Debates of Feb. 9th, 2005

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-206, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning labels regarding the consumption of alcohol), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Food and Drugs Act

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-206 under private members' business.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It being 6:09 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Patent Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

moved that Bill C-274, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker,it is a pleasure today to rise and speak about the very important private member's bill that I first introduced in the House in November 2004. The bill is quite simple. The beginning of the bill provides certain definitional changes that are necessary for purposes of clarification, but the real essence of the bill is a small paragraph in bold at the very end, which states:

The Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations are repealed.

I hope that the spirit of cooperation on moving bills forward to committee will be extended to this very important initiative. I think Canadians deserve to know that the politicians they elect take issues seriously, especially when those issues hit them right in the pocketbook.

The cost of pharmaceutical products has been on the rise in recent years. The current regulatory regime puts an upward push on prices, which results in average Canadians not only paying more through their benefit plans or at the pharmacy counter, but also through their tax dollars that support our public, universal health care system.

Before going too far, I want to talk about what this bill is not about. The bill is not about reducing patent protection for innovative pharmaceutical companies. The bill is also not about taking sides in the ongoing war of words and actions between brand name and generic pharmaceutical industries and producers in this country.

This bill is about making sure that the pharmaceutical industry is treated like all other industries before the law. That is what will benefit Canadians most. Currently there are loopholes, which means that both industries can use a variety of tactics which keep lower cost generic drugs off the market longer than the patent period and encourage litigation and waste of money and time.

The amount of legal machinations that are employed as a result of these regulations is sickening because of the money that is wasted, money that could be better spent on development and innovation, on getting generic versions to the market, and lastly, on getting people the medications they need to treat their illnesses.

Ensuring fair competition is an important public policy of this country. However, our drug regulation regime fosters anti-competitive behaviour. The end result is that Canadians suffer en masse.

Drugs are the fastest rising cost component in our health care system. I believe that we all have a duty in this Parliament to try to address this in the larger context of improving the affordability of our public medicare system. In fact, I believe it is part of saving it in order to ensure that we pass on this national treasure and heritage to our children and our children's children.

Consumers pay more for their drugs than they should have to, particularly for some of the drugs most needed by Canadians. When drug monopolies are extended past the 20 year patent period, consumers, patients, governments and our health care system pay more for drugs, because generic drugs are priced on average 40% to 55% lower for the same brand version of a drug. It has been estimated that the various legal techniques used have cost close to $1.5 billion since the regulations came into effect just over 10 years ago.

No other Canadian industry has similar regulations. This is isolated and alone and exceptional, so how does this happen? Why has the Liberal government allowed $1.5 billion of Canadians' money to go into the pockets of the mostly multinational pharmaceutical companies?

It happens because the regulations, known as the patented medicine notice of compliance regulations, or PM(NOC) regulations, allow it. Even though they legally are abusive and generally damaging, these regulations have been in place in their existing form for over seven years. To date the government has not changed those regulations.

The purpose of the regulations was and continues to be to develop a balance between the competing interests of the brand and generic industries. Unfortunately, they have the ability to do the exact opposite. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have chosen to sweep this important public policy issue under the carpet and also keep Parliament in the dark.

Let me give members a little bit of history. The regulations we are talking about now are relatively new in a Canadian context. They took their first form in 1993 with Bill C-91 and have been the subject of several regulatory changes since that time.

In the past, the Canadian government saw a key role for itself in limiting market monopolies in pharmaceutical products. Compulsory licensing was used, which meant that a generic could compete with the lower priced versions. In 1985, a federal commission of inquiry known as the Eastman commission, set up by Trudeau's government, concluded that: the use of compulsory licensing had saved hundreds of millions of dollars, no adverse impact on the research of the pharmaceutical industry happened, and nor were the decisions of multinational drug companies regarding investment in research and development affected by this regime.

But with pressure from the U.S. around the 1988 and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA in 1994, Bill C-22 and Bill C-91 radically altered the way Canada deals with pharmaceutical patents. The 17 year patent protection became 20 years. Products, not just processes, could be patented, and compulsory licensing was completely removed with Bill C-91.

A federal commission of inquiry today would likely find the opposite of the 1985 findings to be true. The radical shift in government policy, largely the result of pressure from the United States in negotiating free trade deals, has undermined the possibility for our government to retain some element of real control over pharmaceutical prices to ensure Canadians have access to affordable pharmaceuticals at the pharmacy counter and in our public health care system.

What do the regulations do? The easiest way to describe the regulations from a consumer's perspective is that through a variety of legal techniques which even the government itself has tried to stop but has failed in the courts, brand companies are able, if they choose, to delay generic drugs entering the market. How does this happen?

The Liberals would like us to believe it is a very complicated system that is best left to the bureaucrats. I would say it is only complicated if we believe that the bureaucrats are the best people situated to make decisions on behalf of the country. The truth of the matter is that the industry that regularly ranks first among all Canadian industries in terms of profitability, whose main operation is to repackage drugs that are actually researched, developed and manufactured in other countries, continues to get its cake and eat it too.

The regulations got off to a very bad start in the dying days of the Mulroney government when Bill C-91 was rammed through Parliament when the PM(NOC) regulations were instituted without any public consultation through the normal gazetting period. All of the changes since have been regulatory. This means that the representatives of the people in the House had no opportunity to debate them in a binding way. As a result, generic manufacturers have been kept off the market in a couple of different ways through what is known as evergreening and automatic injunctions.

Automatic injunctions allow brand companies to allege patent infringement when a generic applies for a notice of allegation. This process in and of itself would be relatively harmless if the real problem of determining what kinds of patents are allowed to be listed on the patent register were clear, but they are not.

A brand name can list many different patents for the same product by claiming different uses, patenting different forms, such as capsules or tablets, changing the name of the drug, or in the past, the name of the drug company. There sometimes are numerous patents that can hold up a generic from entering the market. In addition, the courts have interpreted that the regulations allow brands to list all of these multiple patents even though in one case the judge reported that it was “opposite to logic”.

Although the generics eventually win in 75% of these cases, they are on average kept off the markets between 15 and 21 months when the automatic stay is applied for. However, when we look at a few blockbuster drugs, we can see that when it is more profitable, brands have been able to maintain their monopoly for up to four years on average by applying for automatic injunctions on patents that it is fairly obvious have been strategically registered to maintain their monopoly and maximize profits, at the expense of consumers and our drug industry.

