Debates of Dec. 1st, 2004

Canada Education Savings Act

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Speaker]

It being 6:07 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Food and Drugs Act

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

moved that Bill C-282, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (export permits), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker,I take this opportunity to acquaint my hon. colleagues further on Bill C-282, a bill designed to safeguard Canadians and their prescription drug supplies by extending the export permit requirement in place in the Food and Drugs Act.

Let me set the stage. In 2003 the sales of prescription medicines to U.S. residents, through the medium of Canadian Internet pharmacies, reached a figure of $566 million to $605 million, more than doubling the 2002 estimates of $251 million. Early indicators for 2004 are predicting further growth and volume sales, some estimates putting the figure up to a billion dollars.

Some Canadian pharmacies have been quick to exploit this market. We have seen a growth from only four Canadian pharmacies with an active Internet export business in 1999 to 120 in 2003.

There are two essential reasons for this exponential growth in the cross-border Internet pharmacy trade. First, prices for some drugs in Canada are lower than those paid by consumers in the U.S., on average 36% below U.S. prices. Second, the Internet has made it cheaper to find low priced drugs in Canada and ship them to the U.S.

What troubles me, and many Canadians, is that continued untrammelled growth in this industry will have negative, long term repercussions for all Canadians, while a few profit from the trade. It is Canadian consumers who will be the losers in the long run. Prescription drugs in Canada are priced for the Canadian market and reflect the regime of the Patent Medicine Prices Review Board, PMPRB, and the lower purchasing power of the Canadian dollar in relative terms.

The supply system is geared toward a system of health insurance that is looking for value for money and a smaller and less well off population base. The prescription drugs sold by Internet pharmacies to U.S. consumers are purchased from the Canadian drug supply and then sold on at a profit. If the growth in this business is allowed to continue unchecked, I and others fear that the Canadian drug supply system will be at risk and Canadian consumers will end up paying more. An increase in volume of prescription drug exports and caps being placed on the quantity of drugs shipped to Canada by the pharmaceutical companies will equal drug shortages and price hikes.

There are growing calls emanating from U.S. legislators and drug manufacturers for prices to increase in Canada. Prescription drugs already account for one of the highest health care costs for provinces. We could expect that even modest price increases would strain resources of governments, health plans and individuals. For the chronically ill and seniors, among others, this would mean more than a mere irritant. Any price increases in drugs would mean that ordinary Canadians would suffer.

Our system of prescription drug supply is designed to meet the needs of Canadian consumers, not U.S. consumers. The U.S. pharmaceutical market size is approximately 13 times larger than that of Canada. In 2002 prescriptions dispensed per day in the United States amounted to 8,590,260 compared with 326,219,000 per year in Canada. If we divide the total number of prescriptions dispensed per year in Canada by the U.S. daily figures, we see that if U.S. residents were to purchase all their prescription drugs in Canada, the annual supply of Canadian drugs would be exhausted in 38 days.

I am not suggesting that it would be the likelihood, but as U.S. demand grows, there is an obvious potential that the Canadian drug supply system would be unable to supply both the domestic and the American markets.

There is already a voracious demand from U.S. seniors 65 or older who number over 30 million. That demand and that from other sources has every potential to grow. Numerous states, including Wisconsin and Illinois, and counties and cities in the U.S., are already actively encouraging their citizens to purchase their prescription drugs online from Canada.

Two bills are before the senate in the United States designed to facilitate the import of drugs. It is very probable that U.S. federal laws could be changed to allow retail drug imports from Canada. There are existing problems associated with the Internet pharmacy business as it stands now. Retail drug imports into the United States are not technically permitted by the Food and Drug Administration. In essence, Canadian Internet drug companies are flouting U.S. law.

A commonly used device for Internet pharmacies is to hire a Canadian physician to countersign or fully prescribe a prescription with a U.S. physician in order for the Internet pharmacist to fill the prescription. Not only is the Canadian doctor in this case often breaching the professional obligations set down by provincial Colleges of Physicians by not personally examining the patient, but the Internet pharmacist is breaching a responsibility in standards of practice for patient care and dispensing.

Finally, the results of the Canadian Pharmacists Association, which was released in the past few weeks, suggest that Canadian pharmacists are already experiencing shortages when filling patient prescriptions. Most felt that these shortages had become more evident over the past year. Although the pharmacists are at the moment finding alternative sources to ensure that patients do not go away empty-handed, there is a limit to how long this can go on before patients cannot have their prescriptions filled. Internet pharmacies are already facing increased challenges in obtaining enough stock to meet the demand of their customers, and are actively lobbying other pharmacies to over order and ship the excess to them.

The bill aims at going some way to addressing some of these problems, both potential and already apparent. I am concerned that we as parliamentarians need to be pre-emptive in this matter and not merely reactive to whatever legislation may come from the U.S. What is at stake is the well-being of our country's most important resource, our citizens.

The bill is designed to develop a Canada-first policy and is based on three principles: first, ensuring that medicines are available to Canadians when they need them; second, protecting the ethics of our health care system; and third, ensuring that we are not infringing laws in another country.

The proposed bill will extend the existing export certificate requirements under section 37 of the Food and Drugs Act to require those wanting to export drugs, as set out as schedule F to those regulations, to obtain an export permit, unless specifically exempted. Those wishing to export prescription drugs will need to justify certain criteria. The export of drugs cannot endanger the supply in Canada. The prescription to be filled and exported must be signed by a Canadian physician and pharmacist in accordance with the rules set down by the appropriate regulatory body in the province in which the prescription is filled. Export of drugs cannot contravene laws of the country to which it is being exported. There will be exemptions, most notably for Canadians temporarily residing abroad, such as snowbirds, and any export made with respect to the Jean Chrétien pledge to Africa.

