those resulting from HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do have selective amnesia in this place. I thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for referencing that, because we lose sight of our history in this place.

The member for Carleton has been an MP for 19 very long years. I know the Conservatives have spent millions of dollars on burnishing up his image, but he has a long history in this House of Commons. If we do some digging, there are a lot of comments, a lot of questions and a lot of speeches from the member for Carleton that will give truth to who he really is.

However, it gets better, because the Conservatives have stood in this place accusing Liberals of bullying senators and imposing their will, when the Conservative Party is the only party in this House that still has 15 senators at caucus every Wednesday. Fifteen Conservative senators join their MP counterparts for every Wednesday meeting, and they get their marching orders from the member for Carleton on how to play games in the Senate. This has been the case for several Parliaments and we have seen it in the past.

Conservative senators have taken their marching orders from former prime minister Harper and have done the very thing that Conservatives are mad about today with Bill C-234. Senators took their marching orders from the Conservative Party in the House of Commons and used their procedural shenanigans in the red chamber to block multiple bills on multiple occasions that were passed by the democratic House. Again, it is rank hypocrisy from the Conservatives.

I will outline a few notable examples.

Our former beloved leader Jack Layton, several Parliaments ago, had a bill that was passed by the House called the climate change accountability act. My God, how things would be different now if we had actually paid attention back then and passed that law. However, right now in 2023, we are dealing with the consequences of years of inaction from both Liberal and Conservative governments. That bill was held up. It died in the Senate because of procedural shenanigans instigated by Conservative senators.

We have also had other cases. Former NDP member of Parliament Paul Dewar, who represented Ottawa Centre, introduced Bill C-393. It was a bill to permit the shipment and provision of generic drugs to Africa, a worthy cause, but it died in the Senate because of Conservative senator procedural shenanigans.

Then of course, in the 42nd Parliament, there was the bill that brought us to where we are today. It was the bill introduced to fully implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a groundbreaking piece of legislation, Bill C-262. It was ahead of its time, ahead of where the puck was going, and it directly led to the government introducing its own legislation in the subsequent Parliament to make sure Canada's federal laws were in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That bill, which was duly passed by the House of Commons in the 42nd Parliament, was held up because of procedural shenanigans and games by Conservative senators at the request of their leader.

This is the amazing thing about the Senate. We cannot do that here in the House. With the rules there, one senator can throw in a wrench and jam up the entire works for days on end, and this tactic is used again and again. Conservative senators, under orders from their leader, have been doing precisely the same thing that Conservatives are mad about today when it comes to their own legislation.

These are the things we have to highlight. They are incredibly important because we have short memories in this place.

I am coming down to my final three minutes, and I very much look forward to the questions that will come. However, it does us well to understand that, first of all, Bill C-234 would not have passed in this place if it were not for all opposition parties working together to pass it because they saw merit in the bill. That is number one. Number two, we fundamentally agree with the principle that the Senate, as an unelected body, needs to respect the will of the House. The only party that has been consistent on that position through several parliaments is the NDP. We are the only party that comes out squeaky clean in a debate about the Senate, and all members would do well to acknowledge that fact.

Consistent with our third reading vote on Bill C-234, we will be voting in favour of today's motion, because that is consistent with the approach we have always taken. Had there been motions on our own private members' bills from several previous parliaments, we would have done the same thing. It is important to remind senators that we are the ones who have to face the electorate. We are the ones conveying the wishes of the people of Canada. Every seat in this place represents a distinct geographic area of Canada. We are the ones bringing the voice of the people here, and senators need to be reminded of that fact.

I will end by again highlighting the hypocrisy. I like serving with many of my Conservative colleagues, but as a party, we cannot take any moral lessons from them on the Senate given their history with appointing failed candidates, with party bagmen and with the instructions they give to their 15 caucus members who are members of the Senate. With the entire history they have of blocking bills, Canadians who are listening to today's debate need to understand that the last place we would ever go for a moral lesson on the problems with the Senate is the Conservative Party of Canada. I just want to make that very clear.

I will end my remarks there. I thank everyone for taking the time to listen, and I look forward to any questions or comments.

Patent Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the bill that my colleague has brought forth. I rise with a sense of regret and shame for a country that has failed to deliver on a promise that it made nearly 10 years ago. As a result of that failure and that promise that was never kept, we have witnessed children, men and women suffer and die because we did not get a chance to provide medications.

We built the system. This is important to recognize when we go back and look at the past. Bill C-56 was the original bill. It was nicknamed Jean Chrétien's aid to Africa act. We said at that time that we would put a system in place that would be the envy of the world. It would allow generic drugs to get to those who were suffering, whether it be from HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis or malaria. We promised.

When Parliament recessed Bill C-56 came back to the House as Bill C-9 in 2004. We made another promise. Experts appeared at committee a couple of times. We brought in witnesses. We had expert testimony from many people from around the world. People testified to make sure that we were WTO and TRIPS compliant, that we were within the mandate with regard to allowing the patented drugs to be generically created and distributed, and that we would follow certain rules. Basically, we wanted to create an open and accountable process. Instead we built a monster that really has only been exercised once in all of these years. It really is a monster, because it is preventing us from stopping death and suffering.

Why is it important? Lots of numbers get thrown out and there have been some improvements over the years. The reality is that many people are still suffering. I cannot understand it when I look at the problems being faced in sub-Saharan Africa. What are we doing when children are becoming the heads of households because their parents are dying? We are taking out the capacity for the family unit to be effective. These children are losing the knowledge of how to raise themselves, how to become successful, how to get an education and work co-operatively with others. We are undermining people because we are not providing the resources that are there.

There is a will out there. I want to read some comments from organizations that are in favour of the legislation, because it needs to be noted that they did their part. They did their part for many years on the Hill as we have moved this issue forward.

When we moved Bill C-393, the previous legislation, it ended up dying in the Senate. Unfortunately, we are back here today. It is important to move this legislation again to committee because it does have a few changes, some improvements and some compromise. It is not like we did not compromise along the way. At one point I submitted over 100 amendments to the original bill at industry committee because we knew the legislation was so badly constructed. The Canadian access to medicines regime was built to defeat itself.

The organizations that did their part include the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Grandmothers Advocacy Network, Results Canada, the Federation of Medical Women of Canada, the Canadian Federation of University Women, the Ontario Nurses' Association, UNICEF, Bracelet of Hope, World Vision, the United Church of Canada. A whole coalition, a rainbow of organizations have come together and worked together.

There have been some important changes and there is some hope. We were fighting with the brand name drug companies along the way. We have gone through a whole range of issues about certain countries being listed and certain drugs being listed, and fought back and forth on all of those things.

However, now there has been a shift in their position. In a letter dated November 19 from research-based pharmaceutical companies to my leader, the hon. member for Outremont, it says they are open to looking at a more constructive approach. They list a series of concerns. Some I do not think are as valid as others, but there are important ones to note. They talk about transparency, amount and term, anti-diversion, eligible countries, eligible medicines and safety appeal mechanisms.

The good news is that there is no reason for any member now to vote against the bill. If a member is voting against the bill, he or she is voting directly against the pharmaceutical companies, the generics, and all the organizations I mentioned, that want to see this move forward. I thank them for coming to the table this time. In the past, we have witnessed a relationship that has been rocky at best. However, at this moment in time there has been a change in position. We are going to hopefully see this legislation move to committee so we can start to deal with some of the issues they raised to improve the legislation.

It is important. We have set an example internationally with this legislation. If we can get the changes here, other countries can also get some changes. We have a situation where some of the global funds are diminishing, so we have an issue with supply and management right now, and the costs.

I will conclude that I have come here today speaking out of frustration and disappointment, but there is a glimmer of hope this time. I am hoping all the members understand that there is nobody else out there against moving forward, so let us do it together with all members' support.

Access to Medicines

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition on behalf of hundreds of Canadians, many of them from Ottawa but also from the western provinces, B.C. and Manitoba in particular. The petition is by the Grandmothers Advocacy Network encouraging members of this House and the government in particular to support Bill C-398, a bill to amend Canada's access to medicine regime to allow people in Africa, principally but not only there, who suffer from treatable diseases such as HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis to receive medicines that are not priced exorbitantly. The petition also encourages those members who voted in the past for Bill C-393, which passed the House but did not get through the Senate, to consider supporting Bill C-398.

Patent Act

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from constituents concerning Canada's Access to Medicines Regime. The petitioners are in support of Bill C-393.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from time to time we have an opportunity to discuss an issue that is so fundamentally important that the question of action is not if, but how.

Before us today is a bill that will address the ongoing and terribly destructive crisis with access to medicines in developing and least developed countries across the world. While this bill is not perfect, there is a balance to be struck between maintaining our country's commitment to intellectual property protection while ensuring that we do not build unnecessary barriers limiting access to the medicines that are much needed in developing countries. That is why it is important to get this legislation to committee for closer examination.

We have no excuse for inaction. The House already passed a version of this bill in the last Parliament and the problem is not going away. It has been eight years since the Liberal government of the day put forward a bill that established a legal framework for Canada's access to medicine regime. The bill, otherwise known as Jean Chrétien's pledge to Africa act, was meant to create a balance between addressing our commitment to combat HIV and AIDS and simultaneously honouring intellectual property rights and trade obligations. The bill passed unanimously. Through that legislation, parliamentarians of all stripes signalled that it was a priority that there be timely access to affordable generic versions of patented drugs meant to fight HIV-AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases that are killing thousands of vulnerable men, women and children every day. As an international leader, we could not stand idly by and watch others suffer without trying to help.

It has since become clear that the bill, well-intentioned as it was, proved ineffective in accomplishing its main role. Whether it has been overly complex or onerous or unresponsive to the urgent needs of countries in need, Canada's access to medicines regime has simply not lived up to its intended purpose. That is not to say that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are solutions and we must move forward to implement them and reach these noble goals.

The bill before us today contains workable solutions to the administrative burdens that have made CAMR frustratingly inaccessible. In fact, we saw this legislation before the last Parliament as Bill C-393, and the House of Commons passed it before it died in the Senate when Parliament was dissolved for a general election.

I remember its passage from the House as one of the proudest moments in my time here, standing with a majority of fellow members, Liberals, NDP, the Bloc and several Conservatives alike saying to the world that we would help. At that time I argued that we could, and I still firmly believe that we can, pass this legislation and prolong lives while preventing the transmission of insidious diseases like HIV-AIDS. We can renew a lease on life for ailing parents, confident in the knowledge that they can live to provide for their loved ones, secure in knowing that they will not transmit the disease to their children. It is not enough to wish it were so, and words certainly will not make it true. Action is necessary. We can act now and finally address this head on.

Mr. Speaker, I will defer to you, understanding that I will have six minutes remaining when called upon again.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for bringing this matter before us again by introducing this bill.

I thank the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for bringing forward Bill C-398, which would amend the Canadian access to medicines regime. It is my pleasure to speak today in support of the bill and to move it to committee stage by voting for it at second reading. It is time to move the bill to committee and move on the legislative process, which was interrupted in the last election after it passed this House with support from all parties.

We are very fortunate in Canada that we live in a country where we are able to benefit from medication and as a country we have the infrastructure and the know-how to produce medicines. As Canadians, we also feel that we have an obligation to help those around the planet who are less fortunate, who are sick or dying and could be helped if they had access to medicines that exist today.

That was the motivation for Bill C-9, the original Canada access to medicines regime, also known as the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa Act.

Some medicines are expensive and the point of CAMR is to make available to developing countries safe, generic versions of medicines manufactured in Canada and to do it within international rules on trade and on intellectual property rights. It is intended to provide the competitive pressure to reduce the cost barrier to those countries that would never be able to afford the medicine but would greatly benefit from it and where people are in dire need of the medicine. We know that other countries can produce generic drugs but the Canadian product is produced with higher standards in quality control and it will provide competition on that basis.

CAMR came into force in 2005 but, as people have noticed, since that time this regime has only been used to provide one shipment of medicine to one country so far, which is why we believe there are barriers. One of the barriers that has been identified is the cumbersome licensing process.

The core of Bill C-398 is to provide the so-called one licence solution, which would remove the need for each individual country to make a request for a compulsory licence to produce generic drugs that are needed for serious health problems in these countries. It would remove the need for individual countries to apply and, instead, a Canadian generic pharmaceutical manufacturer would apply for the licence for all countries.

This reform has been sought for several years now, and in the previous Parliament, Bill C-393, upon which Bill C-398 is based, passed this House with support from all parties and probably would have come into force had the May 2011 election not been called.

I want to expand a little bit on the remarks that my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie made and I want to talk a little bit about intellectual property issues, which were the subject of the speech by my hon. colleague from the Conservative benches.

Advocates for reforming CAMR do not wish to jeopardize pharmaceutical R and D in Canada. They have said that an I think they do believe in the importance of the knowledge economy , and one of its pillars, the value of intellectual property.

I think we all agree that Canada's future will depend very much on its participation in the knowledge economy and nobody wants our kids to be competing in the world on the basis of providing the lowest cost labour. I believe that the drafters of Bill C-398 recognize some of these concerns.

For example, Bill C-398 improves upon Bill C-393 in that respect by specifying that Canadian generic manufacturers must post online the quantities of medicine being exported to each country. They must also put online the notification that each WTO country gave to the WTO trade related aspects of intellectual property rights council, or, for a non-WTO country, the notice that country gave to the Government of Canada.

The old bill, Bill C-393 from the last Parliament, at first removed a two-year time limit on licences before a renewal was required. In the last Parliament this was amended in committee to restore that time limit. Bill C-398 keeps that two-year time limit in the current draft. Drafters of the bill have responded to concerns about an open-ended licence in time.

In the spirit of the changes that the drafters of Bill C-398 have made, compared to Bill C-393 that already passed the House in the last Parliament, we could make some amendments to emphasize that it is not the intent of the bill to negatively impact any R and D investment in Canada. It is not the intent of the bill to devalue intellectual property that is a pillar of a knowledge economy.

People have asked me, for example, why Qatar is on the list of countries in the bill. It is a country with a per capita income of $90,000 per annum. I believe that no one wants that distraction. It really is distracting from the fact that people are sick and dying and need medicines that they cannot afford. Therefore, this is something we could look at in committee, the list of countries in schedule 2 of the bill, to remove these distractions that may lead people to question some aspects of the bill.

My colleague from the Conservative Party is worrying about safety issues. Some critics have worried that the generic drugs would not be subjected to safety reviews. However, section 21.04(3)(b) in the current legislation remains unchanged under Bill C-398 and affirms that any generic product must meet the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and its regulations. Therefore, my hon. colleague is incorrect when he makes that point. It is an old point that was made in the past but this bill is slightly different and that point is covered. In fact, the advantage of importing drugs from Canada is that products are manufactured with higher standards and with better quality control.

I will be voting in favour of the bill. It is time to move toward reforming Canada's access to medicines regime, a process that was accidentally interrupted at the last election, but which had already passed the House. We must not delay in sending the bill to the next stage of the legislative process, to committee where we can examine it and related issues in detail, as we should examine every bill. We must move this bill to committee and I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill at second reading.

Motion in Amendment

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise here today on Bill S-5 and the amendments that the NDP has put forward with regard to creating more transparency and accountability in this bill.

We do support the bill. However, we see this as a missed opportunity because there are so many issues relating to the banking industry right now that affect Canadian consumers, and also Canadian companies. I was at committee today and so I do not know if this has been discussed a great deal here, but small and medium size businesses have been hurt exponentially by the banking system in recent years. I will get into more detail on that later, but it is important to put that as part of the equation as we talk about this missed opportunity here.