Is rewarding an innovative manufacturer with strong patent protection such a bad thing? No it is not, but that is not what we have with the PM(NOC) regulations. Instead we have a system that continues to add virtual patent extensions without accompanying results in research and development or domestic manufacturing.

It is important to note that not all brand companies employ such abusive tactics and are not actually in keeping with good business principles and the spirit of the regulations. The problem, however, is that it does not stop all those and a certain amount of patent infringements or claims have delayed generic versions in some of the worst situations costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

In 2003 the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the primary independent policy tool available to Canadians to examine how brand companies operate, reported that of 103 patents added to the patent register, only 16 were new active substances. Patents are being registered for uses not approved by Health Canada, for new coatings, and changes to active ingredients. This is not innovation; this is just delay.

The brand companies promised us innovation when the PM(NOC) regulations were first introduced. They continue to maintain that they are the only way to allow them to do innovative R and D in this country. Even with the favourable regulations today, which the brands actually do support, they have been failing to meet the commitment they made to Canadians of a ratio of 10% R and D to sales for the last three years.

In 2003 brand spending on research and development fell to its lowest level since 1989. Spending on basic research continues to be the smallest portion of R and D. In 2003 it actually fell by over 9%. Over half of the R and D spending was on clinical trials. Meanwhile they spend tons of money and an exorbitant amount of resources on marketing and advertising to people.

In a 2003 study by Research Infosource a generic company placed high, ranking at number 13 of Canada's top 100 corporate R and D spenders. This is the first time a generic company has ranked higher than a brand company. This clearly indicates it is not just the brand companies that can make exclusive claims to R and D expenditures as a justification for the system.

The president and COO of that highly ranked generic company made a presentation at the June 2003 industry committee hearings. That person in favour of a review, in favour of eliminating the automatic injunctions and the need for stronger regulations to prevent evergreening and argued that more R and D would happen on the generic side if the situation resolved.

Why should automatic injunctions and evergreening concern us here?

Drug prices are the fastest rising component of our health care system. The average price of a drug produced by a brand company increased by 75% in the decade between 1993 and 2003. In the same time period generic drug prices only increased by 42%. Generic drugs are part of the solution to keeping drug prices under control.

The system and the regime needs to change. Recently there have been many calls from a variety of sources not only for a review of the regulations but also to make sure that regulations allow for accelerated access to non-patented drugs.

We must make a real effort to improve this situation. Those who can least afford it are suffering the most because of the abusive strategies that are legally used under the PM(NOC) regulations.

Canadians, benefit plan workers, benefit plans themselves, employers and all levels of government that purchase pharmaceutical products for delivering public health care are hurt the most under the current regulatory regime. In fact, it often leads to labour disputes because benefit packages are one of the most contentious issues among organized workforces and their employers. Generic companies which may be prevented from entering markets and thus are losing potential revenue at least have an opportunity to sue for damages when they are put off in the market, but the Canadian public does not.

Brand drug companies can be investigated by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and if they are found to be selling at excessive prices, they are asked if they will voluntarily pay back the money. This is called a voluntary compliance undertaking, known as VCU. There is, however, no mechanism for this money to be reimbursed to consumers, drug benefit plans, or even provincial governments. All the money simply goes back into the Liberals' general coffers. There is not even a guarantee that the money will be spent on health care.

The consumers at the most vulnerable state overpay for drugs; the companies pay that money back and it goes to the government, not back to them. That is unconscionable and it should be corrected.

The PM(NOC) regulations are above and beyond what we is required in terms of patent protection for the pharmaceutical industry.

Public policy objectives must be more important than pressure from multinational companies. Any changes to the regulations must address the most important public policy objective when it comes to pharmaceuticals: making sure that Canadians and our publicly funded health care system have access to affordable drugs.

Just last September the Liberals promised to work with the provinces. The first ministers task force on developing a pharmaceutical strategy has as one of its nine key components to accelerate access to non-patented drugs. In order for that to happen the PM(NOC) regulations in their current form have to be eliminated.

Some independent sources have reviewed this issue over the last several years. One of the more interesting ones came from stock analyst Hemant Shah from the Wall Street Journal :

The anti-generic strategy by pharmaceutical companies has probably the highest rate of return of any business activity they do right now.

That shows the demonstrated awareness of Wall Street on what the practices of the industry have been through these regulations to maximize their profits at the expense of people.

I will conclude with the following quote from Dr. Marcia Angell, who is former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine :

Nothing drug companies do is as profitable as stretching out monopoly rights on their blockbusters. Extending that privileged time by a variety of stratagems is the most innovative activity of big pharma. For blockbuster drugs, it is certainly the most lucrative.

The health and welfare of Canadian citizens, and with an aging population, the requirement of access to drugs and medicines to treat their illnesses is a paramount issue not only for our generation but also for the future of Canada and saving its medicare system. Let us stop the abuse and make sure that we innovate and do not litigate.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for sponsoring the bill. As he knows, many of us have worked a lot of overtime to put this issue in its proper perspective and come up with a regime that would at least constructively deal with regulations which, by all accounts, have not been very favourable to either innovation or to the welfare of consumers in this country.

I would like to point out that the hon. member for Windsor West and my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton--Leduc were helpful in terms of our experience. This is a very important issue for the parliamentary secretary as well. He has seized upon the issue and will be introducing, hopefully in the next few months, a formal understanding of what the regulations will look like.

The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that the current regulations are draconian. I wonder if the member could give an illustration how costly the current regime, without amendments, will be to Canadian consumers, particularly as it relates to our balance of trade.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Pickering--Scarborough East pioneered this issue long before I came to Parliament. He made sure it was at the table in the industry committee when I arrived in 2002. That was the first time this issue had a serious review. It did not reach the floor of the House of Commons for a vote, but it at least made it to that stage and I congratulate the member for that.

I can give the member a couple of examples of the cost to Canadians. The anti-depressant drug called Paxil had nine patents on it. The original 20 year patent was due in 1999. The drug did not get on the market until 2003 because of evergreening. There was a delay of 1,442 days which cost Canadians $114 million alone.