We have to look at harsh realities and do what is best for Canadians. If the U.S. market becomes open to parallel imports from Canada, or if the Internet pharmacy trade is not curtailed, there is a very real probability that our citizens will be the ones who suffer.

The provinces and this government have committed themselves to the preservation of the health care system that ensures a fair, affordable and accessible service where and when Canadians need it. We cannot put profit or the welfare of another country's citizens ahead of the necessity to protect and care for Canadians.

I hope that among other initiatives this bill will serve as a stimulus to find a solution to a problem that threatens all Canadians.

I would hope that every member of this House would recognize our collective responsibility to protect all Canadians. More particularly, we have a responsibility to those that are most vulnerable: the seniors, the chronically ill, low income families and single parent families, who would be adversely affected if this issue is not resolved.

If we cannot find a solution, we will have failed in our responsibility. To that end, I would welcome any other suggestions or solutions proposed by any member of this House.

We need to ensure that our supplies of prescription drugs are always there when we need them, that a few are not endangering the supply of the many. We need to ensure that we are not a convenience for a country whose health care system is a product of neglect and exclusiveness, that our prescription drug system is for all Canadians.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was happy to hear the member for Mississauga—Streetsville mention that he would welcome any suggestions and comments of how to resolve the situation of escalating drug costs in Canada.

I would refer the member to Bill C-91 which was adopted, as the member knows, by the Mulroney Conservatives and which has led to a catastrophic rise in drug prices in Canada. Some drug prices have gone up over 100%.

What Bill C-91 did is it allowed pharmaceutical companies, and as we know pharmaceutical companies are the most profitable in North America, to extend their patent protection. As a result, Canadian taxpayers and Canadians in general have picked up the tab for Bill C-91.

The Liberals, when they were in opposition, opposed Bill C-91. Since they have come into power, the Liberal government has supported Bill C-91 and the extended patent protection. As a result, Canadians are paying much more than they should be paying.

Number one, does the member not feel that the escalating drug costs should be tackled by looking at perhaps balancing the interests of the huge profits the pharmaceutical companies are making with the interests of Canadians and bringing drug prices into control subsequently?

Number two, why did the member not use the issue of Bill C-91 as the major issue when he raised the issue of drug prices and the drug supply in Canada?

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the issue at hand is today. Instead of looking back, we must look forward. The problem is now and it is increasing.

I came to this country over 30 years ago. I chose Canada because this was a country which had the social program that was the envy of the world. That is why I came here. I have benefited from the economic opportunity and the social programs as well.

I feel it is my responsibility. I am involved in many areas with low income families and seniors and I sense their fear and their possible future pain.

I cannot go back to 1990 or 1993, whatever the case may be with Bill C-91, but I am prepared to work with the member and any other member in this House to ensure that going forward we do the right thing.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Mississauga--Streetsville with regard to his bill. I will give it due consideration.

The hon. member talked about looking forward. I tabled my own private member's bill which deals with a particular issue in Canada which is unique in the world. That is the automatic stay of injunction that a pharmaceutical or patent holder gets from actual legislation. They automatically get 24 months without having to demonstrate any type of patent infringement. I believe that is one of the reasons we have had some problems in our industry on the pharmaceutical side and the generic side.

How does the hon. member feel about the automatic 24 months and the fact that Canada is the only country in the world that has this current legislation?

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked a very good question.

Pharmaceutical companies invest a lot of time and money in developing a drug to bring to market. The beginning of patent protection starts from the day the molecule is discovered. It could be done in eight years or it could take 12 years.

I am not saying the member's question is not valid because it is. A change needs to be brought about. I would support a change as long as it was sensible and equitable as far as the industry was concerned.

My bill is one to protect Canadians. If members have any suggestions, I would be prepared to work with them. I feel the 24 month automatic extension should be revisited. There is a need to revisit that and come up with an equitable solution.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Canada—U.S.)]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member for Mississauga--Streetsville, given the question that he was just asked about the extension of the patents, is the issue of Internet pharmacies equally important for generic drugs?

It is my understanding that one needs a prescription for patent medicines and also for generic drugs that are legally on the market. The issue of the extension of a patent does not have anything to do with the bill, if I am correct.

I would like to hear from the member on this.

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question is excellent and I am glad my friend asked it.

Right now we are talking about Internet pharmacies and the export of drugs. The other issues brought up by my colleagues here are not pertinent today. However when the time comes we could debate them. When that time comes we will have to look at how a resolution can be brought about, take out the automatic extension, the linkages, et cetera. That is a whole different chapter. I would be prepared to answer those questions at that time.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, much attention has been paid to Internet pharmacies recently, yet Canadians are unclear as to where their federal government stands on this issue. The Prime Minister and the health minister seem to contradict each other. They flip-flop. They send mixed signals. I find it interesting that a Liberal member is bringing this bill to the floor, which at least contradicts a few of the flip-flops the government has made.

Let us take a step back. This is a complex issue. On one side there is the need to protect the supply of pharmaceuticals and the cost of these pharmaceuticals to Canadians. On the other side, we must heed the economic benefit of a new industry and the more than 4,000 jobs it carries with it. As the member stated, it is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, $500 million at least.

We must be unequivocal. The priority of the Conservative Party of Canada is to ensure that Canadians have a safe and secure supply of pharmaceuticals, and most important, access to prescription drugs which we use on a daily basis so that we all can lead active and productive lives.

We cannot discount the effect Internet pharmacies have had on the lives of thousands of other Canadians. For an Internet pharmacy employee in Manitoba, it means a steady income to provide a home, groceries and the necessities of life for his or her family. I come from Manitoba where a lot of these Internet pharmacies are found. I have seen the growth and development these pharmacies have allowed in towns like Minnedosa and Niverville.

