Debates of May 10th, 2001

Prayers

Points Of Order

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Sometimes, in a spirit of mutual agreement, political parties seek the co-operation of other parties. Today, in fact, the government party asked for our co-operation with respect to a request it was making.

In the same spirit of understanding and co-operation, I seek unanimous consent for the tabling of the lease linking the Auberge Grand-Mère with the Grand-Mère golf club.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent of the House for the tabling of this document?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to give the Speaker and the House notice of a question of privilege.

I have informed the Speaker that I believe a serious question of privilege has arisen from the conduct of both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his officials concerning documentation with respect to the activities of Talisman Energy in Sudan and the use of its airfields by the government of Sudan for offensive military purposes.

In view of the fact that the minister is not in the House this morning, I wanted to give notice that I will be pursuing this question of privilege at the earliest opportunity when the minister and myself are both in the House.

Government Response To Petitions

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions.

Committees Of The House

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts relating to vote 20 under finance in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2002.

I also have the honour to table the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts relating to the Public Accounts of Canada, 1999-2000.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this fourth report.

Petitions

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition on behalf of residents of the city of Val-d'Or and the Vallée de l'Or RCM, as well as on behalf of all miners working in the mining industry in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region.

The petition states that the government should act to reinforce its presence and increase its activities in mining regions that are experiencing difficulty in adapting to the new economy. The government should make the rules governing existing programs more flexible and ensure they are being used in resource regions.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon parliament to set up a financial assistance program for thin capitalization mines in Quebec's resource regions.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I submit a petition on behalf of Terry Jessop and other constituents in my riding of Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.

In order to help Canada's economy and reduce our unemployment, the petitioners request that parliament enact legislation to permit that one vacation per year taken entirely in Canada be subject to a tax deduction for income tax purposes.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from constituents from across the country.

The petitioners ask that the House of Commons and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade consider Mr. Hun Sen, the leader of Cambodia, to have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, and to implement a resolution as soon as possible to bring this individual to trial and prevent further tragedy.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 39 petitioners in and around my riding, I am tabling a petition asking the government to repeal section 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

I was informed yesterday that United Parcel, the major American courier, is suing Canada Post for unfair competition under chapter 11 of the North American free trade agreement, or NAFTA.

Section 13(5) of the Canada Post legislation grants to this corporation a preference that is refused to other courier companies.

Moreover, rural route couriers are paid less than the minimum wage.

I table this petition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas and others in British Columbia.

The petitioners point out that since 1994 the Canadian government has been secretly negotiating a future free trade area of the Americas agreement with 34 countries of the Americas and the business community. They are concerned about the negative impacts this agreement could have on the environment, on their communities, on their children and, indeed, on all the people of the Americas. They do not wish to have a treaty that is inspired by the destructive elements of the WTO, NAFTA or the MAI. They point out that this has been negotiated in secret for too long and that the right to know is fundamental in a democracy.

Therefore the petitioners call upon the Canadian government to immediately publish the integral version of the free trade area of the Americas negotiation text. Certainly that request is long overdue.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of over 300 Canadians, mostly residents in my riding but also some in Nepean, Kingston and elsewhere.

The petitioners call upon parliament to immediately place a moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides until such time as there is scientific evidence demonstrating that these pesticides are safe.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Questions Nos. 15 and 16 will be answered today. .[Text]

Question No. 15—

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

With respect to the recent Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC, investigations regarding shell fishermen, clam diggers and buyers in New Brunswick Southwest: ( a ) how many individuals were called in for interrogation; ( b ) were these interrogations conducted solely by HRDC officials or in conjunction with other agencies or departments; ( c ) were these investigations conducted as a result of violations of employment insurance regulations by clam diggers or clam buyers; ( d ) were the persons or principals interrogated advised by written or verbal communication identifying the specific infractions being investigated; ( e ) was supporting documentations from other government agencies and departments in addition to HDRC records of alleged abuse or fraud, disclosed to those individuals and principals being interviewed; ( f ) what are the names and the addresses of all persons and principals interrogated; ( g ) what are the names of the employees who carried out the interviews and what government department or agency employs them; ( h ) was a report of this investigation submitted to the regional director manager, investigation and control; ( i ) was there an internal departmental investigation done to determine any real or potential conflict of interest in regard to departmental officials assigned to these investigations; ( j ) was a report immediately forwarded from the regional director manager to the director, control programs, national headquarters; and ( k ) at what time and date was the minister first made aware ot fhe magnitude of the investigation?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of the Human Resources Development]

Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC, is mandated to carry out investigations in relation to the employment insurance program. As part of the investigation HRDC officials conduct interviews, not interrogations, with clients. Investigators adhere to a strict code of conduct that respects the rights and dignity of clients. The policies and guidelines on the code of conduct to which investigators must adhere while conducting investigations are outlined in the investigation and control manual. This manual chapter has recently been updated. However it is still in draft format.

