Debates of Nov. 27th, 2007

Tackling Violent Crime Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from November 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-378, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations (drug export restrictions), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Food and Drugs Act

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

When the bill was last before the House, the hon. member for Fleetwood—Port Kells had seven minutes remaining, but we will go on to the hon. member for Verchères—Les Patriotes.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to say that I agree with my colleagues from Québec and Brossard—La Prairie, who spoke earlier about the bill introduced by the member for St. Paul's, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations (drug export restrictions).

As my colleagues explained earlier, even though such a threat is not yet a reality, this bill is designed to minimize the possibility of Canada's supply of prescription drugs being exhausted by imposing severe restrictions on exportation. Under the NAFTA framework, partners to the agreement can limit certain exports to avoid a shortage in order to ensure public safety. In other words, the bill before us today would enable us to apply that framework.

The bill would amend the Food and Drugs Act to give the Minister of Health the power to prohibit bulk exports of prescription drugs. Specifically, Bill C-378 would make it possible to ban the export of prescription drugs listed in schedules to the Food and Drug Regulations.

The bill also specifies the kinds of fines offenders would be facing and it provides for a number of exceptions. For example, a drug described in one of the special schedules of the Food and Drug Regulations could still be exported from Canada if, for instance, it was not intended for human consumption or not manufactured or sold for consumption in Canada, under certain conditions of course.

I should point out that this bill targets primarily the western provinces, which have laxer practices. Quebec already has in place mechanisms prohibiting the cross-border trade in prescription drugs, as far as individual prescriptions are concerned. Supply problems and higher prices as a result of laxer practices in some provinces could, however, also affect Quebec.

Nevertheless, I want to make it clear that the role of the federal government in this case should be limited to regulating drug imports and exports. Under no circumstances is the federal government authorized to interfere in doctor-patient, pharmacist-patient or doctor-pharmacist relationships.

If the possibility of a drug shortage is being considered today, it is because of the significant price difference between drugs sold in Canada and those sold in the United States.

It is important to add some qualifications. As the member for Québec commented back in June and the member for Brossard—La Prairie reiterated in early November, the rate of exchange is no longer favouring the Americans, making it less attractive for them to buy on this side of the border. This will be especially true if the dollar remains strong or continues to increase in value, and consequently the threat of a drug shortage should lessen.

Still, even if the rise in value of the Canadian dollar has narrowed the price differential between Canadian and American products, the fact remains that having appropriate checks and balances in place in Quebec and Canada will ensure lower prices on this side of the border. American patients might therefore still be tempted to buy in Canada.

The fact is that, in the United States, pharmaceutical laboratories are allowed to price their products freely, while in Canada, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board ensures that prices are not excessive.

Similarly, in Quebec, the Conseil du médicament, an organization directly under the Quebec department of health and social services, is tasked with making recommendations on establishing and changing the price of prescription drugs.

Drug manufacturers must submit a request to the board in order to increase the price of a drug. The board will assess the request, which must meet certain criteria. The drug must have been registered on the list of drugs for at least two years and the manufacturer must offer its best price from across Canada. It must also have a distribution agreement with the Quebec department of health and social services. Furthermore, the amount of the increase requested must not exceed a certain maximum rate.

If these conditions are met, the Conseil du médicament recommends that the Quebec department of health and social services accept the price increase.

Thus, as I was saying earlier, the existence in Canada and Quebec of independent methods for price setting is still responsible for a considerable gap between American prices and Canadian prices. This translates into a very large cross-border drug trade between Canada and the United States, a trade that is now facilitated by the Internet.

It is therefore no surprise that, according to the Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec, the on-line pharmaceutical market has reached over $1 billion a year in Canada.

Since Quebec and the provinces are responsible for regulating medical and pharmaceutical practices through their colleges of physicians and societies of pharmacists, the rules that apply to this trade are not the same everywhere.

Online sales of drugs are especially brisk in the western provinces, which have less stringent rules.

In Quebec, the code of ethics of physicians stipulates that in order to write a prescription for a patient, a doctor must evaluate the patient to establish a diagnosis and formulate a treatment plan. The doctor must also provide information to the patient and obtain consent. Under the Pharmacy Act, a pharmacist can sell drugs only to patients who have prescriptions written by an authorized person.