Having said that, it is also important to note that Internet pharmacies are breaking no Canadian laws. There is no legislation currently in place in Canada to stop cross-border prescription drug trade.

Bill C-282 is an attempt to regulate the Internet pharmacy industry. In fact it could be argued it is an attempt to shut down the Internet pharmacy industry. While we recognize that there is a place for industry regulations no matter what the industry is, the bill falls far short of fair and ethical standards for Internet pharmacies. Let me give the House a few examples.

The bill presents the idea of export permits on pharmaceuticals. Export permits would be a good start in laying the groundwork for cross-border pharmaceutical trade but it also contains a provision that trade can only take place if there is no threat to the Canadian supply. Again, it is a good measure to ensure Canadians are protected from drug shortages and ensure the industry is operating in an ethical manner.

There are measures proposed in the bill that are of great issue to Canadians and the industry alike.

One concern is the power that is granted to the minister in approving export permits for cross-border pharmaceutical trade. Under this legislation, the minister would have the power to approve or reject each application for the export permit. What that essentially means is if the minister wanted the industry to shut down, he or she could unilaterally take that step. This is unfair for the business owners and the employees of the Internet pharmacies.

Another concern is the application of the laws from another country. The bill states that it would be illegal to export pharmaceuticals to countries where it is against the law for that country, yet there is no schedule of countries where this practice is illegal. In fact we are all aware of the controversies that are happening in countries like the United States, where this is generally focused, where the country itself cannot decide if they are legal or illegal. How are we as Canadians supposed to make that interpretation?

I recognize that there must be some regulatory regime in place for this new industry, considering the product it deals with and the importance the products have in the lives of Canadians. However, there is much room for improvement in this legislation. There are immediate and practical concerns that all parties should have with the bill.

There is some fear that this legislation could precipitate the United States and other countries to fully permit the importation of pharmaceuticals. That could lead to bulk importation which could truly threaten the Canadian supply. That would be very serious.

Other concerns should be noted, such as the infringement on provincial jurisdiction, as provinces have the regulatory guidelines for medical doctors and prescription drugs and this bill may cross that line, especially when dealing with punitive measures against physicians, pharmacists and the industry. I would like to remind the member that these professions are self-regulating and within the jurisdiction of each province. It would be unfortunate to interfere in that boundary.

Let us put the bill aside for a minute. I want to talk a little about where the government has been on this. There has been a lot of talk, as I said previously, on Internet pharmacies, which I would like to reiterate for the record.

On October 31, the Minister of Health told CBC Television, “I see no evidence of shortages across the country; at least no evidence has been produced to me”. A few days later, the Prime Minister said that his government would not be taking any action to shut down the Internet pharmacy industry. If that is the case and the health minister has seen no evidence of shortages, this bill is contrary to what the government has said publicly.

I would ask the member if he has empirical evidence that Internet pharmacies are affecting supply. I would be very interested in that evidence, evidence that can be supported. Anecdotal evidence does not do the trick. If he can provide that evidence, I would be very interested in it.

This bill has the potential, as I mentioned earlier, to shut down Internet pharmacies without exploring options with the stakeholders and industry representatives on all sides. While I agree that this industry does need some form of regulation, the bill has some room for improvement, to be fair and equitable for all players in the pharmaceutical game.

I note that the health committee will be looking at this issue. I would also note that the U.S. needs to get its act together on this issue. On the one hand, the U.S. says that Canada is the cause of the problem, but on the other hand, that it is the solution to the problem. With the new term of the current president, I would hope that he, along with his colleagues in Congress, will look at this issue for the sake of Americans and allow Canadians to focus on Canadians.

Having said that, let me note that the member who brought forward this bill has said he is open to discussions about it. I will reciprocate and say that I am open to entering into discussions.

With that, I will conclude my comments. This is a very important issue and we have to bring all the stakeholders together to ensure that Canadians come first.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, first I want to congratulate the hon. member for the bill he has tabled. It is an important bill. There are at least a dozen or so of us members who are interested in the cost of drugs. Next week, I too hope to present a private member's business initiative on this important issue.

I believe that there is nothing more important in the health care issue than the cost of drugs. The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville is tackling one aspect of this issue by addressing the matter of online pharmacies.

Tomorrow, in the Standing Committee on Health, I will have an opportunity to move a motion so the parliamentary committee can take a broader look at this issue. I believe the proposal by the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville certainly merits consideration.

To understand the emergence of on-line pharmacies—pharmacies on the Internet—a person has to know that there are 150 of them across Canada. There are 59 in Manitoba alone. It is a billion dollar industry. Thus, this is an extremely important issue.

The Conservative health critic was wondering whether there was any evidence that the emergence of on-line pharmacies was threatening the Canadian supply. I think I would have to say yes. In October last year, at least one U.S. multinational announced that it would reduce its exports or slow down the supply of drugs to Canada.

To understand this issue, one thing must be remembered. The big difference between the United States and Canada, in terms of drug supply, is that Canada has an independent control system. It is not a perfect system: it is the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, chaired by Mr. Elgie.

It is a quasi-judicial tribunal that has the same authority as a superior court. Its mandate is to check the prices charged by manufacturers for medicines for which they should have first obtained a notice of compliance. As for the control we are talking about, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine knows, often a notice of compliance comes with the application for patent protection. That is why this issue is important.

I will digress for a moment to say that, even though I am a Montrealer, I believe there has been some abuse on the part of this innovative industry. I think that all parliamentarians in this House, regardless of their political stripe, will agree with me. The bill that I will present in a week or two will propose four solutions, and I believe it is a balanced piece of legislation.