Another drug known as Losec was due to enter the market in 1999 but it took until 2004. There are still some outstanding issues regarding this drug. This one particular drug had a loss of $443 million. This is money that is lost to our economy.

The important thing we need to recognize is that Canada is an export country. Almost all our manufacturing and our industries are in surplus situations. We have a surplus in the United States. This is one of the few industries where we have a massive trade deficit. The industry itself no longer calls itself a manufacturer because it does mostly packaging.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I note that my colleague is recommending that we eliminate the NOC regulations, but he is not recommending that we eliminate the early working provisions. According to the Industry Canada officials who presented at committee, early working provisions and the NOC regulations are flip sides of the same coin. My colleague obviously disagrees with that.

Could the member explain to Canadians what are the early working provisions? Why does he not see them as flip slides of the same coin? Why is he recommending eliminating the NOC regulations but leaving in the early working provisions which certainly favour the generic industry in Canada?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the early working provisions allow generic drugs to be manufactured and tested and put on the market after the 20 year period. I have not put that in the bill because I wanted to sharpen the debate on this issue. I am certainly open to amendments if that is the balance that is required. If my bill receives support and gets to committee, I would encourage that.

It is important that the bill get to committee. If it does not, we are telling the government that it is okay for this to be done through regulations and that parliamentarians have no business whatsoever in the debate on this issue. This is the opportunity. One member of the Bloc Québécois has a bill which addresses part of these issues too. We are open to amendments. Early working provisions could be part of them.

Some of the issues also relate to additional costs. We are certainly open to discussing that issue as well.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could outline how the new provisions will compare with other major competitors once the new regime has been set up. In order not to put brand name companies out of business, how will this compare with other major competitors?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Yukon who, when I arrived in 2002, was raising very serious questions about how to deal with this issue.

In the United States, for example, this is amazing. George Bush is a progressive in this field because only one automatic stay of injunction is allowed in the U.S., so the Americans have addressed this. We know the influence of the industry in the United States, but at the same time, there was enough recognition of the problem and this leaves Canada alone in the world with such a regime.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Windsor West for bringing the issue forward and colleagues who have spoken in the House who are very concerned about the balance that we are trying to create in Canada.

This is a unique balance in public interest. When we look at the implications of intellectual property in the pharmaceutical industry, the government must maintain a delicate balance between two important and competing policy objectives. On the one hand, we must encourage advancements in medicine by providing effective patent protection for new drugs on all fronts, and on the other hand, we must ensure that versions of drugs are able to move forward.

Bill C-274, introduced by the member for Windsor West, seeks to disrupt this balance by repealing the patented medicines notice of compliance regulations. The regulations together with the early working exemption under the Patent Act are two pillars of the government's balanced drug patent policy. The early working exception allows generic companies to use a patent drug for the purpose of seeking approval to market a generic version of a brand name drug.

Normally, the conduct of this would constitute patent infringement, but the early working exception allows a generic drug company to compete with Canada's health regulatory and approval process while the equivalent brand name drug is still under patent.

It is then possible for a brand name drug company to be in a position to enter the market as soon as possible after patent expiry. The generic pharmaceutical industry estimates that early working can accelerate the market entry of its products in Canada by three to five years.

While early working is intended to promote the timely market entry of generic drugs, the regulations are necessary to ensure that this exception to the patent infringement is not abused by generic companies who are seeking early product approval.

Patent protection is an important incentive in encouraging investment and promoting research and development of new and better medical therapies. The regulations provide incentives by ensuring that brand name drugs enjoy secure, stable, uninterrupted periods of market exclusivity prior to the eventual and irreversible arrival of generic competition.

If passed, the bill would seriously undermine Canada's balanced drug patent policy by effectively stripping brand name drug companies of the most effective patent enforcement mechanism that presently exists at their disposal.

Repealing the regulations would prompt the brand name pharmaceutical industry to withdraw its considerable R and D investments from Canada with a corresponding loss in research-intensive employment here. It would also compromise Canada's access to the latest medical therapies as brand name drug companies would no longer have any incentive to seek the Canadian market promptly.

Industry Canada and Health Canada are aware of the concerns of the member for Windsor West regarding the regulations and his reasons for advancing Bill C-274. In recent years representatives of the generic pharmaceutical industry have been increasingly vocal in allegations that brand name companies are abusing the regulations to unfairly delay generic competition, a practice they refer to as evergreening.

The government remains convinced however, that regulations are a vital part of this industry and Canada's balanced drug patent policy is important. Generic drug companies continue to challenge brand name patents early and often. And so, without the protection of regulations, infringing generic drugs could enter the market soon after the innovator and well before the expiry of the original product's patent.

That said, the government recognizes that there have been instances of behaviour compliance by the generic pharmaceutical industry. We have therefore developed a package of regulatory amendments intended to restore the original balanced policy intent behind the regulations.

The amendments, which were pre-published in the Canada Gazette Part I, on December 12, 2004 will facilitate the market entry of generic versions of brand name drugs immediately following expiry of relevant patents as the bill originally intended, while at the same time allowing brand name companies to duly promote improvements to the original form of the drug that are genuinely accepted.

If passed, this package of amendments would approve Canada's competitiveness as an investment location and would establish more predictable and stable rules relating to the intellectual property of pharmaceuticals. It is my hope that the member for Windsor West will support these amendments and, in so doing, support Canada's efforts to ensure that we continue to have a balanced drug patent policy regime that will continue to be the leading choice of investment for our pharmaceutical industry.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to commend my colleague from Windsor West for bringing this issue forward. I know it is an issue very near and dear to him.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-274, an act to amend the Patent Act. This bill would seek to repeal the notice of compliance regulations and reduce the extent of patent protection. It was actually a former Conservative government that introduced these regulations in the first place that this bill seeks to amend. The Conservative Party today continues to believe that the intent of a pharmaceutical policy should be to achieve a balance that encourages the development of new drugs and treatments for Canadians, and at the same time provide those drugs to Canadians at an affordable price.

What this means is that the Conservative Party supports regulations that respect property rights and encourages research and development into new drugs by brand name companies. At the same time we support regulations that allow generic manufacturers to offer similar medicines at a lower price after a reasonable period of time. We also support the existing system now where the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board regulates the prices of brand name drugs here in Canada, which actually does not happen with the generics, and that is an important point we should make here.