The prescribing and sale of a drug therefore bind both doctor and pharmacist. Both are legally responsible for this professional act, and they risk prosecution if they fail to live up to the standards of their professions.

As my hon. colleague from Brossard—La Prairie pointed out in this speech on November 2, physicians have unfortunately been struck off the roll of the Collège des médecins du Québec in the past for violating the rules of professional conduct to which they are subject by illegally prescribing drugs to Americans via Internet. Needless to say that never having met these patients hardly qualified as complying with the rules set out in their code of professional conduct.

It is important to note that, according to a number of analysts, the expansion of the virtual drug market in the United States will eventually influence drug prices in Canada. These experts say that, to make up for the loss of income from selling at a lower cost to Americans from Canada, the pharmaceutical industry might increase its prices on the Canadian market.

Even if the Conseil du médicament is responsible for administering the price regulation process in Quebec, as I indicated earlier, and the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board plays a similar role in Canada, the pharmaceutical industry's threats are not to be taken lightly.

Companies like Pfizer, Wyeth, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Eli-Lilly have already taken tough action, reducing their exports to Canada, for fear of losing a significant income by allowing their products to cross the border again at a lower price.

I should also mention that increased pharmaceutical sales on the Internet could result in a shortage of pharmacists.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-378, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations (drug export restrictions).

Canadians are very aware of the quality of our health system as well as our free access to most of its features, and that is in very stark contrast to the market-driven system in the United States.

As we know, there has been a surge of interest from Americans, particularly seniors, who, because of their fixed incomes, find drug pricing in Canada particularly inviting. Bus loads of seniors come to Hamilton to visit and have prescriptions filled.

I am all for being good neighbours and helping our American cousins to the south as much as we can. In fact, in many ways, their needs are much higher than those of most Canadians, particularly when it comes to health care in general and prescription costs in particular.

On the population side, Hamilton, at approximately 500,000, is not huge, but we are friendly, so I want to stress this point. The purpose of the bill is not to shut the border to our American cousins. In fact, American tourists who pick up a prescription or two are not a drain on our druggist's ability to provide prescription services to our hometown clients.

Primarily because of pharmaceutical sales on the Internet and the visits by these bus loads of American tourists picking up prescriptions, combined with the warnings of an anticipated flu pandemic, Canadians are asking about our supply. Where would they stand if a significant part of our drug output was sent south and then there was a shortage in Canada?

We know that earlier this year the United States moved to introduce the pharmaceutical market access and drug safety act. It appears its motivation was the fact that the American government wanted even greater access to the importation of cheaper pharmaceuticals. As I have already related, that door has been open to bulk purchases, and the American act appears to be intended to codify the open door policy by making it official.

This means the door has now been opened further to allow Canadian firms, those that wish to do so, to increase their bulk drug sales to the U.S. On the surface, that may be wise. The increase in employment would be wise in most people's opinion, but is that really a good thing?

On the surface, it appears so, but consider for a moment the impact on Canadians if we were hit by a flu pandemic, by SARS, or another unexpected outbreak and all our stock had been sold to the United States. That goes to the heart of the intent of the bill.

The production of pharmaceuticals is a precise and painstaking process that requires time. It is not as simple as perhaps it might be for one of Hamilton's manufacturing plants to simply add a shift to meet new demand. Pharmaceutical products are often more than not made from scarce biological sources or it cannot be turned out for mass production on a scale to match the needs of 30 million Canadians and 300 million Americans.

One area I have yet to touch on is product safety and border inspections. It is my understanding that of the products crossing our borders now, our security folks are only able to check about 1%. In a time of counterfeit drugs, combined with a freer movement of goods being promoted by both sides of the border, that is a recipe for a very serious concern. We all see the results of ineffective monitoring of the toys imported from China on a near daily basis. Imagine the risks posed here with the transport of pharmaceuticals.

Members may recall the speed with which SARS moved into the Toronto hospital system and elsewhere. We were not only unprepared, but we were shocked by its rapid advance and ravaging effects. It is one thing to struggle against a new and unknown invader like SARS, but it is quite another to allow the much needed protection for Canadians to become a simple commodity to be traded away gratuitously.