First, as my colleague from the Liberal Party noted, the bill comes from the Senate. That is a concern for us. Why would the government table a bill in the Senate and then have it come to the House of Commons? A Conservative called the Senate equally capable. That is an interesting description for the Senate coming from the Alliance/Reform Party base out there when senators are unelected, unaccountable individuals.

While there are some very good people in the Senate who do some good work, at the same time they are not elected and not accountable to the Canadian people. Therefore, I do not think the Senate is equal to the House in any sense whatsoever. I am shocked that a Conservative/Reform/Alliance person would call the Senate that, because senators are political patronage appointments made by the Prime Minister, whether that be Joe Clark at the time, Pierre Trudeau, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin or now our current Prime Minister.

Senators do not have to go to the electorate and earn their seat. Once again, there are some very good people there whom I have worked with on a lot of good issues and I respect them a great deal, but there is a big difference between them and having to go to the person checking out groceries and selling cars. They are our bosses. They are the ones who decide whether we get to this place or not.

Having said that, I am a little concerned that the bill is from the Senate. I say this because in the past I worked on Bill C-393, a bill on providing generic drugs to developing countries for tuberculosis, AIDS and malaria. The House of Commons passed it, but it actually died in the Senate. Thus the elected body here passed a bill, sent it to the Senate, but it never made it through, even though it should be Canadian law right now so that we could provide medicines to those who are suffering from tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS in developing countries. There was also the bill from Jack Layton, the climate change bill, that was passed in this House of Commons, but, again, did not make it out the door of the Senate.

Now we have the reverse coming back here and what we see is a very scoped bill on the banking industry. However, I am glad that the Conservatives are dealing with this. The government is actually addressing some component of it, but let us take a step back in history, which I think is very important.

It is interesting that representatives of the banking industry came into my office a year ago and said that I should be thanking them for the work they had done and the fact they had propped up the Canadian financial system because of the way banks were structured and had done business. At that point, I asked if they wanted me to go to my computer or to my filing system and pull out all of the presentation decks and summaries they had previously provided me saying that they had to become like the American banks.

It was the New Democrat members in the House of Commons who fought against that. I will admit there were some Liberals who did so too, because I have been corrected in the past on this, and quite sincerely, by some of my Liberal friends. However, it was John Manley under Paul Martin who was trying to move our banks towards the American model. We voted against that and stopped it and it did not pass the House of Common, as there were some others who supported that notion to keep our banks the way they were. However, it was certainly the Conservatives, the right wing members, who got up day after day to complain about how Canadian banks would be swallowed up by U.S. institutions if we did not act at that particular time. That took on—

Senate Reform Act

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

I am pleased to have this opportunity today. I have a degree in political science and I am very interested in all matters pertaining to parliamentary process, especially Senate reform. It is a subject that I studied a number of times while in university. This is the third time that the Conservatives have introduced a bill dealing with either the election of senators or Senate terms. Thus, we have had a great deal of material to examine and analyze in recent years.

The purpose of the bill before us today is to reform the Senate in two main ways. The first limits the tenure of senators to a maximum of nine years for all senators appointed after October 14, 2008. The second allows the provinces and territories to hold elections, at their own expense, to decide the names to be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration for future Senate appointments. The provinces could thus choose any system they liked for electing senators, provided that the system adhered to basic democratic principles.

The Conservatives say the measures they have introduced are intended to modernize the aging institution that is the Senate. For once, I agree with my Conservative colleagues on part of what they say: the upper chamber does in fact present major problems, and measures need to be taken to remedy the situation.

However, the solution the NDP has been proposing for several years is quite different. In fact, we are calling for the complete abolition of the Senate. The reasons why we are calling for the abolition of the upper chamber are very simple. First, the institution is not democratic, and it is composed of unelected members appointed by the Prime Minister. More often than not, those appointments are partisan and are made to reward friends of the Prime Minister. As well, he sometimes adds insult to injury by appointing candidates, and even ministers, who were rejected by the public in a general election, as we saw after the last election on May 2. The people living in the greater Quebec City region can attest to that as well.

In addition, the Senate is also used for partisan purposes by the government, whether to guarantee the speedy passage of government bills or to kill bills that have actually been approved by the House of Commons. I am thinking in particular of the Climate Change Accountability Act and the bill to provide generic drugs for Africa.

Since 1900, there have been 13 attempts to reform the Senate, and they have all failed. Bill C-7 is no different from all those other failed attempts. It does not solve the problems that already exist in the upper chamber, and on top of that it creates new problems that simply worsen the present situation. First, limiting senators’ tenure to nine years does not make them more accountable to Canadians; quite the contrary. In fact, the bill eliminates any form of accountability to the public, since senators would never have to face the public at the end of their tenure. Once senators were elected, they would never have to account for their decisions, their actions and their broken election promises, because they could never stand in another election. As well, they would be automatically entitled to a pension, regardless of their record.

I cannot see how having the Prime Minister give a senator a nine year non-renewable term increases democracy in the Senate. Nor do the measures proposed by the Conservatives in Bill C-7 prevent partisan appointments. The bill does not really change the way senators are appointed, and the Prime Minister remains entirely responsible for choosing senators. The Prime Minister is not obliged by this bill to select senators from the lists submitted by the provinces or territories, and he can continue to choose whomever he wants and ignore each and every list he receives. He can, therefore, continue to fill the Senate with senators who are loyal to the government rather than to Canadians. This is a major problem.

Canadians elect the members of the House of Commons and place their trust in them to be their voices in Parliament. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, appoints senators, as a reward, and they serve the governing party.

I shall now read a letter written by Senator Bert Brown to the members of the Conservative Senate caucus. It is dated June 15, 2001, which, in my opinion, perfectly illustrates a situation. I am going to read the first and last paragraphs, which I think are the most relevant . The letter reads,“Yesterday, in Senate caucus [the minister] was showered with complaints about Senate elections and a nine year term. ... Every Senator in this caucus needs to decide where their loyalty should be and must be. The answer is simple; our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics, the Rt. Hon. [Prime Minister].

The message to senators is very clear: their loyalty lies not with the regions that they represent, nor with Canadians; their loyalty is to the Prime Minister. Canadians, too, have heard this message loud and clear.

Another consequence of this bill would be the creation of a two-tiered Senate with elected and unelected senators in the same upper house, which may be worse than what we currently have.

Bill C-7, if passed in its present form, will fundamentally change the nature of Canadian politics as we know it today. We will end up with senators elected at the provincial level who believe that they are more legitimate than the unelected senators. We will then have a Senate with different degrees of legitimacy based on the method by which senators are selected.

However, the most negative effect of this bill will be evident once we have an entirely elected Senate. According to the Canadian Constitution, the Senate currently has more or less the same powers as the House of Commons. However, since senators are unelected, they cannot indefinitely block legislation with financial implications because they have no direct mandate from Canadians but are appointed by the Prime Minister.

Once we have an elected upper house, it will be a whole different story. Senators will have greater legitimacy to introduce bills and block House bills. That could result in American-style impasses pitting two houses of elected representatives with essentially the same decision-making powers against one another in legislative conflicts with no apparent solution.

Ultimately, such impasses will force us to redefine the framework of Parliament, including the rights and responsibilities of both the House of Commons and the Senate. Major changes will require nothing less than a constitutional amendment. There is no other option, because that is the existing legislative framework.

The Conservatives claim that their bill will sidestep a constitutional debate on Senate reform, but I do not see how such a debate can be avoided.

Before passing a bill that will inevitably lead to interminable constitutional debates and discussions, we have to let Canadians weigh in on the issue of the Senate's very existence. All the provinces have done quite well without their upper houses since 1968, so it is high time we thought seriously about getting rid of the federal Senate. That is why, for years, the NDP has been calling for a referendum to find out if Canadians want to get rid of the Senate. Before setting in motion any major reforms of the Senate or abolishing it entirely, we need a clear mandate from Canadians, from the people of this country, and the only way to get a clear, legitimate mandate is to hold a referendum.

The changes that the Conservatives have proposed in Bill C-7 are inadequate and will not solve the Senate-related problems. That is why I oppose this bill. If the Senate cannot be abolished outright, the status quo is better than the constitutional chaos into which the Conservatives apparently wish to lead us. Serious consideration is in order before passing Bill C-7. The government will find itself embroiled in constitutional debates that it would rather avoid. That deserves some thought.

Patent Act

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-398, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes).

Mr. Speaker, today, I am proud to introduce my bill entitled An Act to amend the Patent Act.

This bill will modify the provisions of the current access to medicines regime, which allows Canada to export generic versions of drugs for HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other illnesses to developing countries, and it will make the regime easier to use.

This will enable Canadian manufacturers to send potentially life-saving medicines to those who desperately need them.

This bill is an improved version of Bill C-393, which the House passed by a comfortable margin last March but which, unfortunately, died on the order paper in the Senate.

When drafting this bill, I worked closely with the Grandmothers Advocacy Network and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. I would like to thank Pat Evans and Richard Elliott for their help.

The bill has already received significant support from all parties in the House. Over the coming months I will be encouraging my fellow parliamentarians to take this opportunity to support lifesaving legislation.

Together, with hope, love and optimism, we can make a difference.

(Motions deemed adopted, read the first time and printed)

Senate Reform Act

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-7, An Act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits.

If only we could be so fortunate as to have the government amend the bill so that the Senate would be abolished, then this could be our last time to rise and speak about Senate reform. My NDP colleagues and I believe that the Senate needs to be abolished. Any attempt to reform the Senate would simply be window dressing to this very seriously undemocratic institution. As things currently stand, Bill C-7 introduces ineffective measures that will do nothing to fix the Senate.

What is currently wrong with the Senate? We often describe the Senate as a romantic place of sober second thought. However, we know the Senate is no such a place. Last year, rather than respecting the will of this House, as my colleagues have pointed out, the Senate killed Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act. The bill was passed in the House of Commons and voted for by elected members of this House. The Senate killed it and the government called a snap election.

In the words of our former leader, the hon. Jack Layton:

This was one of the most undemocratic acts that we have ever seen in the Parliament of Canada. To take power that doesn't rightfully belong to them to kill a bill that has been adopted by a majority of the House of Commons representing a majority of Canadians is as wrong as it gets when it comes to democracy in this country.

This spring the Senate killed another bill which was very important. Bill C-393 would have made it easier for people in developing countries to obtain more affordable life-saving medicines. It was a bill that would have saved lives. It was voted for by members of this House and killed by an unelected Senate.

To suggest amendments and return a bill to the House is one thing, but to kill a bill in this way, using sneaky tactics, is just plain wrong. It is disrespectful to the decision-making power of this democratically elected House.

Right now the Senate is basically full of political appointments, friends and failed candidates. That is what the Senate is right now. For instance, our Prime Minister appointed to the Senate three failed Conservative candidates from the last federal election. All three failed to win a seat in the election. Canadians decided on May 2 that they did not want to have these people representing them. Yet, here they are; they are in the Senate.

There are a number of things in the bill that do not fix anything at all. For example, the Conservatives make excuses for their appointments saying that they will use them to reform the Senate. This is clearly laughable.

Every day in this House the Conservatives trample on democracy. They ram bills through the House and committees without debate or examination, sometimes without even costing these bills. Then the Conservatives want members to believe that they actually want a more democratic Senate. They do not.

The reforms the Conservatives are proposing in this bill are completely inadequate.

First, under the proposed legislation, the Senate would become a two-tiered system with some elected senators and some unelected senators.

Second, the limit of one nine-year term means that senators, even elected ones, would not be held accountable for their actions in a subsequent democratic race.

Third, because the actual appointment process would not change at all, despite talk of increased democratic accountability, the bill does not actually introduce any check on the Prime Minister in the appointment process. Basically, it could be business as usual.

Fourth, because the bill would do nothing to address the distribution of seats in the Senate, the increase in power of an elected Senate would mean an unbalanced increase in the power in Quebec and Ontario. I come from British Columbia and that is not fair.

Fifth, perhaps the most important intended role of the Senate is its ability to represent women and minority interests. By making it an elected Senate and forcing any candidate that runs to do so under a party banner would only tighten the partisan stranglehold on the legislative process. Parties will drown out minority representation, like we have seen in Australia. There are examples in Australia where this has happened.

Sixth, the introduction of increased democratic legitimacy would give the Senate even more leeway to assert its own decision-making power, which could result in gridlock. We have seen that in the United States. This is counter to the productivity Canadians expect from their government.

There are solutions, and New Democrats and others have proposed them. The best solution to this democratic black hole that is the Senate is to basically abolish it. The Conservatives have been wishy-washy in the past and unable to decide what they want when it comes to the Senate. For instance, previous Conservative bills have called for a federally regulated electoral process, while another bill called for eight-year term limits. We can see clearly that what the Conservatives want is the appearance of reforming the Senate when, in reality, they stack it with their cronies and use it to kill legislation passed by democratically elected members of the House.

Unlike the Conservatives, New Democrats have unwaveringly supported the abolition of the Senate since the 1930s, and many Canadians agree that we need to abolish it and move on from this undemocratically elected institution. At the provincial level, both Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty in Ontario and NDP provincial Premier Darrell Dexter have called for the abolition of the Senate. In my province, Premier Christy Clark has said that the Senate no longer plays a role in Confederation.

We have seen from history that all provincial legislatures have abolished their provincial senates. The last one was done in 1968. Even the Prime Minister himself once said that the unelected Senate is a relic of the 19th century.

Unlike the Conservatives who have not consulted the provinces, New Democrats believe it is the responsibility of the government to consult all Canadians. To that end, New Democrats believe that the issue of Senate reform cannot be solved by this piecemeal bill. The issue of Senate reform needs to be put in a referendum, so Canadians themselves can decide how they want to deal with it.

The majority of Canadians support New Democrats in this proposal as well. There have been a number of polls done. I will mention one that was done in July 2001 by Angus Reid, which said that 71% of Canadians supported having a referendum on this issue.

In closing, I would therefore urge my Conservative colleagues to heed their small-c conservative roots. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what would happen with an elected Senate. It would no doubt completely change the Canadian political system, but to what end we cannot be sure. The best solution to Senate reform is abolition.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Where do I begin on that, Mr. Speaker? We have conversations in the House and we debate policy on many issues that affect all Canadians and costs that are associated with that. Some of the things we have been saying is that many of the decisions that are made in the House we need to flip on their heads.

If I could go to the one bill that was defeated in the Senate, which was Bill C-393, the cost associated with providing anti-viral drugs to children and adults in Africa suffering from HIV and AIDS would have been minimal and we could have eased the suffering of people. Instead, we are spending money on, as the hon. member said, travel and everything else.

The decisions that are being made in the Senate are affecting the decisions that we have made in this House. We make these decisions in the House based on what we think is in the best interests of Canadians.

We need to ensure those best interests continue to be brought forward and we need the Senate to actually support these bills until they are no longer around.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the bill entitled “An act respecting the selection of senators and amending the Constitution Act, 1867 in respect of Senate term limits”.

Although the bill may appear to address one of Canada's most egregious democratic deficits, I am afraid that the approach being taken leaves much to be desired.

Essentially, Bill C-7 restricts all senators appointed to the Senate after October 14, 2008, to a single nine-year term. Provinces and territories would then be given the opportunity to hold elections at their own expense to determine which names would be submitted to the Prime Minister for consideration, and only consideration.

While on the surface this approach might appear to bring heightened accountability to an unelected institution of the Crown, restricting Senate term limits while holding non-binding Senate elections fails to consider the most logical option for improving Canadian democracy, namely the abolishment of Canada's Senate.

I recall one of my constituents, Craig, telling me that he did not support a triple-E Senate. He supported a single-E Senate, and that single E stands for empty.