Internet pharmacies are a threat to the supply of medication, since some pharmaceutical companies have already announced that they intend to reduce their shipments to Canada. Of course, some form of dumping is feared. It is felt that, if drugs that are supposed to be shipped to Canada are rerouted to the United States, a downward pressure will be exerted on the price of these drugs. It is important to remember that while Canada controls the costs of pharmaceuticals, the United States does not.

Of course, it is disappointing, and I am sure that my NDP friends are disappointed, to see that generic companies are not regulated by the patented medicine prices review board. This creates a very serious inequity in the system.

The hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville is proposing a solution that should be considered, namely to decide whether an export permit should be required.

We will recall that, under the law, it is currently illegal for an American to buy drugs in Canada. From an American perspective, nobody is supposed to import drugs, without permission from the US health secretary.

Under the second set of laws—not under a federal statute, but under various provincial laws—it is illegal in Canada for a health care professional to sign a prescription, be it a generic or a new drug. If the drug has been prescribed, no health professional can validate it if he has not personally examined the patient in his own office.

There lies the rub for the Canadian government. Of course, it has no jurisdiction over the regulation of health care professionals, but does over drug exports and interprovincial trade.

So, how can we ensure that health care professionals, who often are physicians, abide by the rules set by their professional association and how can we make sure we are not at risk of doing too much drug business with the United States?

We all recall the statements made by people in a position of authority in New York. I think that it was the governor of New York or Vermont who organized chartered buses, which came to the Canadian border to purchase prescription drugs. We are told that people in Minnesota and Illinois want to do likewise. So yes, it is important for parliamentarians to look closely into this issue.

The new health minister, who embodies the left wing of the Liberal Party, is to the government of the current Prime Minister what Sheila Copps was to the Chrétien government. He is the incarnation of the activist, humanistic left, eager to bring about social justice. The health minister is considering amending the regulations of the Food and Drugs Act to change the definition of practitioner. What is a professional? What is a practitioner? He would like to establish a new offence system.

I do not know whether this is the right solution. It has to be examined. One thing is clear, I have figures that will really convince us that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville was well advised to present a bill.

Of the 70 million Americans who have no insurance whatsoever, and who pay more for prescription drugs, two million already buy their drugs from Canada through the Internet. This is a fact. It not theoretical.

There used to be only 70 drugstores on the Internet a few years back; now there are 150 of them. What is even more crucial is that 20% of Manitoba's pharmacists have now branched out into the United States in order to continue filling prescriptions written in the United States using Canadian drugs.

As you can see, this issue raises a number of concerns. Let us talk about drug costs. I know that the hon. member for Windsor West also has a bill. I for one think that we need to reconsider the whole issue of the link regulations. I am not sure we need to eliminate them. That would seem a bit radical and, as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine knows, I am not one to go for extreme measures. However, I also believe that we can no longer maintain the status quo.

I will therefore conclude by saying that the fact the hon. member for Mississauga—Streetsville has brought forward a bill is indeed a good thing. I hope that the Standing Committee on Health will pass a motion tomorrow to ensure that we have the opportunity, in February, to examine all the various ways to resolve this issue. I think the committee will have to consider the member's proposal. I would be more than glad to discuss this with him in committee.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to comment on Bill C-282.

As I mentioned earlier in the House, I congratulate the hon. member for having raised the question of drug prices, even though I believe the bill he proposes does not address the real problems.

As I said, the real issue is Bill C-91, which was adopted by the Mulroney government some time ago, and which extended drug patent protection. This extension, unfortunately, has added immeasurably to the drug prices paid by ordinary Canadians and our governments.

It is unfortunate because we must now act to control this increase in prices. In fact, the most significant aspect of the health care system at present is the increase in the cost of drugs, which puts even more pressure on our health care system.

Companies do need to make profits, as was mentioned earlier. When we talk about Bill C-91 and attacking the real causes of why our pharmaceutical products cost Canadians more and more, it has to do with reasonable profit making.

We know that pharmaceutical companies regularly rank number one in Canada in profits as a percentage of the revenues, as a percentage of their assets and as a percentage of their equity. As they are ranked number one in the country, the profits made in the pharmaceutical industry are actually higher than in any other industry in the country.

There have been claims that the cost of research and development are enormous. In fact, according to one American industry study, it costs up to $1.3 billion to develop an average new medicine.

A 2001 study by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board states that of the 82 new patented drugs for human use developed at that time, total expenditures for all those 82 products were $1.06 billion. That averages out to about $13 million per new drug. We are talking about a factor of 1% compared to what is normally trotted out as a figure for actual research and development costs.

The question of drug prices is an important one. When we are talking about Canadians having to pay more for pharmaceutical products than they should, while at the same time we hear about record profits for the pharmaceutical industry, there obviously is a problem.

My colleague from Windsor West has actually proposed with his bill, Bill C-274, a way of resolving some of these problems. I will quote briefly a release put out by the member for Windsor West concerning Bill C-274. He mentions that brand name drug companies now list several patents on the same drug so that they can start the automatic injunction against competition again and again. This is ever greening. This keeps lower cost generic drugs that are not infringing patents off the market and forces Canadians to pay monopoly prices for their medicines longer than they should.

Canada's prescription drug costs are increasing by 15% each year, which is faster than any part of our health care system. Bill C-274 would help control prescription drug costs by making lower cost generic drugs available more quickly.

It is important to mention that from 1993 to 2003 the price of brand name drugs increased by 75% while generic drugs increased by 42% over that same period.

The Romanow commission and the Competition Bureau have called for a review of the drug patent legislation. The Supreme Court has described the regulations as a draconian regime. Obviously it is time to provide Canadians with clear rules to ensure access to prescription medicines is fair for everyone.