In many ways, the pharmaceutical industry survives on its own ability to forecast and predict need. A good example is our yearly flu vaccine. Companies are able to meet the demand because the flu season is a predictable event. Companies for the most part though cannot stockpile medications due to the short life expectancy of many of the ingredients.

In short, we must find and maintain that balance between keeping Canadians protected and having the ability to still export to some degree.

I have spent a large part of my time tonight speaking about the American wants and needs, so I would like to speak briefly to Canadian needs. Just like our American neighbours, many low income or fixed income Canadians are living under a financial strain these days. We refer to the prosperity gap regularly in this House.

Across my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek we hear of far too many people who, when faced with a costly prescription not covered by a plan, simply turn and walk away when they are told the amount by the pharmacist. They just cannot handle it.

In fact, I was in the Rosedale pharmacy in my riding a couple of weeks ago, picking up a prescription of my own. I could not help but overhear a young man talking to the clerk as he dropped off his prescription. He was bent over in pain. He said he was having terrible pain, a problem with his back. It was so bad that he just did not know how to handle it. He had an ear infection as well.

He asked the young woman what the price of the prescribed drugs would be. When he was told it was $28 for the antibiotic and much more for the muscle relaxant and the sleep inducing drugs he needed so badly, even though he was in serious pain he said, “Fill the antibiotic only, that's all the money I got”. Like anybody in the House, I offered to help him that one time, but typical of a hard-working person of Hamilton, he said, “No thanks”, and he shuffled over and sat down while he waited for his antibiotic.

As legislators, it is not only time that we looked at such matters as prescription drug exports, but we must invest in a national universal drug plan to work hand in hand with our health care system to ensure that people like that young man in Hamilton receive the medications they so desperately need. No one should suffer needlessly when the rest of us, through the government, are ready and able to bear part of the load with them.

In closing, I would say that Bill C-378 moves us a long way to finding and maintaining that balance between supply on one side and demand on the other. I want to commend the member for putting forward this important bill. I believe that as responsible legislators we will do the right thing for Canada and will vote to protect the vital supply of pharmaceuticals.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak to Bill C-378.

I would like to bring to hon. members' attention the key specific facts to consider with respect to Bill C-378, especially with events that are occurring in the U.S. Congress. In doing so, I wish to draw attention to the U.S. political environment and provide further insight on why U.S. developments are unlikely to affect our drug supply.

I believe that one of the reasons this bill was introduced was to address concerns over potential American legislation to allow the importation of drugs into the U.S.A. from Canada. There are concerns that such legislation would cause drug shortages here in Canada. However, it is premature and overly pessimistic to draw such conclusions at this time. This bill is the wrong response to a problem that does not currently, and may never, exist. I believe that any concern with potential impacts on the Canadian drug supply need to be balanced with a calm assessment of the situation.

I do not have to remind hon. members that 2008 is a major election year in the U.S. While the race for the White House receives the majority of the media attention, most members of Congress are also facing re-election.

As we are all no doubt aware, American legislators sponsor a number of bills in Congress to increase their profile before election time. Understandably, this activity increases closer to the election date. While we can expect to see more U.S. legislative activity in the coming months, this is unlikely to lead to an increased likelihood of bills being passed.

Most bills introduced in Congress do not make it into law. They die at committee level or are amended so many times that they become too unpopular to pass. Even if they are passed by one chamber of Congress, they could be defeated by the other chamber. Also, a bill passed by Congress will not be effective unless the executive branch appropriately directs the U.S. public service on how it should be interpreted.

There is no doubt that high prescription drug prices are a major political issue in the United States. Some proponents of the leading proposal to legalize imports have been open in stating that this is as much a pressure tactic to reduce U.S. domestic drug prices as about importation.

One way they are seeking to reduce domestic drug prices is by pressing for federal negotiation with manufacturers over the prices paid by the federal department of health and human services for those drugs covered by medicare.

Existing U.S. law prohibits medicare price negotiations. But a bill to require the U.S. government to negotiate medicare drug prices was passed in the House of Representatives with significant bipartisan support. While the Senate finance committee voted in favour of this bill, there was not enough support for this version to get passed in the full Senate.

