House of Commons Hansard #143 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was rights.

Topics

The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--AfghanistanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

6:30 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, April 26, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

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

Vote #166

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I declare the motion lost.

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

7 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise before the House to ask the government a question in regard to the Atlantic accord. In particular, I am interested in the Canada-Nova Scotia agreement.

The agreement was negotiated after long discussion. I remember Premier John Hamm travelling around the country. I met with him a number of times, as did many colleagues. He had many meetings with finance officials, his officials and the prime minister to discuss a way we could take the offshore resources of Nova Scotia and maximum the revenue to Nova Scotians of those resources. Newfoundland and Labrador was doing the same thing at the same time.

Previous to these agreements, 75% of the revenues would directly benefit Nova Scotians, but the other percentages would go against equalization. The argument raised in Nova Scotia was that these amounts of money, which lowered our equalization, should be invested in the long term benefit to Nova Scotians.

We know Nova Scotia had a long stint of Conservative government, leaving them with huge debt, over $8.5 billion in debt. I remember Greg Kerr, the minister of finance, spending money on everything, leaving Nova Scotians with this huge debt. Finally, there was an opportunity to lower that debt and give Nova Scotians the services they needed and they deserved.

We had critical discussions in the House. I remember a first agreement was proposed. The Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador did not agree with it. Members of the opposition, the Conservative Party at the time, told us that everybody should be fighting for their provinces. I remember the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans saying that sometimes we had to put politics and partisanship aside and fight for our province.

Lo and behold we had an agreement. What it said was that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador would keep 100% of their revenues from non-renewable resources for an eight year period, renegotiable for another eight year period. An interim cheque was given to Nova Scotia, an initial payment of $840 million, as I recall.

That money was paid against the provincial debt of Nova Scotia. That means Nova Scotia would get $40 million or $50 million of services a year for which it would otherwise have to be taxed, or from which it would have to borrow money, money that it saved by not having to make interest payments abroad on that money.

That was good news and we saw it was progressing. Then we had a change in government. The same Conservatives had fought for that accord. Remember the debate in the House. They said that we should even break it off from the other budget measures, that we should vote for it independently because they were so supportive of it.

In the first budget the Conservatives came out with there was a little line in the budget saying that the accord was not selling so well across the country, that it was a benefit to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador that the others did not have. Then in the next budget, all of a sudden Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador lost the Atlantic accord. They lost the provision in the accord that made the it independent of any other programs. If Nova Scotia's equalization went up, revenues from the accord would continue to flow. If there were other programs, such as child care, as had been done under the previous government, it would not affect the offshore accord. That extra money would come into Nova Scotia. Any money for infrastructure would be independent of the accord.

Then in the recent budget the premier was told he would have to make a choice. He had to decide if he would go with the new equalization formula, which would give him roughly $70 million more a year, or stick with his Atlantic accord. It was a poison pill to the premier.

Will the government reverse its decisions? Will it protect the entire intent of the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore accord?

7:05 p.m.

Calgary Nose Hill Alberta

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my friend's question, the member for West Nova, regarding the government's commitment to Nova Scotia's offshore accord and the inclusion of non-renewable natural resources in the equalization formula.

Of course, as members heard, the member doubts that the government has honoured its commitment, so it would be helpful to put some facts forward.

Our renewed and strengthened equalization program is a key element in the new government's plan for restoring fiscal balance. Budget 2007 delivers a new equalization program that is fair to Canadians living in all provinces. It is formula-driven and principled. It is simplified to enhance transparency and accountability. It is stable and predictable. Most importantly, it meets our commitments on respecting the offshore accords and on fully excluding natural resource revenues from the program.

The equalization program was thoroughly studied by an independent expert panel chaired by Al O'Brien, a former Alberta deputy treasurer. The O'Brien report proposed a comprehensive, principles-based set of reforms to the equalization program. Having reviewed the report and having consulted extensively with Canadians and provincial governments, we concluded that the O'Brien report formed a solid foundation for the renewal of the equalization program.