This brings me back to the issue of Bill C-282. Very clearly we have a problem. Canadians are paying far too much for pharmaceutical products, which is as a result of Conservative policies that were first opposed and then continued by the Liberal government.

Does Bill C-282 in any way address those serious problems? I believe that it does not. In a sense it would allow multinational drug companies, which are mostly American based, to then dictate, in a way, what conditions should be attached to our drug exports to the U.S. retail market.

It is clear that pharmaceutical companies would love to level the price playing field between Canada and the U.S., not by lowering prices to the Canadian level but by jacking them up to the U.S. level. I think this would be a mistake.

The American drug insurance system does not cover 60 million American citizens. If we look at the course of any one year, 40 million Americans at any particular point in the year are uninsured. As the hon. member for Hochelaga mentioned earlier, 2 million of those 40 million to 60 million Americans in any one year are trying to escape the fact that they do not have access to medical insurance by purchasing through Canada.

When we talk about health care costs, 14% or more of GDP in the United States is devoted to health care, even though those 40 million to 60 million Americans are not covered by medical insurance.

The United States has outrageously high drug prices because its drug pharmaceutical companies resort to massive and very costly advertising for their products and the cost of advertising is built into the price of their products. This, as we know, is banned in Canada.

We now have a situation where American pharmaceutical companies would like us to cut off access to Americans who are uninsured and Americans who are paying too much for their pharmaceutical products.

I believe we should be seeking some sort of legislation that would provide relief and would address the issue of an importing country, such as the United States, using its laws to evoke either public policy safety or health safety technical standards with the primary goal of frustrating or eliminating Canadian exports. We certainly have seen that with softwood lumber and with BSE where laws were put into place as basically fences for Canadian exports.

We need to ensure that our exports from legitimate industries in Canada are protected but at the same time we need to ensure that Americans, who are desperate because of the lack of full medical coverage, have access to our medical products when it does not affect the Canadian national interest.

We know that a number of speakers in the United States have cast doubt on our pharmaceutical products by questioning our safety standards, but we all know that is ridiculous. Canadian safety standards are some of the strongest in the world.

We do need to deal with this issue but we need to deal with it in the Canadian context. I will come back to my initial comments that the real issue is the question of pharmaceutical costs and how much Canadians are paying now because of extended patent protection. We should be looking at a regime that provides for recouping research and development costs but which does not cost an arm and a leg for the Canadian taxpayer just to fuel industry profits in the pharmaceutical sector that are without parallel elsewhere in the country.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, the issue of cross-border sales of Canadian drugs to American consumers is complex. Canada cannot be the drugstore of the United States. Neither American consumers nor Canadian suppliers should have any illusions otherwise.

I would like to thank the member for Mississauga—Streetsville for bringing this subject to the fore. It is a very important question. We can look at many ways to regulate it and at many ways to solve it. He is suggesting one which we discussed today. The important thing is that we understand the nature of the problem, the nature of the risk and that we deal with it effectively.

From the perspective of the Government of Canada, there are two key priorities in this matter: ensuring that drugs sold in Canada are safe and affordable; and, ensuring that we have a sufficient supply of prescription drugs to meet the needs of Canadians. The government is committed to working with its partners, including provincial and territorial health departments and regulatory authorities, health care professionals, industry and other stakeholders, to ensure this outcome for Canadians.

Before outlining some of my concerns with the bill, I will outline some principles that should frame our consideration of the bill.

First, it must address our fundamental priorities of safety and security of supply for Canadians.

Second, in this respect, the bill respects the roles and responsibilities of the provincial and territorial governments, which license and regulate doctors and pharmacists practising medicine and pharmacy through provincial colleges or registrars of physicians and pharmacists.

Third, it has to be implementable and enforceable. It also has to be consistent with Canada's trade obligations and be able to withstand any court challenge.

Fourth, it must respect the fundamental basis of the Food and Drugs Act and equivalent statutes in the United States and other countries, and that each country is responsible for the safety of prescription drugs and other therapeutic products made available to its citizens.

The Food and Drugs Act and its regulations ensure that drugs and other therapeutic products sold to Canadians are supported by sufficient evidence demonstrating their safety, efficacy and quality. For prescription drugs, the food and drug regulations require that they only be sold to a patient pursuant to a prescription that has been issued by a practitioner licensed to practise in a province or territory of Canada.

Fifth, existing tools at federal, provincial and territorial levels of government should be fully used before considering legislative options. In this regard, the Minister of Health wrote his provincial and territorial colleagues to reiterate the need for regulatory authorities for the practice of pharmacy and medicine and to remain vigilant in enforcing their standards of professional conduct.

Earlier this year, Health Canada inspected 11 Canadian pharmacies involved in Internet pharmacy operations, distance dispensing and cross-border drug trade, to ensure compliance with the Food and Drugs Act and related regulations, and it will conduct more compliance inspections early in 2005.

Finally, all the steps taken by the Government of Canada in the current assessment of the situation have to be taken into account.

So far, where supply is concerned, there does not appear to be any shortage on the Canadian side. Health Canada, in cooperation with other federal departments and the provincial and territorial governments, is looking at all the various options for addressing the issue, should the situation change.

I would like to speak to some of my concerns regarding Bill C-282 relative to these principles. Before I begin, however, it is important to highlight that the bill does not have the support of the Minister of Health, the Minister of State for Public Health nor the Minister of International Trade.

I should also point out that the Minister of Health is on record with respect to assessing options regarding how best to address concerns relating to the activities of Internet pharmacies. In this context I wish to point out that the Government of Canada is in the process of developing a list of potential regulatory options. This process will be completed in the very near future.