For leading congressional Democrats as well as a number of Republicans, seeking the ability to negotiate prices for medicare drugs is a much higher priority than legalizing drug imports. Democrats and Republicans supporting medicare price negotiations could modify their bill or attach its language to another bill in order to further its progress through Congress.

The leading drug import bill before Congress, the Dorgan-Snowe bill, is stalled at the Senate committee level. The bill's sponsors have tried to go around the Senate committee by proposing amendments that would piggyback their drug importation bill onto another bill meant to overhaul the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Food and Drug Administration bill was passed by the Senate with the drug importation provisions. However, the Senate added a poison pill amendment, giving the U.S. administration the power to prevent drug imports until they certify that they are safe, and that such importation could lead to drug savings.

Therefore, it is unknown at this time if the Dorgan-Snowe bill would have any effect even if it became law. We are a long way from a bill legalizing bulk imports being approved by the White House without such a poison pill being included.

Finally, even if the Dorgan-Snowe bill were enacted, and the U.S. administration certified drug safety and cost savings, it would take 12 months before any bulk imports could occur. As such, there would be at least a year for this government to prepare for any concern with the potential impact of bulk exports. But given the current U.S. administration's strong reluctance to take action that would facilitate drug imports from other markets, it is highly unlikely that the Dorgan-Snowe provisions will ever, and I repeat ever, come into effect.

In the unlikely event that those provisions were brought into force, it should be noted that they would provide for imports from a number of countries, not just Canada. As such, the impact of any import legalization would be distributed over many countries. Eligible countries for drug imports would include many of the European Union countries, as well as Australia, Japan, New Zealand and Switzerland.

Again, drug imports from other countries such as Canada are neither a realistic nor a sustainable solution. U.S. federal legislators realize this and are using such legislation for their own political gain.

Regardless of the U.S. situation, Bill C-378 would not prohibit drug exports to the U.S. by foot traffic or Internet pharmacies, nor by drug manufacturers. If the member for St. Paul's is so concerned with the Canadian drug supply, I fail to see why she would want to allow such practices to continue by specifically exempting them from this bill.

As I have indicated, it is important to put the situation south of the border in perspective. That said, it is also appropriate and prudent for the government to continue to monitor the situation with respect to cross-border drug sales and to be prepared to act in a measured fashion if and when such action is indicated. However, we have not arrived at that point, and we are unlikely to get there anytime soon.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in support of Bill C-378, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations (drug export restrictions).

This is a very important issue. I wrestled with it in my previous incarnation as the minister of health and introduced similar legislation. However, we did not have time to deal with it successfully.

Canada has a regime that has been developed to protect, at reasonable prices, the supply of drugs for the needs of Canadians. The instrument we have used for that is the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. I believe the review board has stood us in good stead over the last number of years and has kept the supply of patented drugs available to Canadians at reasonable prices.

Because the prices are reasonable and because the politicians in the U.S. refuse to use similar kinds of devices to control the prices in the U.S., they are busy trying to devise plans in many states and, in fact nationally to try to legalize and legislate the wholesale imports of drugs from Canada. If they are successful in continuing to take bulk exports of drugs from Canada, I am afraid it may endanger the very supply of drugs at reasonable prices for Canadians. In that sense, this legislation is very important for all Canadians.

I want to commend the member, my colleague, for bringing the legislation forward in the House. When we dealt with this last, the sale of drugs at reasonable prices from Canada into the United States had gone into hundreds of millions of dollars and had increased.

I know those sales have gone down as the dollar has gone up. However, Canada faces a very real threat from legislators in the United States. They are attempting, in different ways, to deal with this issue and allow the continued importation of these drugs from Canada into the United States.

There are other aspects to this matter that bear scrutiny. For instance, we have a number of doctors who are engaged in prescribing medication to clients or “patients of their's” without examining the patients, or speaking with them, or physically touching the patients in examining them. That has been held to be unethical for some doctors by doctors' bodies across the country.

It is the same with the pharmacists. Pharmacists then fill those prescriptions, dozens and hundreds every day, knowing that they are signed by the same doctor or same number of doctors across the country. We believe some of those practices are unethical.

Some disciplinary bodies have been crying out for reform by and assistance from the federal government so they do not have to deal with the issues. They do not have the resources to investigate those kinds of unethical practices, and there are many, and then successfully discipline their members who may be involved in these questionable practices.