As this investigation is ongoing it would be inappropriate to provide specific information on this case.

(a) HRDC investigators interview clients in accordance with our code of conduct.

(b) These interviews were carried out solely by HRDC personnel.

(c) Although an investigation commences as a result of a suspicion of abuse, at that point it cannot be determined if a violation has been committed. Before making that determination HRDC investigators gather information and then interview clients to validate the information obtained. A conclusion on whether a violation has occurred can only be made once the investigation is completed.

(d) All investigations must be carried out within high standards of professional behaviour. Our information to date indicates that this investigation, like others the department conducts every year, is being carried out with the high standards of behaviour the department expects of its employees.

(e) During the course of an interview supporting documentation received from other government agencies could be disclosed to an EI client if the information is specific to their case and the client is required to provide a response. It would be inappropriate to provide a specific answer to the question as the investigation is ongoing.

(f) As per the Privacy Act, the Employment Insurance Act, and associated policies and procedures this information is confidential.

(g) This is an ongoing investigation and it would be inappropriate to release the names of the investigators.

(h) This investigation is not finalized. Therefore a report on the investigation has not yet been completed by the investigators.

There are many activities involved in conducting an investigation including completing reports. For instance, the investigator gathers information, verifies its accuracy by various means including contacting employers and claimants via mail, telephone or in person interviews. Payroll records may also be inspected to verify employment.

Upon completion of an investigation investigators are required to write a report. The steps taken, facts received and records of any interviews are documented in the report of investigation which is the HRDC departmental form used to report on an investigation. The report of investigation is then referred to an HRDC insurance officer to make a decision based on the recommendations and information gathered during the investigation. Additional reports are sometimes prepared for cases of a sensitive nature and are usually sent to the regional level.

(i) The investigation and control code of conduct specifically directs all investigation staff to declare any real, potential or apparent conflict of interest. This is also the case for all public servants and members of the judiciary.

(j) Our information indicates that the investigators have been taking the appropriate steps in these circumstances and there has not been a need for a report to the regional manager. Such a report might be required if it had been brought to the attention of a manager that the conflict of interest guidelines were not followed.

(k) The issue was brought to the attention of the minister on February 6, 2001, following a reference to this investigation in the media.

It is not HRDC policy to inform the minister of every investigation that is undertaken.

Question No. 16—

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

With respect to the HRDC investigation process: ( a ) why is regional discretion in regard to the department's caution statement permitted to be exercised by HRDC officials; ( b ) has the department carried out an internal investigation concerning the practice of using the HRDC official consent form to obtain statements from claimants; ( c ) what is the procedure used by the department to ensure the reliability and credibility of all third party reports used to initiate investigations; ( d ) are interrogations conducted with the use of audio or video equipment in order to determine the accuracy and validity of testimony provided and techniques used during interrogation by departmental officials; ( e ) has HRDC considered providing duty counsel to avoid, minimize or eliminate any charter of rights challenges; ( f ) has the minister been counselled by the department regarding section 2.20 of the HRDC document investigation and control manual and, if so, what measures and directives have been taken to correct the apparent contradictions between this document and subsection 41(5) of the Employment Insurance Act; ( g ) why does the claimant not receive a copy of the signed statement of declaration; ( h ) why does the investigation and control manual not emphasize the legal responsibility of providing the claimant with a copy of the signed statement of declaration; ( i ) what process does the department use to evaluate the investigation control officer's performance; and ( j ) what specific action has the minister initiated to address the issue of incompetence and inexperience, as noted in the department's prosecution program review report and the auditor general's report regarding the investigation control officer?

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

(a) Most contacts between citizens and Investigation and control officers, investigators, are discussions that involve exchanging information to obtain clarification and explanations on their claims.

The investigation and control manual clearly directs investigators to caution an individual prior to taking a statement when the investigator has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual has committed an offence that is likely to lead to a prosecution. Less than 1% of all investigations lead to prosecution every year. These procedures are followed by investigators in human resource centres across Canada. The decision to caution a client is based solely on whether prosecution is a consideration, as opposed to the geographical location.

(b) Departmental officials consulted are unaware of such a form.

(c) An investigation can be initiated from a variety of sources including tips from third parties. These tips can be received verbally, in writing, by e-mail or by phone and they can be from known or unknown sources. Human Resources Development Canada, HRDC, has the responsibility to protect the integrity of the employment insurance, EI, fund and as such has an obligation to investigate alleged fraud and abuse. While looking into such tips HRDC personnel undertake many activities to verify the accuracy of information received. This is the case whether the source of the tip is known or unknown. This could include but is not limited to contacting employers to verify payroll and employment records, requests by mail or telephone to claimants, and in person interviews.