Before I get into why New Democrats believe that the Senate has outlived its raison d'être, I would like to highlight some specific criticisms of the bill as it currently has been presented to Parliament.

First, it appears that, as it is currently written, Bill C-7 contains a glaring loophole which would completely undermine the spirit of what the government is proposing. This is because the government is clearly attempting to pass legislation which should require a constitutional amendment and making unclear how much force the bill would actually carry.

For instance, by taking an approach which fails to crystallize the changes in Canada's Constitution, the Prime Minister would not be constitutionally required to appoint anyone elected by the provinces. Therefore, the bill does not actually change the way senators are currently appointed as the Prime Minister would still be free to appoint whomever he or she chooses.

We have seen previous examples of the Prime Minister acting in contravention of existing democratic reform legislation which has passed through the House. Specifically, I can point to the fixed election date legislation. Why then should Canadians trust that the government would actually abide by the legislation that we have in front of us today? Call me a pessimist, but this is certainly one concern that I have with Bill C-7.

Let me make this clear. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what would happen with an elected Senate. That brings me to another major concern arising from Bill C-7, which is the inevitable gridlock which would arise from having two separately duly elected Houses of Parliament.

Since the Senate would have virtually the same powers as the House under Bill C-7, an elected Senate would have greater legitimacy to introduce legislation or oppose bills sent to it from the House of Commons. On the surface this seems like a good idea. However, when we dig deeper into those proposals, it would illicit the real fear that we could end up with the kind of gridlock we see in the U.S., something which no Canadian wants to see our Parliament descend into.

This brings me to my final point that the best approach to take in order to reduce Canada's democratic deficit is the complete abolishment of the Senate. Personally, I am of the belief that when it comes to the Senate, Canadians do not need it. It is expensive. It has been packed with party insiders and we cannot trust what the leaders are going to do with the Senate.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly used the unaccountable and undemocratic Senate to kill legislation that had been passed in the House of Commons, twice killing Bill C-311, the climate change accountability act and, this spring, killing Bill C-393, a very important bill which would have facilitated the movement of generic antiviral drugs to Africa to help people living with HIV-AIDS.

These pieces of legislation, supported by wide swaths of the Canadian public, were killed by the Prime Minister's appointed senators in the Senate with no sober second thought. How can we have sober second thought when we have a bunch of Conservative Party organizers and fundraisers with obvious conflicts of interest? It makes a mockery of our democratic system.

As I noted earlier, even should the bill pass during the 41st Parliament, there is no guarantee that the government would actually abide by the rules it has put in place. Thus, we could end up with a patchwork Senate filled with a mix of elected and unelected senators.

I will put forward a hypothetical situation. What if the government refuses to appoint a senator who has been elected by residents of a province because it disagrees with the party banner under which that senator was elected? After all, the prime minister would not be constitutionally obliged to actually appoint them to the Senate. That is why I firmly believe the safest and most obviously beneficial approach to the Senate is to abolish it.

I will conclude my statement today by drawing attention to what the provinces, our partners in Confederation, have been saying about the Senate, both in terms of the status quo and the proposals in front of us. Both the Ontario premier, Dalton McGuinty, and the Nova Scotia premier, Darrel Dexter, have openly called for the abolition of the Senate. The B.C. premier, Christy Clark, has said that the Senate no longer plays a useful role in Confederation, while Manitoba maintains its position of eliminating the Senate. Even more worrisome is that Quebec has called this legislation unconstitutional and has said that it will launch a provincial court appeal if this bill proceeds without the consultation of the provinces.

Why, then, is the government moving ahead with a plan that is not supported by the federal government's partners in Confederation? It seems that without the full support of the provinces this proposal will merely be a paper tiger dressed up as a solution to bring Canada's democracy into the 21st century.

What happens if certain provinces refuse to participate in the system? Citizens of those provinces would certainly be shortchanged. Even more dire is the thought that this bill would lead to a constitutional crisis with multiple provinces taking action at the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of this legislation. Without proper provincial consultation, which I fear has not taken place, this is an inevitability and something that should be avoided at all costs.

Therefore, I ask that the government reconsider its position on the bill until such a time as the provinces are properly consulted and sign on to these proposals.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues, as elected members, have a duty to be accountable, but members of the archaic Senate do not have this moral duty.

This relic is a home for numerous defeated politicians who are appointed for partisan purposes, which was the case for some Conservatives who lost the election and were still rewarded by the Prime Minister. I am not the first person to use the word “relic”. In fact, the Prime Minister himself described the Senate as a relic of the 19th century. Now that he is no longer talking about abolishing it, as he used to do, he wants to reform it based on equally outdated values. Why not donate this relic to the Museum of Civilization?

You do not have to be able to predict the future to know that this bill will fail, as did the 13 other attempts at reform before it. The NDP's long-standing belief in abolishing the Senate dates back to the 1930s, and it has constantly been reaffirmed by the party. Yes, the New Democratic Party will vote against the bill and will voice its desire to abolish the Senate, pure and simple. If the government is wondering about the public's opinion on this, we invite it to ask Canadians to voice their opinion through a referendum.

Here is why this bill is going to end up in the dustbin of history. It is undemocratic. The government wants to limit the tenure of all senators summoned after October 14, 2008 to a maximum of nine years. Considering that these individuals are accountable only to the Prime Minister, this is an invitation to hit and run. Moreover, they are entitled to a pension when they leave the Senate. While elected members must face voters at each election to get their verdict, senators are free to completely reject the opinion of Canadians.

The nine-year term set out in the bill confirms this situation, because even if senators were appointed after being elected, they would have the luxury of behaving as they please, without any obligation to go back before voters. The term “election” thus becomes devoid of any moral compass that is part of democratic duty. Since senators will not be allowed to run twice, how can they be accountable to the public? In this regard, the bill does not change anything in the undemocratic basis of the Senate, whose members are accountable only to the Prime Minister. A senator will only be accountable to the Prime Minister, as has always been the case. The bill only provides that a list be submitted to the Prime Minister. It does not in any way affect his discretionary powers.

Some may argue that the Prime Minister will never dare oppose the public's choice, but recent history has shown that the Prime Minister can violate this principle, as he did on the issue of fixed election dates.

I am going to digress a bit and talk about my thoughts while listening to hon. members and what the majority of people think of the Senate. To most people, the Senate is not a big concern. Except for the fact that it costs a lot of money, people do not wake up in the morning thinking about the Senate. For years, I too did not think about those individuals sitting over there and quietly passing the time while waiting for a well-deserved retirement. I did not think about the Senate until Ms. Verner was appointed there. To me, that was a fundamental violation of the democratic process. Someone who had lost all authority through a democratic process was promoted to the Senate with a golden pension for the rest of her life, this for services rendered to the Conservative government. There is a problem there.

There is a second problem. The Senate blocked two bills passed by a majority of members in a Parliament that required the agreement of all parties in order to make a firm decision. I am referring to Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, which the Senate killed, and Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

In addition to posing a problem of legitimacy, the people appointed to the Senate have begun to kill bills duly passed by a democratically elected assembly. This is starting to get serious. Do we want to continue down that road? The Conservative government is going down a path that is fraught with danger for the future and for democracy.

It has been said the Prime Minister will take into consideration the provincial nominees or the list submitted when elections are held. I am the first to doubt this, and I am convinced that my colleagues and my friends in the NDP and other parties also have serious doubts about that.

Let us imagine for a moment that cross-Canada elections are held for senators. The list of new senators includes Amir Khadr, a symbol of the new Quebec left. This man is a leading light. His views could lead to social progress in Canada. Would the Prime Minister agree to appoint him to the Senate? Never, that is clear.

François Saillant, a champion of Quebec's homeless people, has been involved in every fight to increase social housing in the past 25 years. Would the Prime Minister appoint him if he were on the list? Never.

If Steven Guilbeault were on the list submitted by Canadians, would he be appointed as a senator by the Prime Minister? Of course not. I am convinced that members of the Green Party share my belief. Steven Guilbeault would never be appointed, nor would Laure Waridel of the organization Équiterre. The government does not want supporters of fair trade. We know that trade is unfair in the House. We have to leave it alone.

Would David Suzuki be appointed if he were on the list? I am convinced that the Conservatives would not want to appoint David Suzuki to the Senate.

Would astrophysicist Hubert Reeves be appointed? Would the Prime Minister appoint an astrophysicist, when this party denies scientific facts and scientific actions? Never.

Vivian Labrie founded the Collectif pour un Québec sans pauvreté, which fights to try to get the government to take the reality facing those most in need into account when making decisions. It fights to prevent decisions that will affect the poorest one-fifth of the population. Would this government appoint Ms. Labrie to the Senate? Never.

So this shatters the illusion and the fantasy that the Prime Minister would definitely appoint all of the senators proposed. That is not true. I would like to come back to my speech, which does not necessarily address that, but this raises a question. Basically, is it not dishonest to claim such things, when we all know the political stripes of the people appointed to the Senate?

The Prime Minister is under no obligation to appoint someone who has been elected by a province or territory. This bill therefore does not change how senators are appointed, since the Prime Minister is still free to choose whomever he wants to appoint to the position of senator. How can anyone believe that he will respect the democratic will of the people? He clearly does not understand the notion of democratic accountability. The Conservatives say that the provinces would be able to choose any system they like to elect senators, as long as the system complies with basic democratic principles. The facts show that this government knows very little about basic democratic rules. We cannot help but be cynical, since the government acts as though it was elected by 100% of the population when, clearly, that is not the case.

Quebec has called this bill unconstitutional. The provincial government said that it would go to court if this bill were passed without prior consultation with the provinces. What do the Conservatives want to do, reopen a constitutional debate? What a great way to be put through the wringer.

In closing, I wish I could find the words that would bring this government back to its senses and make it see that this issue must be resolved by the people.

We invite the government to hold a referendum if it is certain about the reform it wants to propose. I remain convinced that all Canadians would like to do away with this relic and relegate the Senate to the Canadian history museum.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since this is my first speech in the House of Commons in the 41st Parliament, I would like to thank the people of Nickel Belt for returning me to this House of Commons. I am grateful to the people from as far west as Foleyet, to the east of Garden Village, from the south in Killarney, and to the north of Capreol and River Valley, for returning me to this House.

One of their reasons for returning me to this House of Commons is due to the fine work that my staff is doing in Nickel Belt. I would like to thank them in this House, including Carmen McMurray in Nickel Belt and Val Caron, Ghislaine Millette in Val Caron, and Mona Noël and Don Pitre in Sturgeon Falls. I would like to thank them for the fine work they are doing.

Some of the reasons why we were re-elected to this House of Commons are because the people of Nickel Belt are more concerned about unemployment, health care, education and about their mothers, fathers and grandfathers. They are not too concerned about Senate reform. They are concerned about the things that affect them and Senate reform certainly does not affect them.

I am happy to rise in the House today to speak about the important principles of democratic reform and accountability.

I know the citizens of my riding of Nickel Belt want an electoral system where people are made to feel their vote counts. They want to feel good about government again, to see it as truly representative of them, and to feel they have a choice.

Five years ago, our Prime Minister was opposition leader. He recognized how wrong the unelected Senate was. He called it unfair and undemocratic. He called an appointed Senate a relic of the 19th century. Then, as opposition leader, he clearly did not like how the Prime Minister held a virtual free hand in the selection of senators and he made a promise that, as Prime Minister he would not name appointed people to the Senate. Sadly, we have seen another broken promise. Instead of fixing the problem with the Senate, the Conservative government has made the problem worse.

Consider the evidence. The Prime Minister now holds the all-time record for appointing the largest number of senators in one day. He has appointed Conservative Party faithful, spin doctors, fundraisers and insiders, his former Conservative Party president, his former national campaign director, and several defeated Conservative candidates. What more evidence do we need than seeing the architect of the Conservative notorious in and out scheme currently sitting in the Senate? Unnecessary Conservative senators spend their time voting down laws passed by elected members of the House of Commons, while burning through taxpayers' dollars to travel the country fundraising for the Conservative Party of Canada. Talk about doing politics differently; it is more of the same old, same old as we saw with the previous Liberal government.

Last fall, we watched in shame as the Conservative-dominated Senate was used to veto legislation that the Prime Minister simply did not like. The Climate Change Accountability Act, introduced by my colleague from northern Ontario, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North, was passed twice in a minority Parliament. Elected members representing Canadians passed the bill. A majority of elected MPs supported that legislation twice. Tragically, on November 16, 2010, the Senate, with its Conservative appointees, defeated Bill C-311 on second reading. There was no community discussion in the Senate and no witnesses. It was killed by unelected friends of the Prime Minister.

Unfortunately, the government's legislation related to the Senate is not about real democratic reform or delivering on commitments of accountability. New Democrats are talking about real democratic reform. We are calling for the abolition of the Senate. Canadians have had enough. The Senate has to go. Most Canadians would not miss it. Recent polling shows that only 18% approve of the actions of the Senate. Unfortunately, today's senators are too often partisan, working for their parties while being paid with public money. No sober second thought can come from unelected appointees with such obvious conflicts of interest.

Then there is the waste of money in the unelected Senate because Canadians are paying more and more for a discredited institution that does less and less at a time when people are dealing with slow economic recovery and the Conservative government is contemplating billions in cutbacks. Maintaining the Senate costs Canadians around $19 million a year. While folks are looking for jobs, trying to make ends meet when their EI runs out and scraping by on pensions that do not even cover basic necessities, senators are earning $132,000 a year for a three-day work week. Travel and expenses for senators cost $859,000 a year for an institution that will not play any relevant role in the lives of most Canadians.

I can think of a lot of things that matter to people, like creating family-supporting jobs, improving public health care, and building a decent future for our kids. Lining the pockets of party insiders probably is not high on anyone's list. I repeat that New Democrats want the Senate abolished. That has been the position of the New Democratic Party and its predecessors since 1930, and we are not alone.

The Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, and the Premier of Nova Scotia, Darrell Dexter, have publicly called for the Senate to be abolished. The Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark, has said she does not think it serves a useful purpose within Confederation. Manitoba also maintains its position in favour of abolishing the Senate. Quebec has called this bill unconstitutional. The provincial government has said it would appeal the matter in court if this bill passes without prior consultation with the provinces.

We know real democratic reform is not achieved by tinkering with how senators are appointed or chosen from the provinces. We will need to introduce fair voting and proportional representation where the franchise of every voter is respected. We are calling on government to hold a referendum asking the Canadian public whether they support abolishing the Senate.

Today, I am asking the Prime Minister to start with two modest but vital first steps. First, I am asking the Prime Minister to stop appointing failed candidates and party insiders to the Senate. I am asking him to reach out to Canadians by making that a firm commitment.

Second, I am asking the Prime Minister to work with me to ensure all senators are banned from fundraising for political parties. No sober second thought can come from unelected appointees with such an august conflict of interest. It makes a joke of our democratic system, and it is not fair to Canadians.

In the long run, New Democrats remain firmly committed to following other modern democracies, as well as Canada's provinces, by abolishing the upper house and continuing to call for a pan-Canadian referendum to allow Canadians to provide a mandate on how to proceed.

We, as New Democrats, want Canadians to feel good about government again, to see it as the embodiment of their collective capacities as citizens, and to feel they have a voice. Let our elected members of Parliament, and only our elected MPs, speak on behalf of Canadians.

Second, let us stop wasting money on the undemocratic parts of our country that are not benefiting Canadians.

I want to bring out some key facts on this Senate reform. All provincial Senates were abolished by 1960, and provinces have continued to function properly. For those from the opposition who think we cannot work without a Senate, the proof is in the pudding. The provinces got rid of all Senates in 1968, and they are still functioning.