I want to identify two types of pharmaceutical manufacturers. It is important, especially for viewers watching this, to be aware of this.

The first is what is called the brand name or the research-based pharmaceutical company like Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Merck Frosst, et cetera. These companies do the basic research and create drugs from scratch. These drugs are certainly expensive to research and develop, and they are one side of the pharmaceutical industry.

The second type of manufacturer is the generic manufacturer. In Canada, basically the two largest are Apotex and Novopharm. The generic companies copy a brand name drug after its patent expires, although as the question I asked the member earlier indicates, through the early working provisions they actually research that so that they are able to go to market as soon as the 20 year patent expires. It is important to note though that they copy certain drugs. The generic industry copies the drugs which are generally the most lucrative, and that obviously makes economic sense to them, but they do not copy all the drugs, especially the ones that do not in fact raise a lot of revenues.

As written, Bill C-274 in our view would seriously harm the brand name pharmaceutical industry in Canada by removing all the protection regulations currently provided to the brand name companies. The stated objective of the bill is to exclude drugs from the scope of the regulation-making power provided for in subsection 55.2(4) of the Patent Act, while making other amendments to reduce the extent of patent protection for medicines. The bill would achieve its objective in part through appeals in the notice of compliance regulations.

In our view, the bill would ignore our obligation under the TRIPS agreement, under these multilateral agreements, to provide 20-year patent protection for brand name pharmaceutical companies. The fact is that no other country treats pharmaceutical patent issues the same way it treats patents for cars, telescopes or other industries. For example, and I know the member in his speech mentioned this, the pharmaceutical industry does have patent rules that are particular for that industry, but that is the same as in other countries.

The fact is that if a generic manufacturer ignored a patent and put its product on the market before the patent had expired, it would take years for a brand name pharmaceutical company to go through the regular court system and a full infringement action. If the brand name won, it would likely never gain back the market it lost to the generic company because that is how quickly people would switch because of difference in price. It would take more time to recoup damage costs.

Our concern is that if this bill were passed companies like Merck Frosst and GlaxoSmithKline would likely remove themselves as much as possible from Canada. I know some people do not see this as a concern. Speaking personally as a member from Edmonton, I know that these companies invest a lot into R and D of infectious diseases, for instance, Dr. Lorne Tyrrell, the former dean of medicine at the U of A, is researching into hepatitis B and hepatitis C at the U of A.

These are the companies that are investing the money into trying to research and create new drugs to lengthen or to certainly improve human life. Canada's brand name industry spends roughly $1 billion on R and D. It hires extremely well educated Canadians, most obviously with post-secondary degrees, and it produces some truly amazing drugs such as the asthma drug Singulair in Montreal.

I acknowledge that there are problems with litigation on certain drugs which have multiple patents. I support efforts to reduce the litigation, at which I know the government is currently looking. I support the member for Windsor West in making an effort to bring those regulatory changes open, whether it is before a committee or before the House.

However, we want to seek to preserve that balance. It is important on the patent issue to make this known. In the hearings we have had, both Health Canada and Industry Canada pointed out that most drugs had either one or two patents. It is the big, blockbuster drugs like Paxil or Losec that have eight patents, which is the big cause of most of the litigation between the generic and the brand names in Canada. That is an important point to make. In our view the bill shifts the balance away from that precious balance to entirely in favour of the generic manufacturers.

In our view the generation and development of new scientific knowledge is pivotal to the growth and the prosperity of the Canadian economy. The Conservative Party would like to see the brand name manufacturers invest more money in R and D. We have asked them to do that and we will push them to do that, and to hire even more well-educated Canadians.

If the bill were passed, it would have quite the opposite effect on the industry, and it would have a negative effect on the Canadian economy.

I understand fully that the pharmaceutical industry is litigious, but even as former industry ministers from the government side have pointed out, will this ever stop? I think the changes in the regulations that the government is looking at now will certainly reduce that. The fact is with the amount of money around the industry, it is likely to be litigious long into the future.

I would like to explain some of the issues relating to patents and how the automatic injunction and early working provisions work. Normally a patent is exclusive. A patent cannot be broken before it expires. However, the notice of compliance regulations allows generics to copy and conduct clinical trials of drugs still under patent as part of a system called “early working”.

To use plain English and to use a specific example, before its 20 year patent expires, the generics can create a copy of the asthma drug, Singulair, for mass production. They can conduct their human trials on the copy and they can get Health Canada to review and approve their copy before the original patent on Singulair, which is owned by Merck Frosst, has expired.

The problem is that once this copy has been approved, the generics do not want to wait until the patent expires, especially if it is a blockbuster drug like the ones I mentioned, the anti-depressant Paxil or the ulcer drug Losec. Generics, according to the testimony from Health Canada, challenge patents to get on the market earlier. They will take the brand name companies to court and argue that the patent does not apply to their specific copy of the drug.

As members before me mentioned, the Standing Committee on Industry in June 2003 conducted hearings on this matter. We asked Industry Canada if it was common for generics to attempt to break brand name patents before the patent has expired.

To quote the question my colleague from Yellowhead asked at the time of Industry officials, “Have the generics challenged the 20 years? Have they tried to put a product on [the market] before the 20 year period [has expired]?” The resounding answer from officials was yes. To quote them, “Yes, I'm not aware of a drug where they haven't”.

Make no mistake, early working provides the generic companies with a distinct competitive advantage over the patent holders and over other countries where early working does not exist, such as the United States. Thus, there is a counterbalancing measure in the notice of compliance regulations which is called an automatic injunction. It is also known as linkage regulations by the brands.

When a generic wants to copy a brand name drug, it must inform the brand. The brand has 45 days to advise the generic company as to whether or not the brand believes the generic is infringing on its patent rights. If the patent holder agrees that patent has expired, then the generic is given permission to go to market. This happens repeatedly once the patent is not contested.

However, if the brand believes their patent would be infringed by the introduction of a generic product, the brand is granted an automatic injunction. The brand goes to the federal court and is granted 24 months for the case to proceed.