The way to deal with this issue is for the government to support the legislation so we can then prevent this danger becoming real, if does become real.

Many attempts have been made to make bulk imports into the U.S. legitimate, and we are familiar with those. Many of the U.S. presidential candidates have proposed and dozens of U.S. jurisdictions at state and local levels continue to introduce measures designed to help local citizens, government employees, retirees and others to buy Canadian prescription drugs.

Any of these measures could trigger the unanticipated shortages in Canadian supplies. Some of these programs include: developing websites that recommend Canadian Internet pharmacies for local citizens, employees and retirees and their families to purchase from; certification of Canadian based pharmacies as “qualified” for use by drug benefit program members or by local citizens; and the review of city/state drug benefit programs with a view to hiring Canadian firms to supply those programs with prescription drugs.

On October 31, the U.S. Senate adopted U.S. Senator David Vitter's drug reimportation amendment to the U.S. Senate labour, health and human services and education department appropriations bill. As he stated, “This provision prevents HHS officials from blocking hard working Americans from bringing back prescribed medication from Canada and will help bring more affordable prescription drugs to residents”.

In fact, in the House of Representatives, the agriculture appropriations bill was amended to include language that prevented the FDA from enforcing importation laws on prescription drugs from anywhere, including Canada. This legislation may be stuck in the appropriations process for other reasons and may roll into next year, but the language remains a serious concern as do the consequences that flow from this language.

These bills in the Congress followed legislation passed and signed by the President on October 4, 2006. The bill effectively created an open border for individual Americans to fill their prescription drug needs from Canada's national supply. A key provision of the new legislation prohibits the U.S. customs services from intercepting personal use quantities of prescription drugs at the border through foot traffic.

There are many other examples of what the U.S. governmental bodies, including state legislatures, have been trying to do, and that is to undermine the Canadian supply of drugs available to Canadians at reasonable prices.

It is open to the U.S. legislators and politicians to do exactly what we have done wisely for Canadians. We have protected the supply of drugs for Canadians at reasonable rates by using devices such as the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. It is open to the U.S. to do the same. Why the Americans are not doing that beats me. I fail to understand why they are not taking the steps within their power to deal with controlling and regulating patented drug prices in their own country.

When I visited the United States of America as minister of health, David Vitter told me that he was interested in dismantling the regime we had in place for controlling and regulating the prices at reasonable rates for drugs for Canadians. That is the real intent behind the fact that they do not want to do anything within the U.S., but they want to undermine our supply and our devices that we use to control our prices at reasonable rates for Canadians.

Therefore, I suggest we support this bill, which would protect the supply of drugs for Canadians at reasonable rates.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, pointed out, hopefully by now several U.S. drug importation bills have come and gone. Bills on drug importation do not have a great life expectancy.

We have been hearing about bulk importation of drugs from our neighbour south of the border for more than five years now. During that period, many such bills have been introduced, one after another, and none came close to being adopted. In fact, they all died. They died because they were poisoned by members of Congress. They died because they became unpopular. They died because they were not workable. Why? Because importing drugs manufactured for other markets is simply not the solution.

Again today we see concerned U.S. health care providers commenting in the media. They raise their voices because the harsh reality of pricey prescription drugs in the U.S. is the major reason why people do not take their medication as prescribed, even forcing some people to choose between their medicines and other necessities.

The solution they propose is to control and reduce drug prices by involving Congress and federal agencies. They are not proposing to import drugs from foreign markets. In fact, they are openly and bluntly opposing such action.

Some hon. members present here today remain of the position that the U.S. will imminently open its border to cheaper drugs from other markets. Frankly, I do not understand how they are arriving at such a conclusion.

There is no doubt that Canadians must continue to have access to the prescription drugs they require. The government is committed to the health and safety of Canadians, including protecting an adequate supply of prescription drugs. However, I fail to see how spending taxpayer money to create unneeded laws to address purely hypothetical scenarios would serve that end. Should the time when the government would need to take action, we would want a measured and balanced approach to protecting our drug supply.