Public support for a referendum on the Senate is growing. An Angus Reid survey from July 2011 showed that 71% of Canadians were in favour of holding a referendum to decide the future of the Senate; and 36% of Canadians supported abolishing the Senate, up from 25% one year earlier.

If we really want to hear what Canadians have to say about the Senate, maybe we should have a referendum and let Canadians tell us what they want. With this Angus Reid survey, we know what Canadians want. They want the Senate abolished.

The Conservatives have said that they do not want to tear the other place down, they want to rebuild it. They are accusing us of wanting to tear the other place down. There have been 13 attempts to reform the Senate since the 1900s, 13 times Canadians wanted to remodel the Senate and failed every time. We are not going to accomplish anything this time either.

The government has been all over the map when it comes to Senate reform. A previous Conservative bill called for a federally regulated electoral process, while another bill called for eight year term limits.

The Conservatives have not properly consulted with the provinces about whether or not they agree with the content of this bill. When this bill was first introduced in June 2011, Conservative senators, even those appointed by the Prime Minister, pushed back against any plan for Senate term limits.

Senators will remain unaccountable to the Canadian people by only being allowed by law to serve one term as senators. They will never have to face the public to account for the promises they made to get elected or the decisions they made in the previous nine years, and they will get a pension when they leave office.

The safest, small c conservative approach to the Senate is to abolish it. We know how the House of Commons works, but we have no idea what will happen with an elected Senate.

The Prime Minister has called the Senate a relic of the 19th century. In 2006, the Conservative Party platform stated:

The Conservatives...believe that the current Senate must be either reformed or abolished. An unelected Senate should not be able to block the will of the elected House in the 21st century.

That is exactly what happened to Bill C-311.

The government has used the Senate as a dumping ground for party operatives and fundraisers who are using public money to campaign for the Conservatives. We are seeing that right now with the provincial elections going on across the country. We are seeing senators going from province to province and riding to riding campaigning for the Conservatives at a cost to public money.

The Prime Minister has used the unaccountable and undemocratic Senate to kill legislation that had been passed by the House of Commons twice. As I mentioned previously, Bill C-311 and, this past spring, killing Bill C-393, generic drugs to Africa.

We have Alberta senator, Bert Brown, whose name has been mentioned quite often by Conservative members today making him the god from Alberta. Bert Brown made it very clear in his letter to the Senate dated June 15, when he stated:

...our loyalty is to the man who brought us here, the man who has wanted Senate reform since he entered politics....

It was not to their regions or constituents.

What a shame that an appointed senator would say something like that. He is not there to represent the regions or his constituents. Who is he there to represent if he is not there to represent Canadians? It is a shame.

Health

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry wrote to the unelected Conservative senators and directed them to kill the medicine for all or drugs for Africa bill despite the fact that Bill C-393 was passed by the majority of elected members of this House, including 26 Conservatives. The minister's contempt for democracy is appalling.

The Conservatives may be in the pockets of big pharma but Canadians did not elect big pharma. They also did not elect the Senate.

Why is the minister putting the interests of Conservative insiders and big pharma ahead of saving lives?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, elected members of Parliament, including 26 Conservatives, voted to save lives by passing Bill C-393, the medicines for all bill.

However we have obtained an email drafted by the industry minister directing Conservative senators to kill the bill. Conservatives are again using the Senate, a relic of the 19th century according to the Prime Minister, to kill a bill this House passed. Conservatives are putting profits for the big drug companies against saving lives.

Do the Conservatives understand democracy, or do they just not like it?

Freezing Assets of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in supporting the fast-tracking of this bill. I also want to mention the importance of having this review. From the beginning, it was our party's position that this needed a review. We are talking about significant changes, albeit ones that are needed. When we are moving rapidly to make changes like these, it is important that Parliament have an opportunity for review.

I also want to recognize the public servants who worked on this matter. Often they are not given the accolades they deserve. When these things happen, we all know who does the detailed work. I want to thank the officials at the Department of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs, those who were willing and able to brief us and appear at committee.

There is no doubt this is a phenomenon we will have to deal with in a different way in terms of legislative tools. This is important. We also have to acknowledge that assets exist here from questionable regimes. In particular, we are seeing a kind of strong-arm phenomenon, in that individuals who are using the profits from ill-gotten gains are often supported by companies from the west. These have to be scrutinized more closely. FINTRAC is one means, but we need something that is a lot more precise.

I would note that the government did bring in measures on arms restrictions banning exports to Libya. It is important to note that to date, the government has not brought forward to Parliament, and therefore Canadians, a report on our arms exports as a country. That has to happen.

I would also mention that this bill has to go through the Senate quickly. I would hope that would be done with Bill C-393 as well.

Access to Medicines

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, women and girls continue to be affected disproportionately by HIV and AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. Better access to life-saving medicines would greatly benefit mothers and children living with HIV and AIDS, as well as help family members, particularly grandmothers caring for their grandchildren.

Bill C-393 proposes a one-licence solution that would greatly simplify the licensing process to export lower-cost generic medicines to developing countries.

I would like to recognize the support of this bill by the strong national network of grandmothers groups which seek to build solidarity, raise awareness and mobilize support in Canada for Africa's grandmothers. These women have built a strong two-way relationship that has proven to be a powerful challenge to a pharmaceutical industry that prioritizes profits over human rights, health, social and economic justice.

I hope that the actions of these grandmothers and of all women and girls working in solidarity with each other around the world will inspire the members of this House to pass Bill C-393.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today is World AIDS Day, and in communities such as Hamilton, grandmothers are gathering in support of Bill C-393. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that life-saving medicines reach those who need them most. By simplifying the export of cheap, generic, antiretroviral drugs to the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, this bill literally could turn the tide of HIV-AIDS.

Sadly, a few weeks ago, the Liberal opposition teamed up with the Conservative government to gut Bill C-393. In committee, the Liberal-Tory coalition stripped the most critical element, the one-licence provision, from the bill.

While I try to avoid excessive partisanship, this is a profoundly partisan matter. There is no sugaring the pill: across Africa, people are dying from preventable diseases. Children are dying from treatable illness. They desperately need the medicines we have and they need them now.

I urge my Liberal and Conservative colleagues to do the right thing. There is no downside. By restoring the one-licence solution and passing the bill immediately, millions of lives can be saved. Brand-name companies will receive royalties for their intellectual property, and generic drug companies will increase their capacity and employment, all without costing Canadian taxpayers a dime.

Rarely do we as MPs have such personal power to save millions of lives. Let us use that power wisely.

Industry, Science and Technology

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, in accordance with its order of reference on Wednesday, March 3, 2010.

Your committee has considered Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act and agreed on Monday, November 1, 2010, to report it, with amendments.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this bill, because it means that it is one step closer to becoming law.

The NDP has advocated for consumer protection for years. Judy Wasylycia-Leis, my former colleague, the former member for Winnipeg North, has been on this file for years, advocating for stronger consumer protection. I know that our leader has raised it with the Prime Minister, and in the 40th Parliament, this session, the member for Sudbury has been a strong advocate for changes to consumer protection laws that would actually result in protection for consumers.

As we have heard a few times in this House, the previous legislation is 40 years old. It is time for a change. It is time to catch up and modernize. All parties are in agreement that this legislation is desperately needed.

However, that does not necessarily ensure that product safety is going to be ensured in Canada. This legislation is going to need to be enforced in order for it be effective. As the member for Elmwood—Transcona has said, there are serious questions about whether or not enforcement is actually going to happen and whether or not sufficient resources are going to be put into this bill.

This is a good bill. I am proud to support it. Our party is proud to support it. I am proud that it is going to the other place and may soon get royal assent. We are hopeful that it will be soon. However, we need to stop and think critically about whether this bill is just a shell being carried into effect for show, or whether it will actually provide protection for consumers.

There are a number of reasons to think that the government might abdicate its responsibility on this bill, should it be passed through the other place. The reason is this: despite the fact that the legislation is their own, and despite their repeated statements that this legislation is important to them, the Conservatives have dragged their feet. There is no other way of putting this. They have dragged their feet in introducing this legislation to the session. Previously, they prorogued Parliament and killed similar legislation, not once but twice. There was significant delay in getting this to first and second reading.

Now we are rushing it through. I think that is fair. We know what is in this bill. It has been to committee before. We have debated it before. However, it has taken a long time for us to get to this point.

Even though we are at third reading now, we have to ask why has this process has taken so long. Why has the government not acted quickly on this legislation, when there have been many opportunities to do so? I think it demonstrates a level of unwillingness to emphasize the safety of Canadians. It is disconcerting that so much time and energy, resources and effort, were put into trying to eliminate the gun registry, while product safety was put on the back burner.

The member for Portage—Lisgar is driving around in a minivan saying “End the registry”. In fact, that minivan was idling outside of Confederation Building the other day, so clearly they do not care about the environment either. There is no minivan saying “protect consumers”. There are no flyers going into other ridings, no radio or TV ads saying that we should protect consumers. All we get is foot-dragging.

Over the last month, we have received alarming reports about Health Canada's failure to warn parents about the risks of cadmium in children's jewellery. Health Canada testing showed unacceptable cadmium levels much earlier than we had previously known. Some of the products that they tested had cadmium levels of 93%, and yet the government delayed letting Canadians know about this. This is children's jewellery, and we all know what children do with small objects. It goes right in the mouth.

Health Canada has actually stated that cadmium is more toxic than lead. Testing that revealed unacceptable cadmium levels occurred in the 2009-10 testing cycle. But that was not the first time it was discovered. The previous testing cycle also revealed unacceptable cadmium levels. Health Canada advisories until now have not mentioned any of these test results. It is hard to imagine. These tests were on children's jewellery.

Our children were at danger of ingesting cadmium from these products because of the government's lack of transparency on testing and a lack of public education on cadmium's dangers. This is just plain wrong. It is irresponsible. I cannot understand why the government would not have mentioned these test results, especially when there was a 93% level in some products containing cadmium. The risks were inherently clear.

How can we trust the government to be the guardians of public safety under this new regime that Bill C-36 offers, when it failed to warn the public that its own tests were revealing cadmium in children's products?

The bill is good, but it is going to require significant resources in order to be effective. It is going to require an adequate number of inspectors and a team that is able to respond effectively to product safety concerns. They will have to respond in such a way that every Canadian will be kept safe from dangerous products.

It goes without saying that the government has done poorly on similar files, like food inspection. We should be questioning the Conservatives' willingness to fund product safety protections adequately. So it is a step forward, but without teeth. Without the systems in place to carry out the intended functions, it is going to be a colossal failure.

We will see the government trumpet the bill's passage and send a message to Canadians that their products are safe, but this message needs to be backed up with funding. It needs to be backed up with resources. Otherwise, we will be giving Canadians a false sense of security.

I stand here representing the voices of consumers from coast to coast to coast. I thank the government for finally bringing in this legislation, and I ask that they commit the resources to enforce it. Otherwise, the bill will be meaningless. I desperately hope that two, five, or ten years from now we are not lamenting a failure to act and saying “I told you so”.

I was reading the newspaper today and there was a quote by James Orbinski. It was not about this bill. It was about the access to medicines regime, Bill C-393. It was brought forward by my former colleague, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, but is now being handled by my colleague from Windsor West. Bill C-393, if passed, would facilitate selling developing countries generic drugs still under patent. It would fix the 2005 regime that was created by the Martin government. The bill should be supported by all members who believe in justice and fairness.

James Orbinski is the co-founder of Dignitas and a world-renowned health activist. In referring to Bill C393, he inadvertently said something related to Bill C-36: “Right now CAMR is a rhetorical success and a practical failure. Bill C-393 is an effort to make CAMR a practical success”. I read that and thought of Bill C-36. We must not let it become a rhetorical success but a practical failure. We need to ensure that there are resources in place.

I talked about justice and fairness. The bill should also raise levels of justice and fairness for low-income Canadians. It goes without saying that dangerous products touch the lives of socio-economically disadvantaged Canadians proportionately more than the rest of society. Cheap products rely on cheaper manufacturing processes, and these products are wreaking havoc on the lives of people who cannot afford better choices. These people are poorly positioned to deal with health consequences or with wages lost due to taking time off from work to care for themselves or their loved ones.

I believe strongly that product safety should not just be the prerogative of the rich. This issue goes to the heart of the equality principles held by Canadians, and product safety legislation should play a central role in moving toward economic justice in our country.

I would like to touch on an issue that I do not think has been raised in the House very often. Sometimes when I am out in the community I am approached by people who say that they have problems with Bill C-36. They see some constitutional issues they would like to see addressed; they are worried about the constitutionality of this legislation.

Recently, the member for Sudbury raised this constitutionality issue with lawyers who appeared at committee, asking whether we had to worry about this. According to the lawyers, there were no constitutional problems with this bill, nothing really to worry about.

The last time around, when this bill was called Bill C-6, it made it through the House and was then sent to the other place. When senators considered the bill at committee, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre made a presentation on this specific issue. It is not only important for members of the House to understand some of the constitutional issues that were raised, but also some thorough analysis would show, that we really do not need to worry about.

For background, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre is a non-profit organization that was established in 1976. Its mandate is to enable the representation of ordinary and vulnerable consumers when decisions are made concerning the important products and services they obtain. Of course, they are a natural organization to turn to when we consider product safety, whether it is legislation, regulation or action.

PIAC made a formal written presentation to the senate committee and I will read from the memorandum it submitted. I reads:

It is particularly disheartening to find the oppositional posture to this Bill presented as a matter of protection of the civil rights of business and property owners engaged in the sale and distribution of the consumer products that are the subject matter of this bill. Such individuals are amply protected by the provisions in the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and possible civil remedies for government behaviour that exceeds the ambit of its protective statutory mandate. Monetary loss, embarrassment and hurt feelings are regrettable, but nonetheless compensable in the event of improper government conduct.

On the other hand, harm caused to public health and citizen livelihood may only be imperfectly remedied. What will be the explanation given to a parent grieving the loss or permanent injury of a child caused by the use of a product irresponsibly brought to market, when the reason is the lack of, or delay in application, of proper enforcement tools by the responsible authority caused by these amendments? There is no guarantee that even an inadequate remedy of compensation may be available in the event of a breach of health and safety requirements that is of such widespread effect that it is ultimately financially ruinous of the supplier.

The rights of defendants in circumstances where criminal and/or quasi-criminal related behaviour may be involved are important, particularly in relation to the consequences that may be visited upon a defendant. But it is decidedly inappropriate to expose innocent Canadian consumers to potentially negligent market behaviour because of the fear that government inspectors may lack either the appropriate motive or skills of enforcement. It is a grievous misallocation of the Senate's legislative superintendence to cater to the misplaced fears of a few over the real health and safety concerns of the many potentially at risk. PIAC urges the Senate to reject the amendments of the committee and adopt Bill C-6 without change.

Michael Janigan, the executive director of PIAC, has his name at the bottom of the memo. That is a good positioning of the two sides that we have to balance here. We need to look out for the consumer protection of Canadians. We need to ensure that people can rely on the fact that their products are safe. It is absolutely imperative. I think he did a great job of showing the balance that has to be struck between the two and where, ultimately, how justice would bring us to the one side.

It is a great summary of the constitutional arguments and I really do support the perspective of PIAC. Thanks should be extended to PIAC for getting involved in this issue and contributing to the discussion in the other place.

I am strongly supportive of Bill C-36. It is an excellent framework. We need to move forward after 40 years of old legislation that is not modern. Ultimately, we cannot make this a rhetorical success but a practical failure. We need to ensure that the government puts adequate resources behind this bill to ensure it is a success for all Canadians.

Access to Medicines Regime

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to table a petition on Bill C-393 regarding the reform of Canada's access to medicines regime.