The generics call this practice evergreening. Their argument is that the brand gets its 20 years plus the 24 months, so at least 22 years. However, what this fails to disclose is the fact that the generics can actually introduce in year 17, 18 or 19 and the 24 month period can actually be within the 20 year patent. If the generic tries to get on the market in the 20th year of the patent and the brand is granted an automatic injunction, in that case it extends the life of the patent.

We, in this party do not support the bill because we believe it upsets the balance between the research companies and the generic companies.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Rivière-Du-Loup—Montmagny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this bill. First, a historical overview is important.

We must remember that Canada wanted a system that would allow for an industry researching new medicines, based in large part on a model adopted by Brian Mulroney's Conservative government. An agreement was reached with the research industry. As a result, if the government assured it stable conditions over a number of years, the industry would, in return, commit to investing in research. In fact, both parties kept their commitment, which allowed the establishment of a very sound research industry, particularly in Quebec.

In addition to the federal government's conditions, the Quebec government implemented proposals and ways to protect such medicines. Today, we see the numerous and significant spin-offs of this. In the greater Montreal area, many people are making a good living from this industry, thanks to generous salaries. This phenomenon has also spread to the Quebec City region.

Today, the bill before the House proposes to set aside what we call the linkage regulations, which corresponds to the compromise developed to create a balance between research companies developing new products, which have to invest significant funds to do so, and the generic companies copying drugs, which want to ensure their availability to the most people possible. The balance that we have tried to create is extremely fragile. In fact, for quite some time, each party, both the generic drug manufacturers and the manufacturers of new drugs resulting from indepth research, has been trying to ensure that the conditions regulating this sector are to its advantage.

I have been sitting on the Standing Committee on Industry, Sciences and Technology for two or three years, and my predecessors in the Bloc Québécois did so for 10 years. The fact of the matter is that we have always been confronted with the same reality. Whenever we are listening to the arguments by one side or the other, we find some parts acceptable and some questionable. Ultimately, one constant emerges: what is most detrimental to research and development is the desire for constant change. This has adverse consequences. In the drug manufacturing industry, competition can be seen not only between research companies, but also within the companies, according to the country where they are established. For example, in Canada, when the regulatory environment is changed, the head office in the United States or Europe stands to benefit if we make regular changes and let it be known that these changes will be detrimental to these research companies.

This is the case to some extent with the bill before us. It reflects the vision of the member who introduced it, which is that, whether the drugs are research-based or generic, tough competition among drug manufacturers should be encouraged in order to maintain prices at a minimum. But the bill overlooks an important consequence: this would very significantly disrupt the current job structure in the industry. I find it difficult to believe that this is an appropriate solution.

It is important that this debate be a public one. The public has to be aware of the consequences of the choices made by governments. In this sense, it would be interesting if all angles of dealing with the issue could be presented in this House.

At the same time, we in the Bloc Québécois obviously cannot support such an approach, as it would have too great a negative impact on the economy.

When we look at how drug pricing works in Canada, there are other solutions which have to be considered as well, to determine their relevance. The fact should also be taken into account that, at present, the Department of Industry, in cooperation with the Department of Health, is conducting consultations on a proposed amendment to the linkage regulations. These consultations are continuing until February 24.

We have already heard from the generic companies to the effect that they will reject the proposed amendments as drafted. It is possible that when the consultations and negotiations are over, by February 24 or a few days later, we will be able to reach a compromise solution. That is what I want. For the moment, that is where these companies stand.

As for the research-based companies, we do not yet know their official position. The proposed amendments to the linkage regulations may be acceptable to young companies just beginning to develop products.

However, they may not appeal to the older companies that have well-established products. The inverse may also be true. The analysis is not yet complete on that side.

Nevertheless, it must be said that many of the realities of pharmaceutical manufacturing do change over time. Thus, 25 years ago pharmaceuticals did not have the mission they have today, of prevention and insurance. For example, the cost of a drug to lower blood cholesterol rates, which the patient has to pay for, may seem significant, but the cost for society is much less than if it had to pay for surgery. There are financial costs and also human costs related to this.

Thus, it must be studied very thoroughly and very carefully. At present, I am leaning much more in favour of a approach that would try to ensure that the consultation being carried out by the departments of industry and health is done properly and done transparently enough that, in the end, if we do eventually amend the linkage regulations in a way that is acceptable to both parties, we will be resolving an important issue.

I do not think, however, that doing away with the linkage regulations today would solve anything. I am sure that there would be a great deal of opposition in this House against it. It would be worthwhile seeking the opinion of international experts who would not have to issue opinions on drug quality per se, but only on the economic impact of such a decision. This would enable us to see immediately that this was inappropriate for the economy of Quebec and of Canada in general.

There is so much being put into creating research structures for training academics, who must have opportunities available to them in the end. It would not be to the advantage of the people of Quebec and of Canada to become nothing more than consumers of the most economical drugs. We also need people who produce drugs, not just experimental drugs, but also generic drugs under reasonable conditions.

The linkage regulations have been through so much over the past 10 years that now we have identified the gaps and areas that need work. I do not think it is necessary to start from scratch. Instead we could see whether the government's proposed amendments are acceptable or not.

The most concrete example, albeit very complicated, that I can give is that during the creation of a new drug by a company, the generic company can ask for permission to reproduce the drug and the research company that created the drug can ask for an injunction. Under the current act and regulations, there can even be multiple injunctions, which means the generic product will never enter the market.

There may be a way to refine this so as to reach a solution that limits the number of injunctions that can be made. There will be a mechanism that will help continue to create jobs, which is what we want.

I hope this bill will not be passed by the House. It was tabled with many good intentions regarding the impact on the availability of cheaper drugs. However, when we look at all the data, the economic repercussions and the quality of the drugs, we realize that we have to make sure that this is handled properly.

We realize that other problems have surfaced because of online pharmacies. We realize that some prices of generic drugs in Canada are much higher than they should be while prices of drugs and research products are controlled on the market. We realize there are also implications for the provinces.

For all these reasons, I think the route proposed in the bill is not appropriate.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor West for bringing this issue forward and giving us all a chance to make some comments on it.

In order to foster growth and create high quality, well paying jobs, the government has set, as one of its core priorities, the building of a 21st century economy. In furtherance of this, the government must continue its work to support sound marketplace framework laws.