Bill C-378 is underdeveloped. Its non-measured, broad-brush approach raises fundamental objections. These are substantive in terms of trade law obligations and procedural in terms of regulation-making processes.

By contrast, the leading U.S. bill to legalize drug imports appears to assiduously cover the waterfront, in terms of administrative details.

I know hon. members are aware that it is most unusual to seek to directly amend regulations in Parliament, as Bill C-378 would do. Such an approach would bypass the Canada Gazette, related consultations and other review processes for regulations.

However, more important, Bill C-378 would not provide any tools for implementation and, worse, would not provide any ministerial discretion to ensure that any government response would be proportionate to the risk.

The member for St. Paul's has been talking about the Tamiflu situation of 2005, when Internet pharmacies were promoting and selling this drug to patients outside of Canada. I am deeply confused as to why this past situation is being offered as one example for moving forward with Bill C-378. I am confused because C-378 would still allow Internet pharmacies to sell drugs to the U.S. It would allow for truckloads of drugs to cross the border, even should shortages occur in Canada.

In short, the bill would prohibit exports and then would exempt most of the exports it purports to prohibit.

It is clear that Bill C-378 would not meet its stated goal. We would find ourselves having to come back in the House to discuss yet another bill, one that would be measured, one that would be consistent, one that would be effective at protecting our drug supply, one that would be carefully crafted knowing the final form of a U.S. bill, not one based on uncertain and ever changing U.S. House and Senate proposals about drug importation.

Canadians have said that they were concerned about cross-border drug sales, but they would be even more concerned with having Bill C-378 as the government's response.

Supporting the bill is not about standing up for Canadians.

Again, I want to reiterate and underscore that the government is committed to effectively monitoring and assessing potential risks to our drug supply associated with cross-border drug sales.

However, it is important not to overstate those risks and it is premature to introduce or pursue new legislation to restrict drug exports when there is no existing threat to the Canadian drug supply.

Real obstacles to the adoption of an effective U.S. drug importation bill remain, particularly the known objections of President Bush and many republican legislators. However, even if the U.S. were to adopt the current leading drug importation bill, its provisions would not allow bulk imports to start until one year had passed, providing the necessary window for this government to develop a measured and relevant approach to protecting our drug supply.

The U.S. bill also contains an extensive oversight regime, including inspections of exporting facilities that would be expected to limit and/or slow the uptake of its enabling provisions. Cost recovery from exporters and importers would also have an impact on the potential cost savings to consumers.

However, what is important to understand is that the drug importation proposal is not at the forefront of discussions in the U.S. It is being used solely as a lever to bring U.S. drug manufacturers to the negotiation table to lower U.S. drug prices.

The real leading proposal is to allow the U.S. medicare program to negotiate drug prices directly with manufacturers, which it is currently prohibited from doing. We know and the U.S. Congress knows that the issue the U.S. health care system is facing is high drug prices.

In summation, we have been hearing for years about drug import proposals in the U.S., but none survived. What we see and what we hear today is a continuing debate about high drug prices in the U.S. and this is a situation that the U.S. will need to resolve within its borders.

Candidly, there is no reason for spending more of the valuable time of hon. members to discuss a risk that does not exist and, worse, to discuss a bill that would not even protect our drug supply, even if there were a risk.

The interest of the member for St. Paul's on this issue is very much appreciated and noted, but for the reasons outlined, the government cannot support Bill C-378.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I recognize the hon. member for St. Paul's for her five minute right of reply.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to wrap up debate on Bill C-378, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations (drug export restrictions).

It is a bit surprising to hear my Conservative colleagues use words like “unlikely” and “not emergent” when the bill is about prevention and giving the minister the tools he needs in the event of a problem, particularly as we are in flu season right now.

Members will recall how two years ago, when one of the batches of American flu vaccines did not work, we ended up with all of our supplies here in Canada at risk. Particularly, our neighbouring states, the governors and the public health agencies there would have been able, without these tools, to wholesale import vaccines to their states.

I ask my colleagues here in the House to support Bill C-378. This bill is merely aimed at giving the Minister of Health an ability to control the cross-border trade in prescription drugs and vaccines. As has been said, this is only one small step in terms of being able to control some of the Internet and walking trade, in terms of individuals, that the former minister of health pointed out.