(d) HRDC personnel interview clients in accordance with guidelines set out in the departmental code of conduct. The policy for investigation and control does not require the audio or video recording of interviews, but it does not preclude it either. Clients can however request such recordings.

(e) HRDC personnel adhere to the legal principles governing the cautioning of individuals and their rights to legal counsel.

Investigators do not have the authority to arrest or detain individuals. Nevertheless, when it is anticipated that an investigation may lead to a prosecution, clients are informed of their right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.

HRDC personnel will provide clients with a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel and they will provide them with information on legal aid if appropriate. HRDC personnel will cease questioning if the client wishes to retain counsel.

Only 1% of all investigations lead to prosecution. In view of this, the department has not considered providing duty counsel.

(f) The directives provided in section 2.20 must be read in conjunction with the preceding sections of this chapter.

As stated in section 2.20 officials can direct claimants under subsection 41(5) of the Unemployment Insurance Act, now changed to subsection 50(5) of the Employment Insurance Act, to attend an interview to provide additional information on their claims. The form used for this purpose is called a direction to report. It is the client's responsibility to attend such an interview and provide information as required. Should they decide not to attend or to withhold information, their benefits could be affected.

If the purpose of the interview pertains to a more serious matter that could lead to a prosecution, investigators use different methods to communicate with claimants such as by telephone or by using the form appointment for interview. In these types of interviews clients are informed of their right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.

The minister has not been consulted on the procedures outlined in the manuals since they are in line with the authorities delegated to HRDC employees. HRDC policies and procedures are in accordance with the law and the charter of rights and freedoms.

The investigation and control directorate is currently updating its manual to ensure the instructions and procedures are simple and clear.

(g) HRDC does not use a departmental form specifically titled statement of declaration. The report of interview is the departmental form used by investigators to document the information obtained during the interview. It is HRDC policy however that all clients are provided with a copy of the report of interview. All clients have a right to request a copy of their report.

(h) The investigation and control manual directs investigators to provide copies of the report of interview to the client.

(i) The timeliness, accuracy, clarity of documentation and fairness in an investigation are some of the key elements that are considered in the assessment of the investigation and control officer's performance. These evaluations can be carried out in various ways including such activities as reviewing investigator's files and in person feedback sessions.

To maintain a high level of skills in its workforce HRDC provides investigators with ongoing training and refresher courses including such subjects as investigative skills and interviewing skills.

(j) The downsizing of federal government employees which took place during the 1990s has resulted in the loss of more experienced investigators. To help build expertise in its workforce HRDC has put in place national training programs, monitoring and quality management policies which ensure that its investigation and control officers conduct investigations in a professional, courteous and fair manner.

With regard to the reference to the auditor general's criticisms, his December 2000 report referred to the working relationship between HRDC and Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, CCRA, in dealing with abuse and fraud in the context of current investigations into the activities of certain farm labour contractors in the lower Fraser Valley in British Columbia. The concerns raised in this report were essentially with the role of CCRA rulings officers, their training, general knowledge of the case, their investigative experience, ability to use our information, et cetera. Both departments recognize the need for co-operation and communication and have been working together to improve the working relationship.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion that Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Patent Act

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate at this time that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver East.

I am pleased to rise today to continue the debate on Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act. I guess to continue the debate would be much along the lines of saying that it has become apparent that the New Democratic Party is the only party taking part in the debate, and that is truly disappointing. When bills such as this come to the House it is important to have an opposition party that has a different perspective from the government's.

The bill would raise the price of prescription drugs in Canada and take over $200 million from the pockets of Canadians. All opposition parties should be up in arms and the government should be hanging its head in shame. However, on the first day of the debate on the bill, it became very clear that we were the only ones speaking out on the issue.

The Alliance industry critic, the hon. member from Peace River, was absolutely thrilled and praised the government. He ran out of words on how great the bill was. For a party that talks about keeping money in the pockets of Canadians, it is rather shameful that it is more keen on keeping profit with the name brand drug companies, making sick people pay more and putting stress on our health care system by increasing the cost of drugs.

The Alliance members, as in a good many cases, are all talk and no action. Although they tell Canadians they will be there for them, they really are not. They are there for corporations. They are not speaking out on behalf of Canadians on this issue.

For those who do not realize exactly what the bill entails, Bill S-17 is an act to amend the Patent Act. The major issue is that the bill came through the Senate.