A fair, efficient and competitive marketplace, combined with an effective regulatory framework, creates a business environment that is supportive of innovation, investment and economic growth.

To foster an efficient and competitive marketplace in the pharmaceutical sector, it is necessary that the government's drug patent laws strike an appropriate balance between encouraging pharmaceutical investment and innovation by providing effective patent protection for innovative medical therapies while, at the same time, facilitating the earliest possible entry of non-infringing, lower cost generic pharmaceutical products.

The patented medicines, notice of compliance) regulations, or the PMNOC regulations, and the “early working exception” under the Patent Act are both integral to the maintenance of this balance, a balance Bill C-274 will most certainly undermine, if passed, given that it calls for the outright repeal of the PMNOC regulations.

In the pharmaceutical industry, the early working exception allows generic drug manufacturers to use a patented innovative drug for the purpose of seeking approval to market a competing version of that drug.

Normally, conduct of this kind would constitute patent infringement but an exception has been made so that the generic drug companies can compete with Health Canada's regulatory approval process while the equivalent innovative drug is still under patent. This is done so the generic can be in a position to enter the market as soon as possible after the patent expiry. This ensures that the patentees do not enjoy a de facto monopoly beyond the life of the patent by virtue of the time it takes for a generic drug company to complete Health Canada's regulatory review process.

While early working is intended to promote the timely market entry of generic drugs, the PMNOC regulations are necessary to ensure that this exception to patent infringement is not used improperly by generic drug companies that might seek to sell their products during the term of the competitor's patent.

Patent protection is an important incentive in encouraging investment and promoting research and development and giving the difficulties traditionally associated with protecting pharmaceutical patent rights by way of conventional infringement litigation, and the PMNOC regulations are intended to operate as a potent patent enforcement mechanism.

In this way, the regulations and the early working exception work in concert to maintain a balance in Canada's drug patent policy. It is important that neither instrument be considered in isolation as the intended policy can only be achieved when the two operate in a balanced fashion.

Overall, the government's drug patent policy appears to be achieving its objectives of encouraging investment and fostering competition. Since the introduction of the early working and the PMNOC regulations in 1993, total R and D spending in Canada by innovative companies has more than doubled.

Over that same period, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board reports that manufacturers' prices of patented drugs in Canada have followed a consistent pattern of decline or near negligible increases and the price of patented drugs in Canada has gone from being 23% higher than the medium international price to 5% below the median and 40% lower than the price in the United States. In fact, the price of patented drugs in Canada has risen by less than the consumer price index in almost every year since 1988.

Despite these positive outcomes, the PMNOC regulations remain a contentious policy instrument. In recent years, representatives of the generic pharmaceutical industry have become increasingly vocal in their allegations that brand name companies are abusing the regulations to unfairly delay generic competition.

Industry Canada, with the assistance of Health Canada, has completed a comprehensive assessment of these allegations and found that while the fundamentals of the regime are sound, there have been instances of behaviour complained of by the generic industry involving some top selling drugs.

While the behaviour in question is exceptional, it has been facilitated by a number of recent court decisions and could potentially grow in the years to come. To prevent this occurrence, a package of regulatory amendments has been developed and will restore the original balanced policy intent underlying the early working exception and the PMNOC regulations. These amendments were re-published in the Canada Gazette , part I, on December 11, 2004.

Repealing the PMNOC regulations would be an extreme measure which would completely undermine the government's attempt to maintain its balanced drug patent policy. It would allow generic manufacturers to continue to use the early working exception while stripping pharmaceutical manufacturers of the most effective patent enforcement mechanism at their disposal. This would tip the policy balance between intellectual property protection and the generic entry wholly in favour of the generic industry.

Bill C-274 would also have a number of negative consequences for Canadians. In the absence of strong and effective patent protection, innovator companies would drastically curtail their domestic R and D, which would result in a corresponding loss in research intensive employment.

Canadians' access to the latest medical therapies may also be compromised as innovator companies would be less inclined, absent effective patent protection, to bring their latest products to the Canadian market.

It is my hope that the member for Windsor West will instead support the government's recently proposed amendments to the PMNOC regulations and, in so doing, support this government's effort to foster a fair and competitive marketplace for pharmaceutical products.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, first I wish to congratulate the member for Windsor West for bringing the bill forward. It is an important element for the House to discuss. I would urge all members to consider voting in favour of the bill and getting it to a committee where we can have a transparent and open discussion about the impact of the current legislation.

A number of people have spoken about the government proposals. We have a number of difficulties with them. In part, the discussion on many of the proposals that have come forward has occurred behind the scenes. There has not been an open and very public dialogue about the impact of these particular regulations.

There are some fear that these regulations are stop gap at the very best and that they would not address some of the current abuses that are in place. It took seven years to get these changes into place but there is no mandatory review and no real guarantee that they will work this time. The government thought the regulations were going to work last time and they clearly have not.

The CGPA has done some very quick estimates of the cost of increased data protection. Had these current proposals been in place over the last five years, it would have added a further $600 million to prescription costs in Canada. That is just at a minimum. Those kinds of numbers contribute to what we are talking about in terms of the spiralling drug costs in this country.

Who is hurt the most by these drug costs? We are in a climate where we are putting profits before people. Drug therapy costs are second only to hospital expenditures and they are slightly larger than expenditures on doctors. There is no indication that these drug costs will change any time soon.

Provincial governments are demanding changes as their drug benefit plan costs increase at about 14% annually. With an aging population it is very difficult to see how these drug costs would go down substantially over the foreseeable future.

Canadian taxpayers are paying twice in our current system. They not only pay for our public, universal health care system, but they are also paying again at the pharmacy counter. These kinds of doubling up of costs for Canadians cannot go on.

The current regulations have multiple impacts. One impact that they have is on the drug benefit plans. Green Shield Canada's analysis of drug claim costs from 1997 to 2001 indicated that maximizing generic use was important in controlling costs.

Green Shield also indicated before the industry committee in 2003 that because of the rising cost of drugs they were being forced to change their standards of coverage and by doing so they were having to delist eligible drugs, increase co-payments and increase deductibles, which were having a direct impact on its patients.