The bill would make it an offence under the Food and Drugs Act to export prescription drugs in prohibited circumstances. By amending the Food and Drugs Act, the legislation will protect Canadians.

Canada, as we have said many times, cannot be America's discount drug store. Canada needs to protect itself from the dramatic expansion of importation by the U.S. of drugs intended for our patients.

The prospect of the U.S. legalizing large-scale purchases from our domestic supply is real. The threat to Canada's drug supply increased on January 10, 2007, when the bipartisan group of U.S. senate and house members introduced the critical drug importation legislation. U.S. Senators Dorgan and Snowe, and Representatives Emerson and Emanuel indicated the new pharmaceutical market access and drug safety act had support from more than 30 groups, including AARP, Families USA and unfortunately, the support of most of the presidential candidates.

The group's news release added that the legislation would allow individuals to directly order medications from outside the U.S., including from Canadian pharmacies.

On January 10, U.S. Senator David Vitter, with the former minister of health, pointed out that his main objective was to undermine and destroy the drug pricing regime here in Canada. He reintroduced his comprehensive prescription drug reimportation legislation, the pharmaceutical market access act, which is similar to the legislation introduced in the house of representatives on the same day.

On October 31, 2007, the U.S. senate adopted Senator Vitter's drug reimportation amendment to the U.S. senate labour, health and human services and education department appropriations bill. In addition to foot traffic, Vitter's amendment would also allow mail order and Internet importation from Canada. The language was stripped from the conference report, but the conference report was vetoed. Next steps and timing remain uncertain.

In July of this year Senator Vitter introduced similar amendments to the homeland security appropriations bill that would allow personal importation for Canada. In December, conferees will meet to discuss the different house, with no amendment, and senate, with amendment proposals.

When I was in Washington, it was very clear they are not going to let this go away. These members of Congress and the senate are very keen to do the job of allowing cheap drugs from Canada.

These legislative proposals pose an imminent and serious threat to the security and integrity of Canada's drug supply and a genuine threat to the health of Canadians. Of equal importance, this legislation represents a threat to American patients by allowing relinquishment of necessary community based medication monitoring and management, and increasing risks from the potential of counterfeit drugs that the WHO is very worried about.

Allowing bulk prescription drug imports would not significantly reduce U.S. prescription prices for very long. A recent University of Texas study concluded, based on the worse case scenario, that Canada's stocks of prescription drugs would amount to a 38 day supply for the United States assuming all U.S. medications were Canadian sourced.

Once U.S. demand depletes, Canadian stock prices will almost certainly rise, narrowing or possibly even eliminating the difference between U.S. and Canadian prices. The issue of bulk exports--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's five minutes are up.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 28 immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to see the clock at 6:30.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this evening further to a question that I asked of the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development regarding the issue of post-secondary education in Canada.

What I want to talk about tonight focuses on two main areas. The first area is the need for a needs-based granting system in Canada, which is what all the developed nations in the world and some of those who are catching up in the post-secondary field are focusing on, and specifically, the millennium scholarship foundation, which is a very effective and almost exclusively now a needs-based granting system for Canadian students.

The second thing I want to talk about is the unbelievable hypocrisy of the minister in answering questions about post-secondary education.

Let me talk about the millennium scholarship first of all.

Right now this scholarship provides about $350 million a year in support for students, over 90% of which is targeted on a needs-based system for students. In the past eight years since its inception, the millennium scholarship has helped hundreds of thousands of Canadian students attend university or college.

The reason it is important is because it is coming up for renewal. It was set up by the Liberal government in the late 1990s, endowed to the tune of $2.5 billion, and recognizing that we needed some support for post-secondary education in this country and some direct support for students. It is important now because that has to either be renewed by the government or else the millennium scholarship will be gone and most likely replaced by nothing.

The millennium scholarship has proven itself over the past number of years to be an effective, accountable, targeted system of providing grants to Canadian students. In light of what the Conservative government has done in the last couple of months, which is basically nothing for students but an $80 tax credit, it is important that it come to terms with the millennium scholarship and specifically a needs-based granting system.

Every single serious post-secondary education advocacy group in the country recognizes that we need needs-based grants if we are going to really harness the human capital that exists in Canadian students, some of whom go to university now and some of whom do not.