My specific concerns with the bill are the following. It proposes to enact an export permit scheme for prescription drugs to ensure the security of Canadian supplies, with which we agree. Under the proposed clause 38 of the Food and Drugs Act, the minister would be authorized to issue an export permit if: first, the drug meets the laws of the country of import; second, the export would not adversely affect drug supply in Canada; third, the export would not contravene the act or regulations; and fourth, the sale of export meets all provincial requirements for the practise of pharmacy and medicine.

The bill puts on Canada the burden of enforcing the laws of the U.S. and other countries respecting the importation of prescription drugs.

Implementing the export permit scheme outlined in the bill will be a major challenge. It would be both very expensive and difficult to administer and to use, and would require substantial human and financial resources.

This bill also has an impact on provincial and territorial jurisdictions by ensuring that export sales meet all provincial requirements regarding the practices of pharmacists and physicians.

Finally, it could be subjected to legal challenges and raise concerns pertaining to our trade obligations. The bill, as tabled, does not meet the outlined principles and therefore, the government cannot support the bill.

I want to reiterate that I think we all agree with the principles put forward and the importance of the questions discussed by the member for Mississauga--Streetsville. Regardless how the House decides on this legislation, we must never forget the importance of the matter. We must look at any solutions to any potential problems that might arise in this respect.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to question further the government's position on CAIS program and the BSE crisis that confronts farmers across Canada. I would like to make three points.

First, it is indisputable that there are some very serious problems with regard to the CAIS program. The Canadian agricultural income stabilization program is not working as intended. Many farmers in Canada are not signed up for the program. In my own riding in the city of Kawartha Lakes it has been reported that fewer than 50 farmers are actually signed up for CAIS program when there are several hundred farmers in that area. How can we help farmers if the mechanism is CAIS program and they are not signed up for CAIS program in the first place?

The CAIS program is a relatively new program. It has been in effect for less than three years. I am not sure it is doing the job it was intended to do. I would suggest that it was never intended to deal with a national disaster such as BSE.

Second, the CAIS program does nothing to address the serious loss of equity that many small producers have faced. I have many small cow-calf operations in my riding and to many of those operators, their livestock was their retirement fund. It was a place where they were accruing equity. Over the past year and a half since BSE broke out, those operators have seen their equity wiped out. The CAIS program is unable to deal with the equity issue.

My third point is that BSE is not an every day issue that the government needs to manage. In my opinion, the government has so far dealt with this as an every day issue that is on the minister's desk. In my opinion, BSE is a national disaster and it needs to be treated that way by the government.

Government has a standard procedure for dealing with things, but it also has the ability to kick things into a higher gear. When we were faced with SARS, when we were faced with the ice storm in eastern Ontario, and when we were faced with other natural disasters, the government can take that issue and put it on the cabinet table. The Prime Minister takes the lead responsibility for the issue, usually in cooperation with the minister responsible, and things happen quickly.

With regard to BSE, producers across Canada feel that what goes on in this place is a technical ping-pong match between the government and the opposition in terms of the CAIS program. Members ask themselves if this part works or if that part works.

However, farmers are facing a disaster. There are multigenerational farms in my riding in central Ontario and farmers are afraid they are going to go under this winter and not make it until spring. Those farmers are looking to the government, and the minister and his parliamentary secretary.

What is the government going to do, beyond the CAIS program and its shortcomings, over the next few weeks and months to ensure that farmers in my riding and across Canada are still in business next spring?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the basic question that the member raised on November 5. However, I will attempt to deal with the three points he raised tonight as well.

With respect to farmers who have not signed up in his area, as the member probably knows, we have extended the deadline a couple of times, actually, which gives farmers the opportunities to sign up for the program as the information rolls out. We certainly encourage them to do that.

There is no question that the equity, especially for people in the livestock industry, has declined drastically as a result of the BSE crisis and the border remaining closed. The value of the assets, especially in terms of total value, has in fact gone down. We recognize that. We are trying to deal with that. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stated in the House earlier today that because of some of the programming we have done as a government, the price has actually now increased and farmers' equity, in terms of those cattle, should be starting to increase again.

The member said that BSE is a national disaster. That is absolutely true; there is no question about that. However, the government has been there for producers beyond the CAIS program itself. We have been there. The September 10 announcement by the minister changed our focus considerably. The minister clearly stated that we will continue to work on opening the border with the United States. We have heard what President Bush has had to say. We are making progress on that issue.

However, beyond opening the border, we are working in other ways. We have introduced the set aside program for feeder cattle and fed cattle. That is having an impact on the market. We are looking at repositioning the Canadian industry by increasing our own slaughter capacity in this country. We have set up the programs in order to do that. We are making good progress. We must have the slaughter capacity in this country.

I want to make a couple of remarks about the CAIS program. The CAIS program represents a long term commitment by governments, both provincial and federal, that tries to respond to producers' needs for a comprehensive program that protects farmers against drops in farm income. It replaces NISA, under which it took years for producers to rebuild their accounts after a downturn, and goes some distance to eliminating the uncertainty producers faced in the past because of government's continuing reliance on ad hoc programs and ad hoc responses to low income situations.

Having said that, as members can clearly see from my remarks, the government has been there. We added to the CAIS program. We added to the safety net by bringing in these other measures to specifically assist the livestock industry in its time of need. The government is doing its best to be there for Canadian farmers.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the bottom line on the CAIS program in my riding is that the government has put forward a program for which the majority of farmers have not signed up yet. So there obviously is a problem. Either they do not understand it or they do not feel it is worthwhile, or they do not think that it is actually going to help them solve the problem. The bottom line is that most of the farmers have not signed up for it.