It also impacts on employers and employees. Unions negotiate health benefits to fill gaps left by our health care system. Many unions have vocally asked for a public pharmacare as there is increasing conflict at the bargaining table over the costs of health plans, particularly drug plans.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The member will have six minutes and 23 seconds at the next debate of this bill.

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. 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.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask questions in the House with respect to the government's management of the residential school claims dispute. This matter has been discussed previously in the House.

Before Christmas the Deputy Prime Minister indicated to the House that this program was an enormous success, particularly the ADR component of the program, and that the costs which had been incurred up to that point were simply costs that related to the ramping up process so that the government could carry on with the settlement of ADR claims.

In fact, nothing of the sort has happened. At this point the government has expended approximately $125 million on this process and has resolved something in the neighbourhood of 50 ADR cases. In effect, if one analyzes the numbers it is very clear that four-fifths of every $1 that has been spent on this program has been spent on bureaucracy, experts, lawyers and the like, with only 20¢ on the $1 ever finding its way through to the victims.

The AFN studied this and put a recommendation before the government but it judged the ADR program, the process, to be a complete failure. It says that it is motivated by the tort claim considerations of the government but, most important, it says that at the current rate it will take 53 years and cost $2.3 billion in bureaucratic, legal and expert costs alone to resolve these claims. That does not even take into consideration the cost of the settlements themselves.

At this point in time the number of claims that have been submitted to the government under its program are quite meagre compared to the total pool of available claimants. I have been told that something in the neighbourhood of 1,227 cases have been submitted to the government in this dispute resolution process. In fact, there is a known pool of 85,975 live-in residential school survivors who have available claims against the government.

In addition, the entire mismanagement of the program is complicated by the class action lawsuits that have been commenced, one by the name of Cloud, which has now been certified in the Ontario Divisional Court, and a second one by the name of Baxter, which is on the verge of certification. All of this spells enormous liability consequences for the government.

Could the minister tell this House how the government intends to deal with this? It is very clear that the ADR program is not working and that it is a dismal failure with $125 million to $135 million having been spent at this point with 50 cases resolved. That is beyond pathetic.

What is the government intending to do about this? There has been a redress scheme in Ireland called the residential institutions redress act of 2002. I am not necessarily saying that I would agree with everything in that legislative scheme, but it is certainly understandable. Could the minister tell the House why we have not followed an approach like that? Why is there so much mystery, confusion and bureaucracy surrounding the process that is being followed by the government?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the member for Calgary Centre-North about his question pertaining to the residential school claims program.

To respond to one of his questions, he probably knows that the government has appealed the Cloud decision.

As my colleague is aware, the government launched the alternative dispute resolution process in November 2003 as a fast, safe and effective option to resolve complex and sensitive abuse claims.

The underpinning of the ADR process is to resolve the majority of claims within seven years at a cost of $1.7 billion, with $1 billion of that money going directly to former students. In addition, claimants have access to counselling and commemoration. To date, over 1,000 former students have applied to the ADR process.

Government agreed to support the Assembly of First Nations to prepare a report that would recommend ways to make the ADR process more acceptable to former students. This demonstrates our willingness and openness to listen to the advice of key stakeholders and ensure a healthy policy debate.

The ADR process was only designed as an accelerated way to review and compensate for claims of physical and sexual abuse and wrongful confinement. The Assembly of First Nations review seeks a much broader scope. The Assembly of First Nations has recommended compensation for each of the 87,000 former students. This is on top of compensation for claims of physical and sexual abuse. We need to take a careful look at the costing of the Assembly of First Nations proposal to establish how there could be savings as stated.

We are legally required to respond to any claim related to Indian residential schools and now face about 11,300 such outstanding claims.

I hope that the hon. member is not suggesting that the government pay all the claims without verifying them, since the government has an obligation to Canadians to ensure that all claims of abuse are validated before compensation is awarded. There is often a marked departure between what is claimed and what gets accepted.

It takes time and money to verify the allegations and properly assess the impact of the abuse. This is a very large expenditure and is part of government's due diligence to taxpayers.

I want to add that there is a rigorous competitive bidding and selection process to award research contracts. Historical research firms are selected via MERX, the national electronic bidding system. For the hon. member to suggest anything different is completely unfounded.

In summary, the government designed the ADR process to give former students a choice in how best to resolve their residential school claims. We are offering a timely, supportive and humane approach to resolving claims.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, just to follow up with a supplementary question for my friend, I note that the number of cases which have been brought before the government under the ADR process is very small compared to the total number of cases.

Of the figures which my friend has put before the House today, less than 2% of the pool of cases which the government is facing have been brought forward in this ADR process. That raises the question: why has the government invested $150 million in that process? If the objective was to expend $1.7 billion within seven years and settle the majority of the cases which could be settled quickly, it is very clear at this point, two years into the program, that this is a complete failure and that it is not working.

Moreover, it is not working for the victims. Newspapers in this country are replete with stories of residential school victims who feel they are being re-victimized by the process. There are indications that some of the victims are facing claims where their monetary award is $1,000 and yet $80,000 to $100,000 has been spent on proving the case in the manner my friend describes. That is not acceptable. What does the government intend to do about it?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government and the Assembly of First Nations want the same thing: fast and fair compensation for residential school victims of abuse. Since November 2003, over 1,000 individuals have opted for the government's ADR process as the method to resolve their claims. The ADR process will resolve the majority of claims within seven years, which will result in savings to Canadians in the long run.

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, on November 24 I asked the following question and supplemental. The Deputy Prime Minister answered and covered for the immigration minister. I said:

Mr. Speaker, 70% of my community casework is about this dysfunctional immigration department. We now learn that this favoured dancer that we have been talking about, and her husband, first went to their own MP and were told, “Follow the rules”. Then the couple went to the immigration minister's campaign office in the election and were able to trade their political work for a government benefit. That is against the law.

There was a non-answer challenge from the Deputy Prime Minister, so I asked another question. I said:

Mr. Speaker, the evasions continue. We have heard about the Ethics Commissioner, but it cannot be used to cover for ministerial accountability.

I put this to the Deputy Prime Minister. Everyone knows that the immigration department is in an absolute mess. The Prime Minister promised during the election to clean things up.

Will the Prime Minister just keep his word, assign some real priority to this national disgrace, replace the minister of immigration, and stop the ongoing damage to Canada's international reputation with this very poorly run department?