Fourteen thousand women, men and children die every day from infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, HIV and AIDS. This country has yet to fix Canada's access to medicines regime which was created a number of years ago, back in 2003, which still has not helped provide access to low cost medicines for those abroad. We are literally letting children, women and men suffer unnecessarily.

The petitioners call upon Canada to reverse its policy and to become a contributor to the health and well-being of those individuals as opposed to ignoring them.

Industry, Science and Technology

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, concerning its study of Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario. The committee requests an extension of 30 days to be able to properly study the bill.

I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, in relation to its study of Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

The committee requests a 30-day extension in order to give the bill proper consideration and to hear all witnesses who wish to appear.

Access to Medicines Regime

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to table my very last petition in the House before I leave this place after 13 years. Actually, this will be the very last time that I will say anything on the official record of the House of Commons. I cannot think of a better issue around which to do this than on the matter raised by petitioners from my constituency and across Canada, particularly from the Canadian Grandmothers for Africa organization.

The petitioners call upon this House to follow through with the support that it gave Bill C-393, my private member's bill on the access to medicines regime, to ensure that more drugs flow at costing rates to Africa and other developing nations.

Members will know that this bill was supported by the House of Commons at second reading. It has gone to committee and the petitioners implore members of the House from all parties to see the process through, to discuss this matter at committee, to call witnesses, and to ensure that we change Canada's access to medicines regime to ensure that drugs flow to countries in need and to ensure that Canada lives up to its reputation as a leader in terms of humanitarian and compassionate issues around the world.

I thank all of those who have worked so hard on this issue, especially the grandmothers across Canada. I urge the House to help me leave this as a lasting legacy for all Canadians and the world.

Business of the House

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I would like to make a statement concerning private members' business. Standing Order 86.1 states that all items of private members' business originating in the House of Commons that have been listed on the order paper during the previous session shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation.

In practical terms, this means that notwithstanding prorogation, the list for the consideration of private members' business established at the beginning of the 40th Parliament shall continue for the duration of this Parliament.

All items will keep the same number as in the first and second sessions of the 40th Parliament. More specifically, all bills and motions standing on the list of items outside the order of precedence shall continue to stand. Bills that had met the notice requirement and were printed in the order paper, but had not yet been introduced, will be republished on the order paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”. Bills that had not yet been published on the order paper need to be re-certified by the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and be resubmitted for publication on the notice paper.

All items in the order of precedence are deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation. Thus, they shall stand, if necessary, on the order paper in the same place or, as the case may be, referred to the appropriate committee or sent to the Senate.

At prorogation, there were 11 private members' bills originating in the House of Commons adopted at second reading and referred to the appropriate committee. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1: Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (tax credit for loss of retirement income), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Bill C-300, An Act respecting Corporate Accountability for the Activities of Mining, Oil or Gas in Developing Countries, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Bill C-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-308, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-391, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (repeal of long-gun registry), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.

Bill C-395, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (labour dispute), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Bill C-442, An Act to establish a National Holocaust Monument, is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Bill C-464, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody), is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 97, committees will be required to report on these reinstated private members’ bills within 60 sitting days of this statement.

In addition, one private members’ bill originating in the House of Commons had been read the third time and passed. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 86.1, the following bill is deemed adopted at all stages and passed by the House.

Bill C-268, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (minimum sentence for offences involving trafficking of persons under the age of eighteen years). Accordingly, a message will be sent to the Senate to inform it that this House has adopted this bill.

As they are no longer members of this House, all the items standing in the name of Ms. Dawn Black, Mr. Bill Casey and Mr. Paul Crête will be dropped from the order paper.

Consideration of Private Members’ Business will start on Friday, March 5, 2010.

To conclude, hon. members will find at their desks an explanatory note recapitulating these remarks. I trust that these measures will assist the House in understanding how private members' business will be conducted in the third session. In addition, the table can answer any questions members may have.

International Aid

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a petition that calls on Parliament to set a timetable to meet Canada's development assistance commitments, to increase Canada's foreign aid commitments to combat HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and to make the legislative changes necessary for Canada's access to medicines regime to facilitate immediate and sustainable lower cost generic medicines flowing to developing countries. They call on the government to support Bill C-393.

The petition is signed by residents of Vancouver Quadra. It stems from the heroic efforts of the African grandmothers who raise children orphaned by AIDS. They are supported by the efforts of over 200 grandmother groups across Canada.

Drugs and Pharmaceuticals

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. The first petition has to do with concerns from constituents and others about the 14,000 men, women and children who die every day from tuberculosis, malaria and HIV-AIDS.

The petitioners call upon this House to support Bill C-393, my private member's bill. They are pleased that it received support at second reading, and call upon this House to complete the process and ensure that it becomes law.

International Aid

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present yet another petition that was organized by the Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign in support of my Bill C-393, reforms to the Canada access to medicines regime, and also generally to ensure we meet our millennium development goals.

The petitioners call upon all of us to do our part to ensure that 0.7% of our gross national product goes to development assistance internationally and that we contribute our share to the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria.

I want to thank the grandmothers again for their incredible pioneering work in gathering thousands of petitions in support of Bill C-393, and in their show of courage and conviction to ensure that people around the world benefit from the resources of this rich nation.

Patent Act

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition that was organized by the Grandmothers for Grandmothers campaign who wanted to see Bill C-393 pass through the House to committee.

They are delighted with the results of the vote in the House last night. They urge all parliamentarians to continue working on the bill to ensure that necessary medications get to those countries that cannot otherwise afford them to deal with such horrible and deathly diseases as HIV and AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

On behalf of everyone in the House, I would like to thank the grandmothers again for their great work on this issue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division of the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-393 under private members' business.

The House resumed from November 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

World AIDS Day

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this place which so often generates more heat than light, I want to pay tribute to the thousands of Canadians who act where government fails. One area where this is painfully obvious is in our response to HIV-AIDS.

Organizations such as the Hamilton AIDS Network are doing incredible work in preventing HIV transmission, and recognizing and responding to the stigma and challenges posed by HIV-AIDS. But, instead of partnering with NGOs on their essential programs, the government is forcing them to do more with less.

The same is true for the Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign that was launched by the Stephen Lewis Foundation. Volunteers are dedicating themselves to ensuring that whether one lives or dies with HIV is not determined by one's race, gender or citizenship.

The government could so easily support these efforts by passing the NDP's Bill C-393, but instead, it puts the needs of big pharma ahead of the need to win the battle against AIDS in the global human family.

On this World AIDS Day, I want to salute the Hamilton AIDS Network and the Grandmothers of Steel for their compassion and commitment. I want to challenge the government to support their efforts with resources instead of just rhetoric.

Access to Medicines Regime

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table another petition. The signatures were gathered by grandmothers speaking out for grandmothers in Africa across this nation.

They are very concerned about the status of legislation before the House, which will come to a vote on Wednesday. They urge all members to support private member's Bill C-393. They urge all of us to make the necessary changes to Canada's access to medicines regime, and ensure that the commitments we made to the poorest nations of the world are kept.

Patent Act

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you give me a notice that I have a minute left, I will wrap it up.

It is my honour to stand here with this opportunity to address Bill C-393, which seeks to make substantial operational changes to the legislative framework for Canada's access to medicines regime under the Patent Act and under the Food and Drugs Act.

While I and I am sure other hon. members in the House are committed to improving access to medicines in the developing world via Canada's access to medicines regime and other initiatives, I have some strong reservations about Bill C-393 and its proposed revisions.

However, let me begin today with some background on Canada's access to medicines regime. The stated purpose of the regime is to increase access to lower-cost, Canadian-made generic versions of patented pharmaceutical products needed to address public health problems in developing and least-developed countries. The development of Canada's access to medicines regime was a landmark event as there was no other international precedent at the time.

Thus, in crafting the regime, the government focused on three important objectives: first, to increase access to patented drugs and medical devices in the developing world; second, to continue to respect Canada's international trade obligations; and third, to maintain the integrity of our domestic patent system for pharmaceuticals.

In 2004, the then-Liberal government introduced legislation to establish the regime by amending the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act. Shortly thereafter, Bill C-9 received royal assent with the unanimous support of all parties on both sides of the House and the Senate.

I will now turn to discuss some of the problematic elements of Bill C-393 that propose to alter the scope of eligible drugs for export under the regime, and the health and safety review that these pharmaceutical products go under.

First, I am concerned that Bill C-393 seeks to eliminate the list of pre-approved products for export in Canada's access to medicines regime. While some critics of the regime allege that the list makes CAMR too rigid and inflexible, it does serve an important and practical purpose. Specifically, the list of pre-approved products for export minimizes the discretionary elements of the regime and, as a result, expedites the decision making process. It also provides prospective users with the assurance that, assuming all other statutory requirements are met, an application for authorization under the regime will be used by the commissioner of patents.

Second, I am concerned about the proposed changes in the drug review process in Bill C-393. If passed, these changes would significantly alter the level of domestic oversight regarding the safety and quality of the products exported under CAMR. This is because Bill C-393 suggests, among other things, to make the existing mandatory Health Canada review optional.

Further, it suggests allowing the export of eligible products under Canada's access to medicines regime to be made on the basis of a review by a foreign regulatory authority. Such an abeyance of Health Canada's review would not be permitted for drugs and medical devices destined for the Canadian market.

In addition, during the statutory review of the regime in 2007, developing countries and generic drug manufacturers expressed strong approval of the very drug review that Bill C-393 seeks to remove. These potential users of CAMR went on record as saying that Health Canada's review was a useful mechanism for ensuring that products sent to the developing world under this system were safe and of high quality.

Some critics of Canada's access to medicines regime state that the Health Canada drug review is unnecessary and allege that it duplicates the World Health Organization's pre-qualification process for listing pharmaceutical products that are eventually purchased by international aid agencies and developing and least-developed countries without appropriate regulatory capacities. However, I do not agree with them.

Health Canada has a long-lasting and excellent relationship with the World Health Organization in this regard, both in undertaking reviews for the international organization's pre-qualification program, and in working with the World Health Organization and other initiatives to build regulatory health and safety capacity in developing and least developed countries.

Furthermore, since Health Canada's reviews are accepted by the World Health Organization for an alternate listing process, Canada's domestic drug reviews are not duplicated. The alternate listing process, which is an abbreviated process for listing drugs to the pre-qualified program, is available for drugs reviewed by Health Canada, the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

I would like to conclude by reiterating that while the government remains committed to Canada's access to medicines regime and a broader, long-term approach to fighting public health diseases in the developing world, it opposes Bill C-393 and its proposed changes to the regime.

In my opinion, several of the changes to the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act raise concerns about the potential impact on the effective operation of CAMR. Many of these changes also do not support the humanitarian objective of improving access to safe medicines for the developing world.

Finally, there is little evidence that Bill C-393's proposed amendments will make a meaningful difference in the volume and frequency of exports under Canada's access to medicines regime.

To date, Canada's compulsory licensing and export regime is the only one of its kind worldwide to have successfully authorized and exported drugs to a country in need.

For all of these reasons, I urge hon. members in the House not to support Bill C-393. I do want to say in closing, however, that I do appreciate the efforts of the member for Winnipeg North in this matter. I have had a number of meetings in my riding with citizens who are deeply concerned that this regime is not working, but this bill does not meet their needs, based on our review of how it has been laid out. However, I do appreciate the member bringing this to the attention of the House of Commons.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-393 today. The bill would amend a bill passed in 2004, which was known at the time as the “Jean Chrétien pledge to Africa act”. I would like the listeners to keep in mind that objective.

The original bill created what is now known as Canada's Access to Medicines Regime. The stated purpose of this law was to help get more affordable generic medicines to patients in developing countries for public health needs, including HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and other epidemic diseases, a very worthy objective, indeed.

This legislation was brought in by a Liberal government and, as the member opposite has just noted, was passed with unanimous support from all political parties in May, 2004, reflecting Canadians' beliefs and the empathy that Canadians feel for those who are in need.

I want to get on record as saying that this is a humanitarian, non-partisan issue that relates to the health and safety of those less fortunate in developing countries.

A country as lucky as Canada has the responsibility to do everything in its power to facilitate the access and distribution of medicines to those countries that are suffering from the devastating effects of diseases such as HIV.

On a personal level, I immigrated to Canada from South Africa at a young age. I went back in the 2000s and met people who were struggling with this terrible affliction. I am very concerned about compassionate assistance to help the AIDS epidemic.

The amendments in Bill C-393 are supported by a wide variety of organizations, including the Canadian Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign, which is an organization of women working to support the courageous South African grannies who are looking after those children who have been orphaned by the AIDS scourge.

Another point of context is that these amendments to the Canada's Access to Medicines Regime come at a time when the Conservative Government of the day has reduced by half the number of the poorest African countries that are being supported by CIDA on its priority list. With these cuts, alternative means of support for these countries is badly needed.

There are problems with the current Canada's Access to Medicines Regime. Despite the fact that the member opposite just celebrated CAMR, and I appreciate his positive statements about this Liberal initiative, it is not a successful regime. It is not working. In fact, in more than four years, only one country, Rwanda, and one Canadian generic manufacturer has used the regime for a single shipment of a single AIDS drug. That is not my definition of success.

Issuing one licence to export only one drug to only one country in almost five years since the law has passed tells us that there is something missing and something else is needed. It is not the expeditious solution for which parliamentarians and WTO members were looking.

The fact is no developing countries, other than Rwanda, have come forward or shown any interest to utilize CAMR in order to get much needed medicines for their citizens. Nor has any country sought to use laws comparable to this that have been passed in other countries. Therefore, this tells us that this law needs to be fixed.

A comprehensive access to medicines regime is needed more than ever. According to a joint UN program on HIV, more than 2.3 million children under the age of 15 are infected with AIDS, most of whom are living in developing countries. Without treatment, an estimated one-third of infants infected with HIV will die before reaching the age of one and half will die before reaching the age of two.

If the need for medicines is so critical, which clearly it is, what is preventing these developing countries from coming forward to utilize the Canada's Access to Medicines Regime? Simply put, the regime puts up unnecessary barriers and red tape.

The major concern I have heard in regard to the existing legislation is that the processes and requirements in place may be unnecessarily complex. As a result, they are dissuading the developing countries and generic pharmaceutical companies from stepping forward, utilizing the legislation and bringing forward the solutions for which everyone is looking.

There are many other difficulties to overcome following the delivery of medication to a developing country. We know that at times there are inadequately developed infrastructure, untrained medical staff, unregulated distribution of the drug and disorganized administration. These are all legitimate challenges on the ground.

However, in terms of this legislation, the question in Canada is actually simply. How can we make Canada's Access to Medicine Regime as simple, straightforward and risk-free as possible for the developing countries, for the generic pharmaceutical companies to use, while maintaining fairness for brand name drug providers? This amendment does that.

I will just speak a bit more about the barriers the existing legislation presents.

Under the current regime, the process for a generic drug manufacturer in Canada to get a compulsory licence to supply developing countries does not reflect the very procedures the developing countries typically go through when procuring medicines.

As the regime stands now, the law contains over 100 clauses that are required to be met. Clearly, that is shown to be a barrier. There are simply too many hurdles that developing countries have to jump over before they can place and receive an order. In thinking about the bill, it is important that we remember that in these developing countries the doctors, nurses and volunteers, and not the lawyers, are ordering these drugs.

Criticism levied against these proposed reforms mainly focus on how they will negatively impact the patented pharmaceutical industry, but the fact is their drugs are simply too expensive to be purchased at their current price and they have not taken the action necessary to get affordable medicines to developing countries.