I think everyone recognizes that, as a result of the border closure in the last year and a half or two years, we have an increased population in the number of cattle in Canada. Even if the border was to open, a month from now or six months from now, we have an oversupply of cattle, particularly older cattle. When President Bush made reference yesterday to opening the border, he specifically talked about younger cows.

Has the government considered a major cull program in Canada that would bring the total population back to where it needs to be?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I think if the member would look at Hansard he would see that the minister responded to that particular question today.

We are in fact working with industry to try to deal with the number of cull cattle. The minister is specifically trying to address the slaughter capacity so that within as short a time as possible we have the slaughter capacity to kill the animals in Canada.

I should point out that we have been working closely with industry throughout the CAIS development process. We had consultations across the country from August 25 to September 7 to hear the industry's concerns and examine new options. As a result, industry tabled a recommendation to the federal and provincial ministers to eliminate the producer deposit.

After reviewing that recommendation, the provincial and federal ministers together concluded there were some gaps in the current model, but that any major changes to the program should take place within the annual review process along with industry. In the meantime, ministers extended the third deposit and deposit deadline to March 31, 2005. That is to benefit producers.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, in early November I had the pleasure of rising in the House to speak on behalf of the people of Palliser, particularly the many agricultural and beef producers who make a substantial contribution to the economy of my constituency. At that time I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food what he was doing to help farmers who could not afford to enroll in the CAIS program and whether he would commit to getting rid of the cash deposit.

When I asked that question, the minister still had time to do the right thing for producers. He could have looked at the situation in my riding, for example, and made the decision to waive the deposit so producers would have full access to disaster relief without having to spend their own cash or go into debt.

Today is December 1. The deadline for registering in CAIS has passed and the government has failed to act. I understand from the parliamentary secretary there is an extension on paying for CAIS, but the deadline to register has passed.

The Liberal government clearly does not understand the impact that BSE and a poor crop have had upon Saskatchewan, particularly my riding of Palliser. First, excessive rainfall delayed seeding. Then in late August a devastating frost wiped out what looked to be a promising crop. All the while beef producers were being hammered by the BSE crisis. Unfortunately, these families were forced to rely upon the CAIS program for relief, a program which is cumbersome, complicated and not fully funded by the province's NDP government. It is a program that adds insult to injury by demanding that families pay a deposit as a condition of assistance.

The Conservative Party was not alone in demanding that the government address this issue. Individuals, families, farm organizations and the official opposition Saskatchewan Party joined us in calling on the federal government to eliminate the deposit. In fact, hundreds of people in my constituency signed a petition calling for its elimination. It would seem the only ones who failed to support producers on this issue were the Liberals and the NDP, which demonstrates just how out of touch they are with the issues that matter to Saskatchewan people.

A full six months after we in the Conservative Party announced our plan to assist beef producers, the Liberal government finally decided it too had to do something. Therefore this past September the Liberal government announced a plan to help Canada's livestock industry. While the announcement of aid was welcomed by cash strapped producers, the package was flawed because BSE assistance was made dependent upon registration in CAIS. This was clearly absurd. The government would not demand that flood victims pay out of their own pockets to access flood relief and yet that is exactly what it is requiring beef producers to do.

When my colleagues and I in the Conservative Party rose in the House in early November to challenge the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on this absurdity, we received empty rhetoric from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food who answered in his place. That is somewhat surprising given that the same member opposite acknowledged a short time later that using CAIS to deliver BSE aid was flawed.

According to my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake, the Liberals' Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture and Agri-Food had this to say about the problems of delivering BSE aid through CAIS, “Part of the problem with CAIS is it really was not designed to deal with a disaster and we are trying to have it cover a disaster at the moment”. In other words, the government acknowledged the flaws of the BSE relief program, but failed to take steps to address them.

We have now passed the November 30 registration deadline for CAIS. Let the record show that the government has failed to respond to the needs of Palliser producers.

My question for the member opposite is, will the government do the right thing now and waive the CAIS deposit for all our producers?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food (Rural Development)]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his concern. The same concern exists on this side of the House. We certainly have been moving forward beyond the CAIS program with other measures to try, as I said a moment ago, to assist the livestock industry in its time of need. But on this kind of programming, the federal government just cannot act on its own either.

We have discussed the issue at the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture meeting. I would point out that at that meeting of the federal and provincial ministers of agriculture in September, we did agree, as I said a moment ago, to extend the simplified one-third deposit to the 2004 CAIS program year and to extend the deadline by which deposits must be made for 2003 and 2004 program years to March 31, 2005. I want to spell that out clearly for the record.

This means that producers in all provinces, except Prince Edward Island and Ontario, do not have to make their deposit until next year.

As members may already know, industry has recommended the elimination of the deposit requirement under CAIS and ministers have agreed to look at alternative program mechanisms that better support active risk management by producers. Officials have certainly started that work.

I should point out that, contrary to what the member opposite says, CAIS and the federal investment of $488 million announced in September to assist Canada's livestock industry in repositioning itself are not the only government initiatives to help the industry manage through this difficult time.

In June 2003 governments announced $520 million for the BSE recovery program. In November 2003 the Government of Canada provided $120 million for the cull animal program. It did not stop there. In March of this year, there was an additional $930 million for the transitional industry support program.

I think it is safe to say that this government has not only been helping industry through this difficult time, we have been there every step of the way, and we will continue to be. That shows through the minister's answers in the House today. We are there looking at other programming and we will stand and continue to stand by producers in their time of need.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, the question remains. What is being done for producers that have not registered for CAIS?

Let the record show that we in the Conservative Party have stood by our producers while the Liberals and the NDP have sat on their hands. It is disappointing to me and to my constituents that this government failed to take the one step that could have made a real difference for thousands of families across the country.

It should be noted for the record that this Liberal government failed these families at a time when it had racked up yet another massive budgetary surplus. Surely this government cannot plead poverty given its $9 billion surplus; at least we would not think so.