The former immigration minister claimed she helped an exotic dancer on compassionate grounds. The minister's chief of staff also held inappropriate meetings with the owners of strip clubs to discuss work permits of dancers. Questions in the House of Commons also highlighted the number of public employees who were attending to the minister during the campaign. Then there was also a mix-up about a campaign contribution receipt. All came together to demonstrate the unethical politicization of immigration.

I want to hear how the new minister has changed things. Ending the practice of importing exotic dancers by temporary permit was a right move, but in the past not once did we hear any Liberal immigration or human resources minister voice a public objection. Only with public embarrassment did the Liberals act.

The real problem is that we have a department that is very poorly run. First, its design is far too complicated. Second, the immigration ministry cannot properly communicate with its clients. The overall operations are inward and self-serving rather than client service oriented. Many employees appear to be operating in mere survival mode, with poor law and regulations to guide them and poor personnel leadership and bad supervision within the workplace. No one seems to be up to date with their work.

The discretionary decision points are being administered in an inconsistent and sometimes cruel manner that reminds one of past Liberal Party racism and the hurtful quotas and blacklists. The horror of the products of the system can be seen in the kinds of cases that get to the federal courts of Canada. Could anyone imagine a bureaucracy producing such bad results as what is regularly listed on the court docket?

This record is all against the backdrop of a political level which is out of touch with its workers, which continues to make unreasonable public pronouncements about targets, and which is without commensurate resources to deliver the mandate in a compassionate and professional manner. The problem has been unethical leadership.

The previous minister made a commitment to me when she was first appointed. She claimed that as a backbencher from the Toronto area she was very aware of how the dysfunctional department had made MPs' offices extensions of the immigration department. She said she was also aware of the fraud going on within some foreign missions. She said she was going to fix it.

It seems we keep changing ministers, but the problems do not change.

To top things off, the system has been unable to protect victims from being deported into danger zones. The pre-removal risk assessment system does not work. Just a few weeks ago, I placed the case of a young lady on the previous minister's desk with a pleading note. In spite of that, the young lady was deported and now, just like I warned, she has been arrested and brutalized. It is another stark reminder that the Liberals cannot manage the public trust. If harm comes to this lady, I will hold the minister directly responsible.

My deep concern is that this government is not capable of solving the serious problems of the department. The cover-ups do not change the reality on the ground. Yet the minister is supposed to be accountable. In view of such poor results, one can understand why I asked my particular questions, and we can only hope that there will be, with the new minister, a meaningful change process and a huge commitment to clean up--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Madam Speaker, I would like to answer the member's questions, but I just want to deal with a couple of things. I think there was a lot of rhetoric in the question; it was sort of in danger of a lot of heat and very little light.

I want to shed some light on it because I think there has been a tendency to ask questions of Ministers of Citizenship and Immigration with rhetoric, knowing full well that in many instances many ministers of this House cannot answer those questions because they are bound, especially in the cases of immigration and other areas, by the Privacy Act.

They cannot divulge why on the surface what seems to be a case that is not worthy of humanitarian and compassionate grounds really is, because they cannot give that data and that information without full consent of the client. The ministers are bound by not being able to give the right answers or to explain the situation properly. That leads to this kind of rhetoric.

What I think we need to talk about is that there were some statements made here which I really do want to respond to. One of them was that the hon. member basically said that many employees appear to be operating in survival mode with poor law and regulations to guide them.

I need to remind the hon. member, who has been a member of Parliament for as long as I have, that in fact these employees work under an act, an act of Parliament decided on by this Parliament. It was amended as recently as 2002 in this House, with debate, as an act of Parliament. People in the Department of Citizenship and Immigration do not suddenly work with nothing; they have a clear set of laws and a clear set of guidelines.

That brings us to the fact that the member talks about the problems he has in his riding. He is not alone. Every single one of us knows that we have problems in our ridings and every single one of us also knows that there have been times when members of the opposition and everyone else have brought cases to a minister of immigration, who has dealt with them, looked at the facts, realized something needed to be done and got humanitarian and compassionate grounds for those clients. This has not been done only for government or only for Liberals. It has been done for many members across the floor. We know this, so the question is, let us deal with the facts.

Fact one: we bring in about 245,000 immigrants a year. For 80% who come in, it is easy. They move in, they build their lives, they begin to contribute to Canadian society, and we never talk about them, because the ones we see are the complex cases . To suggest that there is a silver bullet and that a minister can suddenly come in and fix things in one fell swoop is not telling the facts as they really are and not even understanding the complexity of the issue.

We are dealing with human lives. We are dealing with people who live in countries, depending on whether they are refugees or not, and who have no papers. I recall that across this House this particular member's party has often accused us of bringing in people without due process, without digging deep and looking for all their papers and all their backgrounds. In many instances those papers and backgrounds are hard to come by. That extends the process. The process can take a long time in certain cases. We see the difficult and complex cases.

What I am saying is that our current minister and this government are very clear that we need to make the system work better. It is a changing and evolving situation that we live in with regard to immigration in our country.

We would love for this hon. member and others to come forward to help us resolve this problem and not throw cheap shots across the floor at us, because it is a complex issue. It is not a simplistic problem.

Let us deal with IRPA. Let us look at these things. We have worked in the House in 2004 and obviously situations have made it such that we are still having problems. Let us work on the process. It is not going to be fixed tomorrow, with the best of intentions. It will take time for some of these things to change because we are dealing with fluid situations and many different countries.

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, in summary, immigration must serve the country, not the Liberal Party. We tried to effect appropriate amendments to the bill when it came through a couple of years ago. Also, it was framework legislation, which had a lot of regulation to attach to it. So far, from what we can see, it is an administrative disaster.

Also, in the last election some Liberal candidates said, “Vote for me and I will deliver the special permits”. The previous immigration minister is reported to have made the very same assertions in the last election. Some Liberal candidates certainly made the point. They tied public service administration decisions to who got elected. I challenge the minister to ensure that this never happens again.

We do not need more study and analysis. We need a minister who has both the personal character and the stature in cabinet to get the job done, a minister who can get the resources needed to clean up this mess, a mess which we can see is a weeping sore from coast to coast in this country.