Nothing in these amendments nor in CAMR itself prevents brand name pharmaceutical companies from competing to supply their patented products to developing countries and under these amendments, royalties would still be based on the sales of the generic product and would flow to the pharmaceutical company.

What is being proposed in Bill C-393? I will take a moment to read into the record parts of a letter I received from a group in my riding of Vancouver Quadra. It is from the UBC Medical Undergraduate Society, signed by Mattias Berg, the president. He speaks about Bill C-393, proposing a simplified one-licence solution. He says:

This approach, widely recommended by multiple humanitarian organizations including Médecins Sans Frontières...would cut through most of the red tape that prevents CAMR from being used to its full potential.

He goes on to add:

As concerned Canadians and future physicians, we are asking you to please support this bill and help save the lives of millions of children and patients in the developing world.

A compulsory licence will require that the generic manufacturer pay a royalty to the company that holds that patent and royalties would still be based on the sales of the generic product to the developing country, as in the existing CAMR formula. If the legislation is reformed, Canada's largest generic pharmaceutical company has committed publicly that it will make a desperately needed three-in-one AIDS drug that is suited for children in developing countries. This is all about that.

As we know, very few children in these countries have access to medicines to combat HIV, and they suffer unnecessarily. This is a human tragedy which we are trying to address. By streamlining the access to medicines regime, we would not create any additional costs to Canadian taxpayers. In fact, it requires the government to spend no additional funds.

Nobody claims that Canada's access to medicine regime, either in its existing form or in an amended version, would provide a complete solution. Barriers to accessing medicines in the developing world will continue. However, Canadians right across the country want to say that they are doing our part to help fight sickness and poverty around the world. It is part of our humanness to want to help.

This amended legislation is a policy tool that has the potential to put into action the desire of Canadians to help those less fortunate and help facilitate developing countries to gain access to affordable and timely treatment. For both compassionate and pragmatic reasons, the bill deserves Parliament's support and I hope the members will provide it.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-393, which aims to modify certain fundamental aspects of Canada's access to medicines regime.

In 2004 members of Parliament and senators from all parties unanimously supported legislation introduced by the Liberal government of the day to establish this regime by amending the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act.

Canada's access to medicines regime's stated purpose is to improve access to lower cost Canadian-made generic versions of patented drugs and medical devices to address public health problems in developing countries. It was designed to achieve this humanitarian objective while respecting Canada's international trade obligations and maintaining the integrity of Canada's patent system.

The public health problems that gave rise to Canada's access to medicines regime in 2004 continue to exist today. This government remains committed to supporting this initiative.

I, and I am sure other members of the House, view it as a key component of Canada's long-term comprehensive approach to addressing serious public health problems that affect many developing and least developed countries, such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics.

In addition to Canada's access to medicines regime, this approach includes significant contributions from the Government of Canada to other global mechanisms and alliances, which have come into existence in recent years and have become leading instruments for procuring lower cost drugs to respond to the needs of developing and least developed countries.

For example, the government has contributed more than $500 million to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. It has also pledged another $450 million to the fund over the next three years. In addition, the government is working with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to fund the development of HIV/AIDS vaccination.

While the government's commitment to addressing public health problems in the developing world and to Canada's access to medicines regime is unwavering, there are concerns with Bill C-393's proposed modifications to the regime's legislative framework.

This is because the bill, if passed by Parliament, would result in the elimination of many of the key operational elements of Canada's access to medicines regime in order to adopt a very broad, one-licence approach that could have serious negative implications for continued pharmaceutical investment and growth in Canada.

In addition, many of the bill's proposed legislative changes may not be in keeping with the spirit of the World Trade Organization decision on which Canada's access to medicines regime is based. Canada's access to medicines regime was the result of years of intensive international negotiations by Canada and other developed and developing country members of the World Trade Organization to find a means to export needed medicines from countries with pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity to countries with little or no such capacity.

In August 2003 this process concluded when all of the World Trade Organization members reached a landmark decision. They agreed to waive two of the patent obligations in the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights in order to improve access to the patented drugs and medical devices needed to address public health problems in developing and least developed countries, such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics.

Canada's access to medicines regime was developed to implement this decision domestically. Canada's regime is one of nine regimes in existence that have implemented the World Trade Organization decision, but it is the only one to have successfully authorized an export of needed drugs to a developing countries. This important event occurred on September 24, 2008, when the Canadian drug manufacturer Apotex Inc. sent approximately seven million tablets of an HIV/AIDS therapy to Rwanda.

In 2007 the government completed a statutory review of the regime. As part of that process, it reviewed all public input on Canada's access to medicines regime. That input included extensive written submissions received in response to a 2006 consultation paper on the regime. It included expert testimony heard at hearings by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in April 2007, as well as input from developing countries in a workshop organized by non-governmental organizations.

In December 2007 the Minister of Industry tabled in Parliament a report on the results of the statutory review. The report concluded that insufficient evidence had accumulated to warrant making changes to the regime at that juncture. This conclusion remains valid today, since the case for making legislative or regulatory changes to Canada's access to medicines regime has still not been made.

The fact that Canada is the only country to date to see drugs shipped to a country in need under its access to medicines regime demonstrates that our system does work. However, for Canada's access to medicines regime to be used again, another country in need must inform the World Trade Organization of its intent to import lower cost versions of patented pharmaceutical products under the terms of the August 2003 decision.

The government continues to encourage developing and least developed countries to use the system and it hopes that such a notification happens. In the meantime, however, the government will continue to support Canada's access to medicines while fighting diseases and helping improve public health conditions in the developing world through other initiatives in its long-term comprehensive strategy on access to medicines.

Before I conclude, I would like to thank those who have advocated so tirelessly on this issue. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the hard work of the grandmothers to grandmothers campaign, which has continued to raise awareness and mobilize support for this bill.

Although we may disagree on the effects of the proposed modifications in Bill C-393 on the legislative framework of Canada's access to medicines regime, we can certainly agree on the need to address public health in the developing world. The grandmothers have shown true commitment to this cause and I believe their efforts deserve recognition.

With that said, the reasons I have outlined here today prevent me from voting in favour of this bill.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud to stand today to support the legislation brought forward by my colleague from Winnipeg North.

Bill C-393 would, as the bill's summary states, amend the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act to make it easier to manufacture and export pharmaceutical products to address public health problems afflicting many developing and least developed countries, especially those resulting from HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics.

This is an extremely worthwhile bill and I would encourage all members of Parliament, regardless of their party, to come together to ensure that the bill passes into law.

Every day, 14,000 people around the world die from preventable diseases. Eight thousand people die each day from HIV-AIDS because they lack access to antiretroviral drugs. Half of the 2.3 million children with HIV in the developing world will not live to see their second birthdays. Morally, this is simply unacceptable.

These deaths destroy families and communities, undermine economic growth and leave thousands of children orphaned. According to the World Health Organization, two billion people cannot get or cannot afford drugs that could have a massive impact on their standards of living.

Research by Polaris shows that 93% of Canadians think it is important to help people in developing countries who need medicines to treat or prevent diseases such as HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The same study shows that a majority of Canadians do not believe the federal government is doing enough to help developing countries by making medication to treat these diseases more affordable. The intention of this bill is to correct this.

The current Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, introduced in 2004, which I remind the House was supported by all parties, was a good start. Competition from generic manufacturers has allowed the price of AIDS medications to fall by 95% in some developing nations, but this legislation only allows generic drugs to be sold to countries explicitly named in the legislation. Companies producing generic drugs must also apply for a special licence for each order of drugs for each country they will supply.

In fact, the total number of licences issued to Canadian companies that produce generic drugs is one. That is right. In five years, only one Canadian company has managed to jump all the hurdles to get Canadian access to the medicine regime's licence, and it has done so just once.

This shipment was sent out in two parts to Rwanda in September 2008 and then again September 2009. That company has come out and said that it will not go through the process again unless it is reformed significantly. There is simply too much red tape. Although the final stage of approval only takes two weeks, this ignores the months of negotiations required to get to the point of submitting an application. Now is the time to improve upon this regime.

The changes proposed in Bill C-393 would mean that companies producing generic drugs would need to obtain just one licence for each medicine they intended to produce. This licence would allow the company to produce multiple orders for as many eligible developing countries as needed, without the need to apply for a new licence for each drug order.

I understand some people are worried that changes to the current regime would undermine Canadian pharmaceutical companies and that this in turn would mean they would stop their research and developmental activities, but this is not the case. This bill would not alter the current provisions, which means brand name companies still receive royalties on the drugs they have patented and brand name companies are still able to compete against generic brands in developing nations.

The bill would also not alter the anti-diversion measures that ensure that generic drugs are distinguished from branded drugs so they cannot be sold elsewhere. In fact, Bill C-393 is completely in line with intellectual property rights, both here in Canada and at the World Trade Organization.

In 2003, the World Trade Organization explicitly stated that developed countries should have more flexible policies to promote access to drugs for people in developing states. These changes will cost the taxpayer nothing and will actually stimulate the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. As companies in Canada ship more orders to developing nations, they will be able to sustain jobs and increase exports from Canada.

Even though this bill is first and foremost a humanitarian issue, there are clearly good economic reasons to reform Canada's access to medicines regime. Implementing this bill is a win-win situation. Developing nations will gain access to much needed drugs and Canadian companies can continue to grow.

I would also like to point out that these changes will not eliminate the review of the safety and quality of the drugs that will be available to developing nations. Drugs will still need to be reviewed by Health Canada, the importing country's government, or by the World Health Organization. The bill will only avoid the duplication of the review processes, meaning that drugs can get to the people who need them and get there faster.

In the one case where drugs were shipped under Canada's access to medicines regime, the company manufacturing the drug spent seven months undergoing a Health Canada review, only for that review to be repeated and duplicated at the World Health Organization. That adds a significant delay to getting the drugs approved. By streamlining the process, we can eliminate any duplication and make sure that these drugs get to the people who need them as quickly as possible.

Some people have suggested that voluntary programs, that is, programs where brand name pharmaceutical companies voluntarily ship drugs to developing countries, mean that no new legislation is required. These voluntary programs are laudable and we should congratulate the companies that have undertaken these efforts, but I do not believe they offer a credible alternative to this legislation.

Put simply, far too few drugs are produced and shipped through these programs to help everyone in the developing world who needs access to them. This legislation would increase the amount of drugs available to people living in developing states and it would also mean that generic brand drugs can reach the countries where they are most needed.

I would like to remind the House that next year, when Canada hosts both the G8 and G20 meetings, we have a real opportunity to shape the global agenda in many areas, including how to deal with the aftermath of the global economic slowdown and how to cope with climate change. These are the things that we can talk about. The best way to shape this agenda is to enact domestic legislation such as this bill, which shows that Canada is ready to lead by example. However, we have to act now.

We have a moral duty to do the right thing and I urge all parliamentarians to support Bill C-393.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House today to add my remarks with respect to Bill C-393.

I will try to make myself as clear as possible. I firmly believe that a nation as well off as Canada has to do everything in its power to facilitate access to and distribution of medicines in countries that are suffering terribly from the crippling impact of diseases like HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.

That is why a Liberal government—needless to say—introduced legislation to establish Canada's access to medicines regime, otherwise known as CAMR.

That piece of legislation was passed unanimously by Parliament because it reflected our Canadian values, and the compassion Canadians have for those less fortunate in particular.

As we know, Rwanda was the first and only country to test CAMR by importing HIV/AIDS drugs from the Canadian generic drug manufacturer APOTEX.

We also know that three separate pharmaceutical companies holding the appropriate Canadian patents answered the call and authorized APOTEX to manufacture and deliver the requested product without having to pay any royalties. Incidentally, I should point out that these three companies recently reiterated their offer, again, royalty free.

After receiving the authorization, it took Apotex about one year to manufacture and ship the product and an additional year to ship the remaining amount permitted under the licence.

The fact that it was the only application of CAMR in Canada, and that no other country with a similar system has ever provided generic drugs to developing countries, leads us to the following question: why is CAMR not used more?

Unfortunately, rather than carrying out an in-depth analysis of the problem, some have concluded that the problem was that the legislation, although well intentioned, had shortcomings and that amending it would make it easier to apply. This resulted in Bill C-393, which puts forward the solution of a single licence system.

If we look at the facts surrounding the shipment of generic drugs to Rwanda, we see that the patent-holding pharmaceutical companies reacted very quickly when they were contacted. From beginning to end, the mandatory licensing process took 68 days.

I am pointing this out because it is extremely important to establish whether the licensing process caused the undue delay in shipping the drugs to their destination.

From what I have just outlined, it does not seem that the CAMR legislation, in its current form, is the cause. It seems that the problem lies elsewhere.

Why did it take one year to send the first shipment if the CAMR legislation was not at issue? It is important that we be fully aware of this fact given that we are attempting to determine the true causes of the problem.

Much has been made of the issue of intellectual property rights. Some claim that the pharmaceutical companies are hiding behind our international obligations under the WTO agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights, known by the acronym TRIPS, in order to hold back the flow of generic drugs.

Recognizing intellectual property rights is crucial for the future discovery of drugs that will save lives. If we do not protect intellectual property rights, we will deprive ourselves of key research, not only in the pharmaceutical sector but in all sectors driven by research. This will have extremely negative consequences for Canada.

Dozens of new drugs to treat HIV, malaria and similar illnesses are currently being tested. Related research is absolutely critical and is being carried out by patent drug manufacturers.

In testimony he gave on October 20 before the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce about a similar bill, Bill S-232, a lawyer for the pharmaceutical industry said that the amendments proposed in Bills S-232 and C-393 are not in keeping with Canada's international trade obligations regarding intellectual property.

Are we going to ignore that conclusion? That said, let us focus on some of the known causes of the current problem.

More than 90% of the 319 drugs on the list of essential drugs for developing countries are not patented. Less than 10% are patented. It is important to understand that.

A recent study of 65 countries by Dr. Amir Attaran, a biologist and lawyer with the University of Ottawa, found that the main barrier to access to drugs in developing countries is not the granting of a single patent licence, but poverty. Yes poverty, always poverty.

Let us look at some other realities.

If we look at the necessary drugs that reach developing countries, we see that most of them come from countries like India, China and South Africa. Why not Canada? Certainly not because of the CAMR. It is because these drugs are available for less than what Canadian generic drug manufacturers charge, which is higher because of our higher labour costs.

This is certainly one of the reasons why developing countries do not turn to Canada for drugs under the CAMR. They have cheaper options.

The challenge at present is not the supply of drugs. The supply is there. But how are we going to deal with the very real challenge posed by the fact that recipient countries lack the infrastructure to make a proper diagnosis and to deliver, distribute, administer and store drugs?

We need to turn to organizations such as Health Partners International Canada, which have extensive experience in the field in managing the distribution of drugs in developing countries that have very little infrastructure.

I firmly believe that we can work productively with these organizations to get drugs to where they are needed. I also believe that this is a much better way to achieve our objectives than what Bill C-393 offers.

According to Margaret Chan, WHO Director-General, “Health systems are the tap root for better health. All the donated drugs in the world will not do any good without an infrastructure for their delivery.”

This bill offers no solutions to the problem of drug distribution infrastructure. It should have proposed the following measures: the creation of partnerships between the private sector and NGOs, which have a lot of experience in this area, to ensure effective drug distribution; and accountability and transparency of the access to medicines regime and distribution. This bill leaves out some important requirements in this area, which could make it easier for drugs to be diverted to recipients other than the developing nations they are meant for.

Health Partners International Canada has also recommended that the government take all reasonable measures to ensure that drugs from Canadian suppliers are not diverted from their intended recipients.

The problem of counterfeit and poor quality drugs will only get worse if Canada's Access to Medicines Regime is amended as set out in Bill C-393.