CASA, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, and people like Tara Gault and Paris Meilleur, who I have met with in my own constituency, and people like Zach Churchill, who is now the president of that association, are huge supporters of the millennium scholarship. They were part of a group of student organizations that came forward with a study that looked at the importance of the millennium scholarship and have warned the government that if we do not do something soon then we are on the edge of a precipice in terms of student financing.

CFS and Amanda Aziz as president are not fans of the millennium scholarship frankly, but are huge supporters of a needs-based granting system. I met with Claire Morris this morning, the president and CEO of AUCC. She is also saying that we need to invest in needs-based grants. James Turk and other members of CAUT, that is the professors, say the same thing.

We need a needs-based granting system. We need to support Canadian students, particularly those from low income backgrounds, persons with disabilities and aboriginal Canadians. The Conservative government has done nothing for students. The government is silent on the issue of students and specifically the students who are most in need.

I applaud those who support the millennium scholarship foundation. I applaud Norman Riddell and all the people who work in it. They have done a great job in the time that they have had.

It is absolutely incumbent upon this government to recognize that, not to repackage it, not to try to bring in its own version, but to stick with the version that works, the millennium scholarship foundation. I hope that this government will stand up and replenish the millennium scholarship foundation and do it very soon.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the comments from the hon. member, because as we all know in this House, it was under his government, the previous Liberal government, that $25 billion was cut from the Canada social transfer. That money is used by the provinces to support post-secondary education, so I would remind the hon. member that he has to look in the mirror a bit and look to the former leadership of his party when it comes to the massive cuts that were undertaken in the past.

In stark contrast to those cuts, this government, our new government, is doing what we have said we would do and clearly laid out in our Advantage Canada plan. This plan pledged to make our country's workforce the best educated, best trained and most skilled in the world.

That is why the government acted quickly to invest over $8.4 billion this fiscal year to support post-secondary education through transfers, direct spending and tax measures and to invest $800 million more per year, beginning next year, to support post-secondary education. This is a 40% increase in a single year.

Of course the good news does not end there. We have also provided $1 billion to provincial and territorial governments through the infrastructure trust fund for direct investments in post-secondary infrastructure and equipment to rebuild and renovate our campuses, which have begun to crumble after 13 years of Liberal neglect and Liberal inaction. That is a $1 billion trust fund.

We have also provided tax measures to help students with the cost of textbooks.

We have exempted scholarships and bursaries from income tax. Clearly, it is shocking that, under the Liberals, scholarships and bursaries were taxed. Under the Conservatives, scholarships and bursaries are not taxed.

Budget 2007 went even further. We will provide $35 million over two years to expand the Canada graduate scholarships program. This new money will give an additional 1,000 students the chance to continue on to graduate level studies.

The Government of Canada helps parents save by adding money to their RESPs through special incentives such as the Canada education savings grant and the Canada learning bond.

As well, this government recognizes that not all parents can contribute to the cost of a child's tuition. This is why we have reduced the amount that parents are expected to contribute to their children's education, because the ability to pay should not be a barrier to access for students who want to go on and attain a higher education.

These investments are an important signal of our belief in the power of education and a signal that stands in stark contrast to the actions of the previous government, of which my hon. colleague was of course a member.

I think that Canadian parents and students know that the Liberal Party has lost all credibility on this issue and that the Liberals are the very last people this government should be taking any advice from.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary makes it too easy. He parrots what the minister says regarding $25 billion in cuts. A decade ago, the minister was saying this: “We should...begin the overdue process of cutting government spending”.

In October of 1994, the minister said, “I urge the government to come to grips...and to move ahead with serious cuts”. The minister said this a decade ago. We gave them $20 billion in cuts. After we brought in the reduction program, the minister stood in this House in December of 1995 and said that “we are going to have to cut a lot deeper”.

Now they say, “Oh, it was the cuts. Back then we were not cutting enough”. That is the hypocrisy of this government. It does not stand up for students. We do not tax-cut our way to an education. We invest in an education.

I ask the parliamentary secretary to put away the departmental speaking notes and give us an honest answer. Will you reinvest in the millennium scholarship foundation?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I cannot answer that, but I think the hon. parliamentary secretary can.