House of Commons Hansard #18 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.

Topics

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Norman E. Doyle Progressive Conservative St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition on behalf of about 100 people from St. John's who are making the point that non-embryonic stem cells, which are also known as adult stem cells, have shown significant research progress without the immune rejection or ethical problems associated with embryonic stem cells. They are calling upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Betty Hinton Canadian Alliance Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise for the first time to present petitions on behalf of the constituents of the Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. I will be presenting two.

The first asks Parliament to ensure protection of our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Betty Hinton Canadian Alliance Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition asks that Parliament focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illness and diseases of suffering Canadians.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ted White Canadian Alliance North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first is on behalf of Dan and Tannis Mitchell and more than 260 others who signed a petition drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a fair majority of Canadians and calling upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ted White Canadian Alliance North Vancouver, BC

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is presented on behalf of Faye Stannus and more than 100 other persons, who are drawing the attention of the House to the fact that thousands of Canadians suffer from debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer, muscular dystrophy and spinal cord injury, and that Canadians support ethical stem cell research but Parliament should focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Scott Reid Canadian Alliance Lanark—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to introduce a petition on the subject of child pornography, which is a matter of critical importance to all Canadians. This petition draws the attention of hon. members to the fact that the creation and use of child pornography is condemned by a clear majority of Canadians.

The petitioners encourage Parliament to take all necessary steps to protect our children by outlawing all pornographic depictions of children. They also point out, and this is a point strongly emphasized in the petition, that the law on child pornography ought not to be effectively rewritten and largely nullified by the courts. As a concluding remark, I would just like to indicate my own strong support for this petition.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Once again, the Chair has to remind members that in presenting petitions we are not to either associate or disassociate ourselves for or against wishes or expressions by constituents. I would caution members to please follow the rules that we have laid out for ourselves. I think they have served us well in the past and will continue to serve us well in the future.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to table a petition on behalf of residents in my riding and elsewhere in the national capital region calling upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that all materials which promote or glorify pedophilia or sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition calling upon Parliament to enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of chemical pesticides.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition calling upon Parliament and requesting a prohibition on the manufacture and sale of tobacco products in Canada.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, my final petition calls upon Parliament, for volunteers to form part of Canada's SOS rescue team and protection for an SOS rescue team that wants to go to China to insist upon freeing all Falun Gong practitioners now and protesting the abuse of their human rights.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Mr. Speaker, these several dozen petitioners remind us that modern science has unequivocally and irrefutably established that a human being begins to exist at the moment of conception. In view of that they ask that the government bring in legislation defining a human fetus or embryo from the moment of conception, whether in the womb of the mother or not, whether conceived naturally or otherwise, as a human being, and making any and all consequential amendments to all Canadian laws as required.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition with a number of names on it. These individuals maintain that it is unethical to harm or destroy some human beings in order to benefit others, i.e. destroying human embryos. They therefore ask that instead of embryonic stem cell research there be adult stem cell research, which holds enormous potential and does not pose the serious ethical questions of stem cell research using embryos and aborted fetal tissue. The petitioners ask that the Government of Canada ban embryo research and direct the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to support and fund only promising ethical research that does not involve the destruction of human life.

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Halifax West Nova Scotia

Liberal

Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed from October 28 consideration of the motion.

Health Care SystemGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up my comments from where I left off on October 28 and also inform you that I will be sharing the rest of my time with the good member for Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge who also wants to talk on health care.

As I said before, I am the chair of our national rural caucus and I would like to give the House a perspective of what we as rural Canadians experience with health care. Right now almost 30% of the population is spread out over 95% of the land area. There are proportionately more seniors in rural Canada. Rural Canada has only 50% as many physicians per thousand people as urban Canada. The average rural citizen lives 10 kilometres away from a doctor, compared to two kilometres for the average urban resident. Approximately 7% of rural residents live more than 25 kilometres from a doctor. Of the 16,000 people who live in the northern regions, two-thirds live over 100 kilometres away from a doctor.

I have talked before about how important it is that we get things as transparent as possible, and this is going to come down to a dollar figure. This is the issue I want to raise. First, did the federal government and the provincial governments ever split health care costs fifty-fifty? The answer is no. In the early 1970s, only doctors and hospital services costs were split fifty-fifty, and when costs of other health care services that the provinces chose to include in their insurance program, such as home care in some provinces, were added up, the federal contribution was about 40%.

Is it accurate to say that the current federal contribution to health care is 14%? Again, the answer is no. The provinces arrived at this percentage by counting some of the federal moneys and not others. They are not counting the Canada health and social transfer tax points, the equalization payments they receive from the federal government or direct health care spending by the federal government.

Next we would have to ask, what are tax points? Tax points were established in 1977. They are a direct transfer of tax collection to provinces. This means that the federal government lowered its tax rate and allowed provincial governments to raise their rates by the same amount. The result? More taxes flowed directly to provincial coffers. There was no change in the amount of taxes paid by Canadians. The change was the destination: from the federal coffers to the provincial coffers. Since these tax points were never transferred back to the federal government, provincial governments continue to benefit from them. In fact, in 2001-02, the tax points given to provincial governments amount to nearly $16.3 billion.