Therefore I call upon my colleagues in the House to clearly focus on the problems before us and send developing countries the drugs they desperately need, but also help those countries improve their infrastructure.

This bill makes no mention of the many different aspects of poverty, but rather talks about one licence. Instead of being a disposable, limited-time measure, agreeing to one licence would eliminate the voluntary licence step in agreements on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, or TRIPS, within the WTO.

I believe that intellectual property rights are essential in our society, and this bill offers no guarantee that those rights will be protected. In conclusion, I cannot support Bill C-393.

The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion that Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Access to Medicines Regime

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, night has already fallen in much of Africa. Another day has passed and another 14,000 people have died needlessly from infectious diseases for which medicine is readily available, just not for them.

It is mostly grandmothers who care for the dying and who are left to piece together the shattered lives that remain. They tell us through the Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign, Canadian women devoting incredible energy in solidarity with their African sisters, that Canada's access to medicines regime, which was supposed to make more drugs available, is not working.

UNICEF, Oxfam, Canadian Crossroads International, Results Canada and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network all agree and have called for the changes set out in my private member's Bill C-393. I urge all members to vote for this bill to ensure that we fix Canada's access to medicines regime and get Canadian drugs moving to save lives.

Drugs and Pharmaceuticals

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to present yet another petition from Canadians who want to see changes to the Canadian access to medicine regime, so we can return to that noble goal of sending drugs as quickly and as cheaply as possible to sub-Saharan Africa and other countries.

The petitioners call upon the House to support my private member's bill, Bill C-393, a bill which is also similar to the one in the Senate being debated today, Bill S-232, a bill which just heard representation from experts showing, in fact, how nothing in these two bills contravenes the World Trade Organization, and is totally in compliance with everything we stand for in this country.

They call upon Parliament to help ensure access to affordable medicines wherever they are needed throughout the world as quickly as possible.

International Aid

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to table a petition regarding Canada's access to medicines regime.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to support my private member's bill, Bill C-393, that proposes changes to this regime to make it possible for generic drugs to flow more effectively, efficiently and quickly to countries in need, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

They want this to happen because 14,000 people die every day from diseases, such as HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, diseases that are preventable if these countries were to have access to medicines that we take for granted in this country.

Grandmothers for Africa

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I greeted Grandmothers for Africa as they pedalled into Victoria ending a 280-kilometre fundraising ride.

These remarkable women are recipients of the Rosemary Brown Award for Women for their tireless work in solidarity with grandmothers in Africa.

So today I rise to support the grandmothers' campaign to unblock Canada's access to medicines regime and get affordable generic drugs moving to the world's most vulnerable people.

This week, the second half of the first and only shipment under this legislation is leaving Canada for Rwanda, and the generic provider has said that it will be the last shipment unless the regime is amended.

My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, has introduced Bill C-393 to remedy the regime's flaws. I urge all members to think like a grandmother and support this bill.

Patent Act

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to address Bill C-393, which seeks to make substantial operational changes to the legislative framework for Canada's access to medicines regime under the Patent Act and for the Food and Drugs Act.

While I and other hon. members of the House are committed to improving access to medicines in the developing world via Canada's access to medicines regime and other initiatives, I have some strong reservations about Bill C-393 and its proposed changes. However, let me begin with some background on Canada's access to medicines regime.

The stated purpose of the regime is to increase access to lower-cost, Canadian-made generic versions of patented pharmaceutical products needed to address public health problems in developing and least-developed countries.

The development of Canada's access to medicines regime was a landmark event, as there was no other international precedent at that particular time. Thus, in crafting the regime, the government focused on three important objectives: first, to increase access to patented drugs and medical devices in the developing world; second, to continue to respect Canada's international trade obligations; and third, to maintain the integrity of our domestic patent system for pharmaceuticals.

In 2004, the then Liberal government introduced legislation to establish this regime by amending the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act. Shortly thereafter, Bill C-9 received royal assent with the unanimous support of all parties in both the House and the Senate.

I will now turn to discussing some of the problematic elements of Bill C-393 that propose to alter the scope of eligible drugs for export under the regime and the health and safety review of these pharmaceutical products.

First, I am concerned that Bill C-393 seeks to eliminate the list of pre-approved products for export in Canada's access to medicines regime. While some critics of the regime allege that the list makes Canada's access to medicines regime too rigid and inflexible, it does serve an important and practical purpose. Specifically, the list of pre-approved products for export minimizes the discretionary elements of the regime, and as a result, expedites the decision-making process. It also provides prospective users with the assurance that, assuming all other statutory requirements are met, an application for authorization under the regime will be issued by the Commissioner of Patents.

Second, I am concerned about the proposed changes to the drug review process in Bill C-393. If passed, these changes would significantly alter the level of domestic oversight regarding the safety, efficacy and quality of products exported under Canada's access to medicines regime. This is because Bill C-393 suggests, among other things, making the existing mandatory Health Canada review an option. Further, it suggests allowing the export of eligible products under Canada's access to medicines regime to be made on the basis of a review by a foreign regulatory authority.

Such an abeyance of Health Canada's review would not be permitted for drugs and medical devices destined for the Canadian domestic market. In addition, during the statutory review of the regime in 2007, developing countries and generic drug manufacturers expressed strong approval for the very drug review that Bill C-393 seeks to remove. These potential users of Canada's access to medicines regime went on the record as stating that Health Canada's review was a useful mechanism for ensuring that products sent to the developing world under the system are safe, efficacious and of high quality.

Some critics of Canada's access to medicines regime state that the Health Canada drug review is unnecessary and allege that it duplicates the World Health Organization's pre-qualification process for listing pharmaceutical products that are eventually purchased by international aid agencies in developing and least-developed countries without appropriate regulatory capacities.

However, I do not agree with them. Health Canada has a long-standing and excellent relationship with the World Health Organization in this regard, both in undertaking reviews for the international organization's pre-qualification program and in working with the World Health Organization on other initiatives to build regulatory health and safety capacity in the developing and least-developed countries.

Furthermore, since Health Canada's reviews are accepted by the World Health Organization for its alternate listings process, Canada's domestic drug reviews are not duplicative. The alternate listings process, which is an abbreviated process for listing drugs to the pre-qualified program, is available for drugs reviewed by Health Canada, the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

I would like to conclude by reiterating that while the government remains committed to Canada's access to medicines regime and a broader long-term approach to fighting public health issues in the developing world, we simply oppose Bill C-393 and its proposed changes to the regime.

In my opinion, several of these changes to the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act raise concerns about their potential impact on the effective operation of Canada's Access to Medicines Regime. Many of these changes also do not support the humanitarian objective of improving access to safe and efficacious medicines in the developing world.

Finally, there is little evidence that the proposed amendments in Bill C-393 will make a meaningful difference in the volume and frequency of export under Canada's access to medicines regime. To date, Canada's compulsory licensing for export regime is the only one of its kind worldwide to have successfully authorized an exported drug to a country in need. This demonstrates that Canada's Access to Medicines Regime can and does, currently work.

For those reasons, I urge all hon. members in the House not to support Bill C-393 not because the intention is not good, but the bill is simply flawed.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois acknowledges the need for immediate action to ensure that low-cost medications are sent to low-income countries.

As the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network has said, the numbers speak for themselves. In 2007, the United Nations estimated that 33 million people were living with HIV/AIDS, including 2.5 million children. More than 8,000 people die every day from HIV/AIDS in the world.

The Bloc Québécois is aware of the different challenges surrounding research and development, of the problem with intellectual property on patents, of the need to pursue scientific research, and of the difficulty in balancing this with accessibility of low-cost medications in low-income countries. The Bloc also recognizes Canada's international obligations regarding the protection of intellectual property and the balance between accessibility and scientific research on this subject. As the Bloc Québécois has said many times, we must have another look at the Patent Act and Canada's access to medicines regime, now that law has been applied and the first medications sent to an African country.

It is more clear than ever that we need to act quickly. We must call together the various stakeholders to determine the advantages and disadvantages of Canada's access to medicines regime, and to come up with ideas to improve the current regime. We have a number of questions about the current effectiveness of this regime and its first application. Did it achieve the goal of bringing medications to the people? What were the relationships between the suppliers of the low-cost medications and the receiving country? Did the country have the necessary infrastructure to help sick people obtain the medication? Did the medication have the desired effect? How did negotiations work between the companies producing name-brand and generic medications?

The Bloc Québécois believes it is important to review Canada's access to medicines regime and the Patent Act, and to conduct in-depth follow-ups on the first application. Only after evaluating each step of the regime will we be able to determine how to improve it.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of sending Bill C-393 to committee. We recognize that there are some provisions in the current regime that are keeping it from working properly. The committee will be able to carry out an in-depth analysis of how this legislation was applied on the ground for the first time.

However, the Bloc Québécois already has several concerns about the details of relaxing the requirements in relation to the current system, namely, expanding the list of countries, eliminating the wait time, Canada's commitments regarding intellectual property and how this bill will affect those commitments, the fact that brand name pharmaceutical companies are losing their oversight on agreements, the balance between intellectual property, the humanitarian aspect of the system, and the commercial aspect, which is more significant in Bill C-393 than in the current system.

Obviously, this bill raises many questions. The Bloc Québécois believes, however, that urgent action is required on this issue and that a study of Bill C-393 would be an excellent forum to begin discussions on potential ways to make the current system more flexible. Bearing in mind that a certain balance must achieved between the commercial and humanitarian aspects, the Bloc Québécois will definitely propose several amendments to this bill.

The World Health Organization, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS and UNICEF produced a report in 2008 entitled Towards universal access: Scaling up priority HIV/AIDS interventions in the health sector. That report reveals that access to anti-retroviral treatment for advanced HIV/AIDS improved between 2006 and 2007 in low-income and moderate-income countries. At the end of 2007, nearly 3 million people were being treated, that is, nearly 950,000 more people than in 2006, which is 31% of the 9.7 million people requiring anti-retroviral therapy.

Since 2001, the number of people receiving anti-retroviral therapy has increased 15-fold, from under 200,000 to 3 million, including 2 million people in Africa.

The greatest increase in treatment rates was in sub-Saharan Africa. That seems encouraging, but the fact remains that less than a third of the people who need treatment are receiving it. Some 2.5 million people were infected that same year, while fewer than 1 million new patients began receiving treatment.

There have been other improvements as well. Some 33% of HIV-positive pregnant women in those same countries received antiretroviral medications to prevent transmission of the disease to their child. Only 10% of pregnant women had access to that treatment in 2004. Once again, there has been a substantial improvement, but two-thirds of HIV-positive pregnant women still do not have access to these drugs.

With respect to children, nearly 200,000 of them had access to treatment in 2007, compared to 127,000 in 2006 and 75,000 in 2005. However, less than 5% of children have access to pediatric AIDS treatment, the kind of treatment specially developed for them. Treatment for children can cost up to eight times more than treatment for adults.

Every day, there are nearly 1,800 new cases of HIV infection in children under the age of 15, mainly as a result of mother to child transmission. In addition, every day, 1,400 children under 15 die from AIDS-related illnesses. More than 6,000 young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are infected with HIV. After more than 20 years of effort, less than 10% of pregnant women have access to services to prevent them from transmitting HIV to their newborn. Less than 10% of the children who are orphaned or made vulnerable by AIDS receive public assistance or have access to support services. Less than one-third of young women between 15 and 24 in sub-Saharan Africa really understand how to avoid the disease.

In the fall of 2008, Apotex, a generic drug company, began delivering triple combination anti-AIDS pills to Rwanda, and the contract calls for 21,000 people to be treated over two years. This is the first initiative of its kind in the world. Other countries have laws that allow low-cost drugs to be sent to developing countries, but none has shipped any yet.

According to patent drug companies, authorization to use their products was given very quickly, within two months, which proves the efficiency of the program. In terms of generic drugs, and more specifically Apotex, there are too many restrictions and the effort is not worth it. Apotex has stated that it would not want to repeat the experience in the current conditions.

Let us take a look at the background. At the end of the 1990s, charitable organizations initiated an awareness campaign. Pharmaceutical patents were deemed to be one of the main obstacles to drug access. Developing countries called on the World Trade Organization to relax intellectual property rules. Others considered corruption and insufficient infrastructure, in African countries in particular, to be the main obstacle.

In November 2001, in Doha, WTO members unanimously accepted that pharmaceutical patents were one of the main obstacles to access to drugs. In August 2003, WTO members agreed to allow developed countries to export low-cost drugs to developing countries. On August 30, 2003, WTO members agreed to make legal changes to certain provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights that seemed to prevent poor countries from importing pharmaceuticals.

I am told that I have only one minute remaining and so I will say that the Bloc Québécois supports some of the principles contained in Bill C-393. As I mentioned at the very beginning, we have a number of questions. Therefore, we would like this bill to be sent to a committee for more in-depth study. And, as I mentioned, the Bloc will propose a number of amendments to ensure that the bill will respect not only the industry but above all the charitable organizations that work primarily in Africa in order to ensure that we do all we can to fight AIDS.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, which aims to modify certain fundamental aspects of Canada's Access to Medicines Regime.

Canada's Access to Medicines Regime's stated purpose is to improve access to lower cost, Canadian-made generic versions of patented drugs and medical devices to address public health problems in developing countries. It was designed to achieve this humanitarian objective, while respecting Canada's international trade obligations and maintaining the integrity of Canada's patent system.

Members of the House view Canada's Access to Medicines Regime as a key component of Canada's long-term approach to addressing serious public health problems that affect many developing and least developed countries, such as HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics. In addition to Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, this approach includes significant contributions from the Government of Canada to other global mechanisms and alliances which have come into existence in recent years and have become leading instruments for procuring lower cost drugs to respond to the needs of developing and least developed countries.

For example, the government has contributed more than $500 million to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. It has also pledged another $450 million to the fund over the next three years. In addition, the government is working with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to fund the development on an HIV-AIDS vaccination.

The government has serious concerns with Bill C-393's proposed modification to the regime's legislative framework. If passed by Parliament, the bill will result in the elimination of many of the key operational elements in Canada's Access to Medicines Regime in order to adopt a very broad, one-licence approach. This could have serious negative implications for continued pharmaceutical investment and growth in Canada. In addition, many of the bill's proposed legislative changes may not be in keeping with the spirit of the World Trade Organization decision on which Canada's Access to Medicines Regime is based.

This decision was the result of years of intensive international negotiations by members of the World Trade Organization. Those negotiations sought a solution to international patent obligations that impeded the export of critical medicines from countries with pharmaceutical manufacturing capabilities to countries without.

In August 2003, WTO members reached a landmark decision. They agreed to waive two of the patent obligations in the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, known as TRIPS, in order to improve access to patented drugs and medical devices needed to address public health problems in developing and least developed countries.

Canada's regime is one of the nine regimes in existence to have implemented the World Trade Organization decision, but it is the only one to have successfully authorized the export of drugs to a developing country. This important event occurred on September 24, 2008, when a Canadian drug manufacturer, Apotex Inc., sent approximately seven million tablets of HIV-AIDS therapy to Rwanda.

In 2007 the government completed a statutory review of the regime as part of this process. It reviewed all public input in Canada's Access to Medicines Regime. That input included the extensive written submissions received in response to a 2006 consultation paper on the regime, expert testimony heard at separate hearings by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology in April 2007, and I was a part of that committee, as well as input from developing countries at a workshop organized by non-governmental organizations.

In December 2007 the Minister of Industry tabled a report on the results of the statutory review in Parliament. The report concluded that insufficient evidence was accumulated to warrant making changes to the regime at that juncture.