It is becoming very apparent that whenever the government feels great shame and wants to rush a bill through it introduces it in the Senate and has it sent over to the House of Commons. There are crucial moments when it has to get the legislation through quickly. We all know that because of World Trade Organization rulings the government has to deal with the bill or be in contravention of the WTO.

The bill is intended to come into compliance with World Trade Organization rulings. It is not intended to do what is best for Canadians, what is best for Canada or, for that matter, what is best for the people of the world. The bill is intended to come into compliance with World Trade Organizations rulings to put more money in the pockets of name brand drug companies.

The WTO rulings require that Canada lengthen the term of patent protection on drugs from 17 years to 20 years. It is not as if there has not been protection for patent drug companies. The former Progressive Conservative government made sure that drug companies would make money. Patent protection was increased under its reign.

The Liberal Party, which was the opposition at that time, slammed the Tories for coming across with a terrible piece of legislation that increased patent protection. Now that the Liberals are in government they are increasing it even more. This is much along the lines of the Tories being opposed to the GST and the Liberals when in opposition slamming the Tories on the GST. There is no difference whatsoever.

The bill will eliminate a stockpiling exception which permitted generic drug companies to stockpile an inventory of patented drugs in the last six month period leading up to the expiration of a patent so that they were ready to go to market as soon as the patent expired. The generic companies were ready to put the drug on the market to provide some cost relief to patients and users of the health care system in Canada, the people we should be looking after.

As a result of the elimination of the stockpiling exception generic drug manufacturers will no longer be able to build up their inventories before first going to market. Patent holders will enjoy a whole lot sooner a period of de facto monopoly pricing after the normal expiration of the patent. The Canadian health care system, government and individual insurance plans will have to pay more during that delay.

During the de facto period available to brand name drug companies they have put injunctions in place to delay even further generic drug companies coming on line. If there was a risk of a normal industry patent being infringed upon, the company would have to go through a court process.

Because of the notice of compliance regulations through the Minister of Health and the acceptance of generic drugs coming on the market, brand name drug companies have been given an additional time period whereby they do not have to go through the normal court process. I will give the House a clear version of this point.

Contrary to regular court procedures of settling patent litigation in all other Canadian industrial sectors, the notice of compliance regulations allow triggering an automatic injunction blocking the regulatory approval of Health Canada of generic drugs for 24 months, based on a simple claim of infringement regardless of the merits of the brands patent case and without compensation for any abuse to the generic manufacturer.

In over 80% of cases decided since the 1998 amendments the courts confirmed that the block generics did not infringe on any valid patents. On top of name brand drug companies now having an extended patent, because of the notice of compliance through the office of the Minister of Health an additional two months will be added for no reason whatsoever. This will be done at the whim of brand name drug companies because they want to make more money.

It is not greedy enough that they have extended patents or that before they put affordable drugs on the market they will see people die on the streets. It is not greedy enough that they put on an injunction. We do not have regulations in place to make sure they cannot put injunctions in place. We do not have regulations in place to make sure that they need to have just cause. They just need to have a whim that it will infringe on them. They do not have to go through the normal court process. They just prolong the period of time when generic drugs can come on the market.

There are those who say that brand name drug companies are putting a lot of money into research. Yes, they are putting some money into research, but they do not put the whole pool of money into research. A lot of the research is done over long periods of time through other sectors of the industry. There is historical research and development incorporated into the development of new drugs.

It is not all done strictly by drug manufacturers, to say nothing of the fact that they have received government funds and the benefits from people being trained in universities. It is not as if they have not benefited from the system in place.

The same people who say that we have to support brand name drug companies because of all the research they do sing the praises of those companies. Those same companies would not allow or tried to fight countries to prevent them from producing crucial AIDS medication. They did not want generic treatments to be sold at affordable prices in third world countries. We had to have a major world outcry over what those drug companies were doing. People infected with AIDS were literally dying by the thousands but the brand name drug companies still wanted their last bit of blood. They wanted every last penny they could squeeze out of a dying population in a major epidemic.

I had a lot more that I could have said, but I see that my time is running out and there are a number of members who want to speak to this issue, certainly my colleague from Vancouver East and others. I encourage members of the House to recognize that this is a serious issue in Canada and a cost to our health care system. I suggest members show a whole lot more interest in what is beneficial for all Canadians and not just for drug companies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the eloquent comments of my colleague from Churchill, who is also our spokesperson on industry and primarily responsible for this legislation.

The hon. member has reviewed the quite appalling history of the Liberal Party on this issue. I am one of those members who was actually in the House in 1987 when Bill C-22 was brought before it by the Conservative government of the day. I recall vividly Liberal MPs viciously and vigorously opposing the legislation. They said it was a sellout to multinational drug companies.