How much money does the Government of Canada spend on health care? Currently the Government of Canada spends money on health care in two ways: first, through transfer to the provinces and the territories which I have already partially described; and second, through direct spending and tax credits. Basically, that money goes directly to aboriginals, Inuit, Canadian veterans and the Canadian Forces. Transfers to the provinces and the territories are federal money transfers to the provinces through the CHST cash and tax points and through equalization payments.

Then transparency burns down to this, I believe. We must sit down with the provinces and come up with a fair, equitable, transparent system that we all agree to. Clearly to me and I hope clearly to the House, there is a heck of a lot of politics being played with this right now. Quite frankly, I think it is unconscionable to start playing politics with Canada's health care system, given the fact, as I have stated before, that by 2020-24, 25% of our population will be 65 and older. It is imperative that we get an agreement between the feds and the provinces as to how we are going to get this system running and running properly.

We have a Senate report and the Romanow report will be coming out. I would hope that these two reports will give us the basis, as a government at the federal level and governments at the provincial level, to come to some sort of agreement as to how this system is to work.

I would hope, and I will be watching, to be involved in the debate and negotiations as to how this will work.

Health Care SystemGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey for sharing his time with me. Obviously there will be much debate in the process of take note on how we would like to see the evolving health care system transform itself in Canada. Obviously we have plenty to work on and as we speak there are significant changes occurring, and there are different components of our health care system which are leading to a cost-push scenario.

I cannot think of one that is more near and dear to the hearts of Canadians and is one that Canadians readily understand and are facing. However it is also something which is really responsible for the second largest portion of their bills. The Canadian Institute for Health Information pointed out recently that drug retail sales are now the second largest category of spending. Our health care system is spending more on drugs in this nation than we do on doctors.

It is not surprising that this is occurring and therefore I want to confine my remarks strictly to what I believe to be the underlying concern driving the rising cost of pharmaceuticals.

I am not talking about doing away with the 20-year patent protection period. It is already provided to create an environment where we have expensive brand name pharmaceuticals. I am not talking about removing Canada from its international obligations as outlined under the WTO or the TRIPS agreement on intellectual property rights.

I am talking about the spurious use of regulations attached to the Patent Act with respect to patented medicines. The regulations permit brand name companies and manufacturers to use automatic injunctions to keep much cheaper generic drugs off the market, even upon expiration of the 20-year patent protection period to which we have agreed, by simply claiming that their patent is being infringed. I point out that it is simply a claim.

Automatic injunctions are heinous, odious and an affront to our legal system. They are also a major cause behind the high cost of prescription drugs in Canada because by simply claiming infringement an automatic injunction is granted to a brand name manufacturer. The generic company which has the opportunity to bring its product on-line then has to face lengthy and prolonged court battles to clear the infringement case. Even though the courts dismiss well over 80% of the claims, the financial damage has already been done. The case has achieved the target of clearly delaying cheaper drugs from getting onto store shelves and obviously reducing the pocket books of those who need drugs, not because it is a fashionable thing but because they are sick.

Equally important, lengthy court cases virtually guarantee what amounts to an extended patent, an extension that goes well beyond the already provided for 20-year patent protection period. The use of the automatic injunction provision is more than not a deliberate and frivolous misuse of regulations. It provides an extended financial benefit to the brand name pharmaceutical companies and Canadians and Canada's health care system pay dearly for that.

That is why automatic injunctions, in my view and I think the view of a growing number of people in Canada, and certainly in the United States, is that they must be done away with.

What is the cost of delaying the entry onto the market of cheaper generic drugs? What is the cost to an already overburdened provincial and federal health care system? What is the cost to consumers? Most important, what is the cost to those people on low incomes, to those seniors who have paid and have to make the decision as to whether or not they wish to eat, pay the rent or buy expensive prescription drugs so they can simply live?

Not all Canadians have prescription drug coverage. I can assure the House that for too many Canadians it does not come down to having to make any financial decisions as to whether or not they can afford to fill prescriptions. Such incidents are not acceptable. Only Canada and the United States provide for this regime of automatic injunctions.

However, in the past 10 days to 12 days, the U.S. is taking action to limit the use of automatic injunctions. For example, President Bush stated in the last week or so that no multiple 30-month patent infringement claims will be from this point forward be permitted.

The so-called use of evergreening, applying for a new patent just because the shape of the pill has been changed or a new non-medicinal ingredient has been added, will not be allowed to continue in the United States.

As Americans prepare for their mid-term elections on November 5, drug costs and the actions of the multinational drug companies have inundated the political ads on TV, and the need for lower drug costs has become quite clearly a major election issue. With efforts underway in the United States senate and the house of representatives to address automatic injunctions and evergreening, Canada will soon become literally the only country in the world that permits such a disgusting and expensive activity. Given the tobacco issue last year and the Cipro case, it should be clear to everyone now that the multinational pharmaceutical companies only have the proverbial bottom line as their interest and not the health of Canadians.