This conclusion remains valid today, since the case for making legislative or regulatory changes to Canada's Access to Medicines Regime has still not been made. The fact that Canada is the only country today to see drugs shipped to a country in need under its access to medicines regime demonstrates that our system does work.

However, for Canada's Access to Medicines Regime to be used again, another country in need must inform the World Trade Organization of its intent to import lower-cost versions of patented pharmaceutical products under the terms of the August 2003 WTO decision.

The government has and continues to encourage developing and least developed countries to use the system and hopes that such a notification happens. In the meantime, however, it will continue to support Canada's access to medicines, while fighting diseases and helping improve public health conditions in the developing world through other initiatives in the government's long-term comprehensive strategy on access to medicines.

It is for these reasons that I urge all hon. members of this House not to support Bill C-393.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I truly believe that as a country, we must do everything we can to help people in developing countries get access to much-needed medicines. Such a humanitarian initiative must be supported, because we all know that many people are suffering in poorer parts of the world.

Having said that, I personally do not believe that we can achieve that goal by changing the law associated with Canada's Access to Medicines Regime. Allow me to explain.

Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, or CAMR, came into force in May 2005, following the adoption by Parliament of Bill C-9. CAMR's purpose was to put in place a low-cost generic drug-based mechanism to deliver lifesaving medications to countries which could not otherwise afford them. The purpose was laudable and remains laudable, and the bill passed with the consent of all parties.

As an amendment to the Patent Act, CAMR allows generic drug companies to obtain the compulsory licence to manufacture patented pharmaceutical products and to export those products to developing countries that do not have internal capacity to manufacture products required to address public health problems.

If one looks at the flow of generic medicines to developing countries since the implementation of CAMR, one can only cite one example of such a transfer from Canada, and that was to Rwanda.

Similar legislation to CAMR implemented in other countries has also not resulted in the flow of generic medicines to developing countries.

The reasons for this situation are complicated, but they have nothing to do with the difficulty of complying with the current legislation, as the bill before us today suggests. The amendments proposed in Bill C-393 will not make things better, because the main challenges involved in getting medicines to the people who need them have nothing to do with the flaws in the current legislation.

The balance that was established in the legislative process through amendments to the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act was deemed appropriate by the review conducted in 2007 by Industry Canada in collaboration with Health Canada, CIDA and DFAIT.

Although critics of CAMR have said that the law is too complicated, it is worth noting that Douglas Clark, the former director of Patent Policy at Industry Canada, has stated that this criticism is not credible.

In fact, the reasons why CAMR does not work as we had hoped have to do with real problems in the field, in the countries that need these medicines. They have to do with access to properly trained medical staff, whether they be doctors or nurses. They have to do with clean water supply, refrigeration facilities, accurate diagnosis, secure infrastructure for distributing the medicines and so on. In short, they have to do with poverty and the need to make developing countries aware of CAMR. Those are the real challenges.

It is not the process itself of requesting the medicine. That process is uncomplicated, even with its checks and balances that ensure compliance with international obligations under the WTO TRIPS agreement, the agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights.

Canada does have obligations related to TRIPS and it is important to respect them. The World Trade Organization's agreement on trade-related intellectual property rights, to which Canada is a signatory, generally prohibits countries from engaging in compulsory licensing for purposes of export.

Canada and other WTO member countries are authorized to adopt regimes like CAMR only as a result of an agreement reached between WTO member countries in August 2003, which waives the restriction that compulsory licensing can only be used for their domestic markets. This waiver sets out strict and limited conditions under which Canada and other exporting WTO members may grant compulsory licences to manufacture and export pharmaceutical products for humanitarian purposes.

It is important to remember that Canada is only one of many nations that have implemented the waiver as part of their domestic legal regimes. CAMR appropriately uses this waiver as the basic framework for Canada's regime. The waiver is also used by other nations as the basis for their domestic law equivalence of CAMR.

The changes to CAMR proposed by Bill C-393 would eliminate all references to the TRIPS agreement and waiver and would eliminate most of the elements of CAMR that help Canada to comply with the applicable conditions governing the issuance of compulsory licences.

The amendments proposed to CAMR in the bill would render the regime non-complied with Canada's WTO obligations as established in the TRIPS agreement and waiver.

Key deficiencies in the proposed amendments, from the standpoint of WTO compliance, include the fact that TRIPS requires the applicant for licence to seek a voluntary licence from the patent owner.

Bill C-393 would repeal the provision of CAMR that requires the prospective licensee to seek from the patentee a voluntary licence to manufacture and sell pharmaceutical products for export. This is inconsistent with the spirit of the waiver, which is intended, where feasible, to encourage voluntary agreements rather than impose compulsory licences.

TRIPS requires that the scope and duration of the licence must be limited to the purpose for which it is authorized. The bill would repeal all limitations on the scope and duration of the compulsory licence, theoretically granting a perpetual and unlimited legal right.

TRIPS requires that a licence should be terminated if and when the circumstances that lead to its issuance cease to exist or are unlikely to recur. Under Bill C-393, absent an application by a patent owner, a licence would only terminate if relinquished by the licensee.

TRIPS requires that the patent owner be paid adequate compensation in the circumstances of each case. Bill C-393 would repeal the CAMR provision that allows the patent owner to seek a higher royalty than the formula established by CAMR, if warranted.

The waiver applies only to pharmaceutical products needed to address public health problems. Bill C-393 would repeal schedule 1 of CAMR, which is the list of eligible products, and would not put in place any limitation on the patented pharmaceutical products for which a compulsory licence may be granted.

The waiver requires all importing WTO members to make a notification to the WTO, specifying the name and quantity of needed pharmaceutical products. Importing members, which are not least-developed countries, must also establish that they do not have the manufacturing capability to produce the pharmaceutical product. Bill C-393 would not require any notification or copy of the notification submitted by an importing country regarding its need for a pharmaceutical product or setting out the quantity required or speaking to manufacturing capacity.

The waiver states that exporting members, like Canada, can only authorize manufacture and export of that amount of product necessary to meet the needs of the importing member and states that all of the product must be exported to that importing member, as opposed to other members or countries. Bill C-393 places no limits on the amounts of product that may be manufactured under the compulsory licence and would permit unlimited quantities of the product to be exported to any eligible importing country regardless of their need.

The issues noted above are only the most obvious problems of Bill C-393 to comply with Canada's international obligations. It is clear that if this bill were to become law, Canada would be in default of its international trade treaty obligations under the TRIPS agreement.

Canada is a well-intentioned country that wishes to provide much needed assistance to countries in need of medicines to prevent or combat diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, HIV-AIDS and other epidemics. That is why Parliament voted for Bill C-9, the original CAMR legislation. In other words, our intentions were and remain honourable.

In the intervening years, however, we have come to the conclusion that what we had intended, a flow of generic drugs to countries in need, is not happening. We are all in agreement on this point, however, there is a different interpretation as to why CAMR is failing.

There are many things that Canada can and should do through CIDA, and that is where Canada should focus its efforts. That will enable Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, which is part of the solution, to do everything it is supposed to do.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request the hon. member to explain why she would be in favour of making a review by Health Canada optional? I understand that Bill C-393 does this. Perhaps she could explain why she thinks that it is not unethical to export products to other countries which have not met the same safety standards that we have for consumption by Canadians?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved that Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege for me today to begin to speak to a bill that has been the product of so many hours of work by community activists and NGOs right across this country and around world. I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-393, which is an act to amend the Patent Act and to ensure that we can flow drugs for international humanitarian purposes.

Our day to day work in this place clearly impacts upon every aspect of Canadian lives, but rarely are we, as members of Parliament, presented with so clear and direct an opportunity to save lives. We know that 14,000 people a day die from infectious disease, such as HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and that these deaths are preventable because they can be treated with medicines that are on the market today. The dimensions of this crisis are almost impossible to comprehend, with the personal cost to victims' health, the cost to their families, the plight of those left as orphans, and the strain on grandparents thrust into the role of providers.

There are 33.2 million people living with HIV worldwide, 22.5 million, or 68%, live in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2007, 2.1 million adults and children died of AIDS, and 76% of them, or 1.6 million, were in sub-Saharan Africa alone. An estimated 2.1 million children under 15 were living with HIV worldwide in that same year, and again, nearly 90% were in sub-Saharan Africa. Some 13 million children have been orphaned by HIV-AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, and it is now estimated that by the year 2010, as many as 20 million children will have been orphaned by AIDS worldwide.

Finally, without treatment, an estimated one-third of infants infected with HIV will die before reaching the age of one. Half will die before the age of two.

Tuberculosis patients and malaria sufferers are also losing their lives for lack of available medicines, medicines that are on the market today. Five thousand people die from tuberculosis every day, while more than one million people die each year from severe malaria, a disease relatively easy to treat with proper drugs.

This is mind-boggling when we think about it. It is a crisis that no Canadian wants to turn his or her back on. Everyone in this country wants to see Canada do its job and carry out its responsibilities on such a serious life and death situation.

Canadians were very proud when Parliament took action quickly five years ago, following the landmark decision by the World Trade Organization in 2003. It allowed more prosperous nations, like Canada, to offer humanitarian medical support to developing nations.

Canadians were very proud when Parliament unanimously passed reforms to the Patent Act in 2004, called Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, otherwise known as CAMR. That regime was created to provide a framework to use a system of compulsory licensing to allow generic drug companies to produce cheaper versions of the latest most effective drugs to treat infectious diseases even though they were still under patent.

However, we all became disillusioned. Canadians right across this country were very disappointed when we actually came to realize that this medicines regime produced practically no results.

Since that time, four years ago, when we passed the legislation unanimously in the House, there has been only one compulsory licence completed under that legislation. Last September, the first and only shipment went out. It was a shipment of 7 million Apo-TriAvir tablets, shipped to Rwanda by Apotex, Canada's largest generic drug manufacturer. That was an important shipment. It will help 21,000 people. However, given the statistics I just mentioned, it is a drop in the bucket. That has been the only shipment.

There is obviously something wrong with the legislation. I am here today to try to fix it. The burden of drug costs for the world's lowest-income nations has intensified. Despite the efforts of those like my former colleague, the hon. Alexa McDonough, Canada and other prosperous nations are shamefully not on track to meet our commitments to the United Nations millennium development goals, such as reaching 0.7% of GNP in international assistance by the year 2015, increasing our efforts toward the global fund, reducing child and maternal death, and reducing HIV-AIDS.

Other G8 commitments to reduce poverty have not lived up to their hype. As a final blow, the world is now in the midst of an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions. Within their own borders, the devastating loss of large numbers of productive adults to infectious disease has further compounded the already difficult road to economic security and stability. Countries are obviously even less able to cope with high drug costs for their citizens. I am sure that members of Parliament realize that Canadians will not tolerate us carrying on with a dysfunctional drug system that keeps cheaper drugs from getting to where they are needed.

Former UN special envoy for HIV-AIDS in Africa and respected Canadian Stephen Lewis has been at this for years, tirelessly. He has never given up trying to reduce the incidents of HIV-AIDS in Africa and elsewhere, and has never stopped pushing and prodding us to find solutions. He, like all of us, is concerned about the inaction under the legislation we passed five years ago. He said:

Delaying action is inexcusable when the path forward is so clear: streamline CAMR, get affordable medicines to those who are dying for them, save thousands of lives, particularly those of children with HIV. Every day counts,

Stephen Lewis is right. Every day counts. Canadian generic drug maker Apotex has made a priority of clearing up the mess. It has committed to making a low-cost version of an important pediatric AIDS medication as soon as this access to medicines regime is made workable. I want to remind members that, in sub-Saharan Africa, half of all the children born with HIV died before reaching their second birthday.

This type of drug, which is so needed, is not currently being made. If we could only change the rules, it would happen and it would improve the treatment of these children tremendously. Peggy Edwards, co-chair of the national advocacy committee of the grandmothers to grandmothers campaign, echoes the call for CAMR reform. She says:

Right now, African grandmothers are carrying the burden of caring for children orphaned by AIDS and dying of AIDS without appropriate medicines. Streamlining CAMR and getting affordable medicines to children with HIV would ease that burden considerably.

That is very well said. Let me also quote Richard Elliott, who is the executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. I should mention that his organization has studied this process more than anyone and knows it inside and out. He says:

The current system just doesn’t work...The need is enormous, but CAMR just isn’t user-friendly in its current form.

That is why, in Bill C-393, I have drawn on the legal network's expertise and that of others knowledgeable of the strengths and weaknesses of the current CAMR system to come up with a workable proposal for change. It is a proposal that will get these drugs into production and to the children and adults who have been waiting for them for far too long.

Bill C-393 proposes critical changes to Canada's access to medicines regime. Let me mention a few of them.

It provides for a one licence system to replace the need for single applications for every drug, for every amount of drug produced, and for every country which is seeking medications. That is important.

It gets rid of the narrow list of eligible drugs in order that new medicines can be incorporated at the earliest possible time.

It gets rid of the two-year time limit on compulsory licences with only one reapplication allowed.

It lives up to our international trade agreements while dumping the CAMR's requirements that exceed WTO demands.

Finally, it discourages unnecessary legal action by allowing generic producers to correct minor errors within a limited time.

The reforms we are proposing today in the bill have been supported by many, including 37 humanitarian and health organizations in Canada. They have said so in their submissions to government. That we are here today aware of the problems with CAMR and with solutions to offer to resolve these problems is due to the ongoing effort of so many individuals and organizations.

I want to particularly thank the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Results Canada, Stephen Lewis Foundation and Oxfam Canada. I would particularly like to mention the incredible work of the Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign that now has more than 200 groups spread across Canada working tirelessly to raise awareness and rally support for these grandparents struggling for their own and their families' survival in sub-Saharan Africa in the wake of their children's premature deaths from HIV-AIDS. In Winnipeg, the group is named Grands 'n' More Winnipeg and I have been helped by discussions and information from Linda Watson, Irene Rempel, Enid Butler, Nancy Cosway and Shelley Coombes.

This spring, the grandmothers, as they have become known around this place, and I am wearing the pin that they have given to us all, brought petitions with more than 32,000 signatures to Parliament. We all had the privilege of presenting some of those petitions.

I want to cite the work of a present colleague of mine who formerly worked on this issue. The member for Windsor West was active on this file when Parliament first passed this bill a number of years ago.

In presenting the bill, I feel a great sense of responsibility. Normally, I have had the responsibility in this place to speak for my constituents in Winnipeg North. That responsibility is daunting in itself.

Today, I am speaking to this bill for millions of women, men and children who have a right to health, a right to life, just as we do, but who through circumstances of birth find themselves faced with serious conditions and diseases in countries unable to afford them the help they and their families need because of economic limitations.

As I have said, the challenges are unimaginable, but the spirit of the struggle is strong. We have a choice today, whether to break down a barrier that is denying them a future or to stay with the status quo and extinguish that spirit. I urge members to choose the former.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to introduce this bill in the House today. It would amend the Patent Act as a remedy to the serious flaws within Canada's access to medicines regime that was passed in this place unanimously in May 2004.

That initiative was intended to be a meaningful humanitarian tool to flow lifesaving medicines to the world's poorest nations at affordable below patent prices. The built-in problems have resulted not in a flow but a trickle and there has been only one successful application. Meanwhile, many people, thousands of men, women and children, suffer needlessly without getting access to the treatments that are available.

This bill is here with the help of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and with the support of Canadian Grandmothers for Africa, Grands 'n' More Winnipeg, the Stephen Lewis Foundation, Doctors Without Borders, Results Canada, and many other organizations.

I recommend this bill because it offers members amendments to the act that would streamline the process and get urgently needed drugs to HIV and AIDS patients as soon as possible.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)