If it is not a matter of money, then it must be a matter of priorities or, in the case of this government, misplaced priorities. This government has demonstrated that it has no problem going to bat for friends of the Liberal Party like Serge Savard or dumping a billion dollars into a failed gun registry.

However, farm families seem to fall a lot further down the list for the Liberals.

Again, will this government admit once and for all that the CAIS program is flawed and deliver disaster relief and--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric from that side, but not a whole lot in substance, if I do say so myself.

The fact of the matter is that in 2003 we saw the biggest payouts in history from the Government of Canada to the farm community: $4.87 billion. That is a lot of money. We know full well that there is a lot of suffering at the farm level, but we have been there for the farm community. Let us add on top of that the money that is coming from the provincial governments.

We are continuing to look at CAIS programming and how it can be improved; it has not even been operating a couple of years yet. We are looking at that program. We are analyzing it. We will continue to improve it as time goes along. We remain there for farmers and we will continue to do so.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to continue to press the government on an issue that I believe is very important to all Canadians, their personal privacy, which is at risk because of the U.S. patriot act. It was introduced by the Bush administration a number of years ago and now threatens Canadian privacy. It is doing so today in a context that I think it is very important for our government to move on to protect Canadians.

Specifically, section 215 of the patriot act provides for the FBI to go to any U.S. company or subsidiary and request personal information about people. Let us say, for example, that the CIBC contracts out its information and data gathering and storage management to an American subsidiary, which makes Canadians vulnerable to the records taken from them. The CIBC does not know about this. It is not allowed information on when the data is being accessed from that company. Second, the customer does not allow access to that.

This has been challenged in the United States by the American Civil Liberties Union. It won a case on section 505 of the patriot act and now it is actually pushing on section 215. We are waiting for decisions on that.

In the interim, the real issue here is why we are letting a foreign government have access to Canadians' personal and private information. We literally do not have to leave this country to have our information accessed by the FBI. We can be sitting here right now watching TV, never leaving Canada, and our information can be accessed by the FBI. We do not even know how many people are actually being investigated.

It is an issue of privacy that speaks to the heart of democracy. If we do not have the ability to have our information protected, it threatens our privacy, our freedom of movement and also our rights as individuals, because we have seen what governments do with information.

There is no due process. That is the problem. This is all done in secrecy. When the information on Canadians is collected and taken, we do not even know where it goes. We do not know what other agencies it is shared with. We do not know how it is stored. We do not know what they do with it at all. That is a problem.

In the United States, we have seen some high profile cases involving Senator Edward Kennedy and another congressman who were put on a no-fly list through mistaken information related to the patriot act.

We also do not know whether the United States has had an influence on other significant cases here in Canada, cases that have led to some Canadians having trouble abroad, because we do not know about that situation.

This brings me to the questions that we have been pursuing. The government has a duty to act on this. Other provincial governments have done so because they know what has happened. They know it is a threat that affects their citizens. We have witnessed this federal government doing a lot of outsourcing to American companies. That provides the opportunity for all that information to be lost in terms of control and security and the government has to act on this.

The Privacy Commissioner has asked the government to do so. We have not seen that yet and that is a real problem. There have been rumblings about a potential summit with the provinces on this, or on having an international treaty, as the American Civil Liberties Union has testified about in British Columbia.

This government needs to act to protect Canadian privacy. I would hope that with the recent visit by the president and the delegations that there would have been some correspondence, some objections and also an inquiry as to how many Canadians are being affected by the patriot act and what the government is going to do to stand up for our information to be protected.

I live in a border community. I know right now that some of my citizens are being fingerprinted up to 2,000 times when entering the United States. They are Canadian citizens and this happens over and over. They do not even show their ID sometimes anymore. They are known by name. They are just fingerprinted and sent right through. We want to know what happens to that information. And the patriot act is even more obtrusive, because we do not know what is being accessed and when.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that this government takes the privacy of Canadians very seriously. To this end, we are committed to doing everything we can to protect the privacy of Canadians with respect to key federal personal, security and defence related information holdings.

The actions taken by the government in response to potential privacy and contracting risks posed by the U.S.A patriot act include, among others: a review by government departments of their outsourcing arrangements to determine if action is needed; continuing the review of federal privacy laws and policies; and cooperating with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner on the planned audit in this fiscal year of the transfer of personal information between Canada and the United States.

Many safeguards are already in place to protect the privacy rights of Canadians. The government ensures the protection of personal information about Canadians and other key sensitive information holdings through the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

Agreements exist between Canadian and U.S. authorities that stipulate conditions under which information is shared between our respective governments.

Recently, the President of the Treasury Board met with the Privacy Commissioner, Ms. Jennifer Stoddart, to discuss this issue. It was agreed that the government would continue to work closely with the office of the Privacy Commissioner to ensure that the privacy of Canadians would be respected and that personal information would be protected from inappropriate disclosure.

We will also continue to work closely with provincial governments and the private sector to protect the security and privacy of Canadians and the interests of Canadian businesses.

On Friday, October 29 the President of the Treasury Board issued a statement in response to the report prepared by the information and privacy commissioner for British Columbia on privacy and the U.S.A. patriot act, noting that the Government of Canada was currently reviewing the report.

Also on that day, Paul Cellucci, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada said that the United States would be willing to review the British Columbia report. He added that the U.S. would work with the province and Canada on privacy and protection concerns. We welcome these comments by the U.S. Ambassador to have more dialogue on achieving the right balance between privacy rights and effective law enforcement.

Canadian and U.S. officials do discuss issues relating to cross border information sharing. The government is confident that it has the tools it needs to meet this crucial objective.