The Kirby report on health just this last Friday accurately pointed out at least one thing. In recent years the cost of prescription drugs has escalated faster than all the other elements of health care, to support what CIHI had said just a little earlier. Why is this so? Why do we see these increases? Why do we permit this heavy burden to be applied to the provincial drug formularies, to Canadian seniors, to low income Canadians and to those who do not have a prescription drug plan?

There are some people who are turning to the debate on patent protection, and automatic injunctions in particular, into a question of regionalism. They argue that to remove injunctions would pit one region against another, as the brand name companies are primarily headquartered on the island of Montreal, for instance, and generic companies are located in Ontario. Anything that cuts into existing provisions that could extend the patent would damage Quebec's pharmaceutical industry and, yes, they even argue that some of these same companies would leave Quebec and Canada altogether.

For the record, I have three brand name pharmaceuticals in my riding. I have no generics. However I have an interest for the 137,000 constituents I represent.

I can assure the House or for that matter any party that there are people in regions across Canada, whether it be Saskatchewan or Quebec, who are living on low incomes or who are elderly. I am sure most over time will get ill and will require prescription drugs at some point in their lives. This is not therefore and should not be in any way, shape or form a political issue.

Understandably there are some who want to make it that debate. Clearly we do not. Certainly on the industry committee in the last session, it was clear that the committee wanted to tackle the issue of automatic injunctions. At some point it will.

Some parties in the House like to call themselves staunch defenders of democracy and will always stand up for a region's interests. At the same time, as the past indicates, they defend multinational manufacturers by not demanding the end of automatic injunctions. We cannot have it both ways.

Clearly other issues have to be brought into consideration. Losac, which is used for ulcers, is one of the largest drugs used in Canada and the United States. It has now been caught in a legal web in Canada for nearly four years. The price is for this drug is too high, as recognized not only by governments in the United States and Canada, but by manufacturers and unions. Why are we paying it? Simply because we want to protect a regulation under the notice of compliance that was passed in 1992 without the consent of the committee and which slipped through at the last moment by Parliament. If we want to talk about a regulation that is doing much to undermine the credibility of our system, this is one.

We have given the brand name pharmaceuticals 20 years of patent protection. We did this for their efforts and expense to research and create new innovative drugs. There is no doubt that brand name pharmaceutical companies should receive revenue for their work. However I still do not understand how TV ads can be included as part of the research and development costs under our tax act.

Nonetheless the brand companies deserve fair compensation for their investments. Fairness, it would appear, is a two-way street. Nowhere is it acceptable to use a government provided regulatory measure to gain additional revenues, especially when a guaranteed 20 year patent exists.

With the exception of the United States, we understand that every other WTO country does not permit automatic injunctions. Clearly, why should Canada? It is time for us to act to ensure that cheaper prescription drugs are made available on the pharmacy shelves of this nation.

Finally, we cannot talk about the health care system in Canada if we are not talking about the most dramatic impact it is having on health care.

Health Care SystemGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the comments made by the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. I noticed that he confined his comments to the issue of drug costs and generic drugs versus ones that are protected by patent. While I agree it is of very real concern to all Canadians, because of the escalating costs of drugs, there are alternatives and I want to briefly address them.

One thing I believe is inherently wrong with the way the federal government is looking at the health care system right now is that it is not viewing health care with sufficient flexibility. By that I mean we have to take a new look at this in the sense of preventive versus reactive medicine. There is a lot of new technology. However some is old technology which we have not accepted in our culture and country, whether it is naturopathic medicine, acupuncture, chiropractic or things like that. Some would argue that these alternatives would give Canadians greater choice in their health care. In other words, it would be a patient driven system whereby they could make those choices and have money available for those types of alternatives. This would give more choice to Canadians.

While I recognize that the cost of drugs is a huge issue that we must address as a government and as Parliament, would the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge agree that, as we move through this debate on health care, it is really necessary for us to look at this within the confines of the Canada Health Act and allow as much flexibility as possible, and look at other alternatives which would be more preventive in nature versus reactive in treating disease and pain once they have already occurred in the patient?

Health Care SystemGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member provides some constructive points. On that issue, I have heard from this side of the House, short of what we hear in Romanow, that prevention to the extent that we can will have to become an increasingly important part of our discharge of the Canada Health Act, certainly as far as health care is concerned. However we have to recognize that we have an aging population.

We have to ensure that, while there are private companies involved in the delivery of a universal health care system, we do not invite a NAFTA challenge on the question of investment. We do not want to put ourselves in the position where we break away from the five principles, but we have to recognize the real context of what is causing and undermining our health care system. One of the most important ones, which has been identified by virtually every study in Canada over the past year, has been the dramatic and unacceptable rise in prescription drug prices because we have literally given away the farm and in turn received very little investment and a whole lot of debt.