The government committed to respecting the offshore accords with Nova Scotia and that is what we did. Budget 2007 honours the commitment to respect the offshore accords. There is no cap in the existing system. To give Nova Scotia the flexibility to make the right choice, and in recognition of the short timeframe between the tabling of our budget and the Nova Scotia budget, we allowed Nova Scotia to opt into the new O'Brien formula for this year only, giving that province a full extra year to make the final determination if this is the best choice.

For fiscal year 2006-07, Nova Scotia is projecting a surplus of $118.4 million which is $44.9 million higher than budgeted for in 2006-07. Nova Scotia will be allowed to return to the existing Atlantic accords for next fiscal year, if it so chooses, and then opt in on a permanent basis at a later date to the O'Brien formula thereafter, if it is in Nova Scotia's best interest to do so.

As mentioned, Nova Scotia can permanently opt into the new, strengthened equalization program. We have offered Nova Scotia an extra year to decide if it wants to stay in the new program. If it does, it must in all fairness opt into all the aspects of the new program, including a 10 province standard and a fiscal capacity cap to ensure that no equalization-receiving province has a higher fiscal capacity than a non-receiving province.

Budget 2007 also delivers on our commitment to exclude non-renewable natural resource revenues without lowering payments to other provinces. The new equalization program will give provinces the higher of the payments calculated under 50% natural resource exclusion or full exclusion.

To ensure fairness, payments under the new system are subject to a cap. The renewed and strengthened equalization program will help ensure all provinces are able to provide their residents with comparable levels of services at comparable levels of taxation. It fully respects the offshore accords and the government's commitment to exclude non-renewable resources from--

7:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

The hon. member for West Nova.

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, the member opened her remarks by saying that I doubted whether the budget respected the offshore agreement. I do not doubt it. I know it did not and that is confirmed by Professor Hobson of Acadia University, who said the cost to Nova Scotia was $1 billion by his estimate.

I read a letter to the editor in the Chronicle Herald in Nova Scotia in which Hugh Roddis, president of the Kings--Hants Conservative Riding Association, was saying that Hobson was a Liberal and that he was just fighting the government. Then I saw the response that Hobson was a Conservative, and the last time he got politically involved was by giving a donation to this Conservative Party.

Premier MacDonald agrees that the government is not respecting the accord. The minister of finance of Nova Scotia agrees that it is not respecting the accord, so if I doubt, I am certainly in good company.

It extended for one year the decision or the poison pill that the premier has to take, and I understand that there is some negotiating of maybe some little side deals, more politics of division to isolate the Premier of Newfoundland and--

7:10 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Diane Ablonczy Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, my friend is right. Reasonable people can possibly disagree on this issue, but the government's position is that the new program meets our commitment to respect the offshore accords.

Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia can continue to benefit from the offshore accords and at any time they can permanently opt into the new equalization system.

The facts show that this government is keeping its word. The offshore accords are being respected. We are delivering on our commitments to the people of Nova Scotia.

We have a new equalization program that is also fair to all Canadians living in all provinces.

7:10 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding a question I raised in the House of Commons on Tuesday, February 20 on foreign aid. Specifically, my question was for the Minister of Industry regarding Canada's access to medicines regime.

That legislation came about in 2004 because of Canada's being a part of a WTO process that was supposed to provide access to generic drugs by developing countries. Canada had indicated its willingness to participate in this venture and to bring forward legislation. That started back in 2002. After 550 days of work the legislation was passed in May 2004.

Despite that legislation, not a single pill has reached anyone anywhere. The intent is to assist people who are suffering with HIV-AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases. Developing countries do not have access to or cannot afford medicines that will provide the treatments. That suffering continues today.

It is important to note the statistics which show that more than 25 million people have died from diseases since Canada passed the law in May 2004. As well, in 2006 there were 39.5 million people living with AIDS in the world, 2.6 million more than in 2004. There were 4.3 million new infections in 2006. Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for two-thirds of all infected people. Three-quarters of all deaths from AIDS take place in Africa. In Africa, 2.1 million died out of a total of 2.9 million from AIDS. It is important to note that those are just the statistics, but what we are doing by not having this legislation fixed is participating in wilful genocide of individuals to whom we are not providing the support that we could.

The Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology passed a motion that I tabled to review this. We have concluded the hearings. I can say conclusively that this issue is really an embarrassment to our country, not only in terms of ourselves and in terms of Parliament but also in terms of our noteworthiness to the world. That has been indicated by NGO after NGO that have come before the committee. As well I would honestly say it is a letdown for the generic drug industry and also for Rx and D.

Canada came forward with this legislation professing that we would make a difference. We have yet to do so.

I asked the minister a question about fixing this situation. He said that he was going to review the law. There is an NDP amendment requiring him to do so after three years. He said he was going to bring it to the House. When is the government going to bring those changes to the House? The review has been concluded. There are actually postings on the Internet websites right now about those hearings. Why is the government not bringing forward legislation to fix this situation immediately?

7:15 p.m.

Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Colin Carrie ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes the devastating impact of diseases like HIV-AIDS in less developed countries. Through agencies like CIDA, the government is engaged in a long term comprehensive approach to fighting this disease in the developing world.

Canada's access to medicines regime is one part of this effort. It enables Canadian generic drug manufacturers to apply to the Commissioner of Patents for authorization to manufacture and export lower priced versions of patented pharmaceutical products, including anti-retrovirals to treat HIV-AIDS, to developing countries in Africa and elsewhere that are unable to manufacture their own.

As the member may know, Canada's access to medicines regime implements the August 2003 decision of the World Trade Organization, WTO, which waived certain intellectual property obligations in the agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, TRIPS, and gave countries with pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity, like Canada, the ability to override a patent holder's rights and authorize a third party to manufacture and export less expensive versions of patented medicines to developing countries with little or no such capacity.

In creating this legislation, Canada faced the challenge of developing an unprecedented compulsory licensing for export regime that facilitated access to medicines for developing countries, while respecting relevant international trade obligations and maintaining the integrity of the domestic patent regime.

Our government is committed to ensuring that Canada's access to medicines regime meets its humanitarian and development objectives, which is why the statutorily mandated review of the regime was accelerated with the release of a consultation paper on November 24, 2006. The early timing of the review was prompted by the fact that no drugs had yet been exported to developing countries, either under our regime or under any of the similar regimes in other developed countries that have implemented the WTO decision.

The purpose of this paper is to focus public dialogue on how Canada's access to medicines regime might better deliver on Canada's commitment without derogating from existing international trade obligations, while continuing to foster pharmaceutical innovation in Canada.

The consultation paper sought public input by providing a brief description of the regime and including a non-exhaustive list of questions on its key features, such as the scope of drugs that should be eligible for export and what countries should be eligible to import them.

During the 60 day period following the release of the paper, Industry Canada and Health Canada received approximately 30 submissions, mainly from members of the pharmaceutical industry, non-governmental organizations, academia and parliamentarians. As matters stand, all of the submissions are being carefully studied and have been posted online to ensure this process works in an open and transparent manner.

In the interim, the government is pursuing every opportunity to raise awareness and uptake of the regime in the developing world, including sponsoring and participating in a recent NGO organized workshop where representatives from various developing countries provided input on the obstacles they face in availing themselves of the WTO decision.

The member may also know that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recently undertook a parallel study of the effectiveness of the legislation. Earlier this month the committee held three days of hearings on the regime, with appearances from government officials, the pharmaceutical industry and various non-governmental organizations.

In addition to supporting this process, the government has continued to work on completing its statutory review of the regime. Following completion of this review, the Minister of Industry will table a report in both houses of Parliament, as required by the Patent Act. This report will reflect public input on the discussion paper, as well as the information provided by developing countries at the NGO organized workshop.

The review of Canada's access to medicines regime coincides with other government efforts to improve access to medicines in the developing world. Most recently, on March 19, 2007, the Minister of Finance announced a new tax incentive in the federal budget that will encourage Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers to donate even greater amounts of needed drugs for developing and least developed countries, including for HIV-AIDS.

In addition, on February 20, 2007--

7:20 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

The hon. member for Windsor West.

7:20 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague, those hearings were very important in terms of shedding light on what is happening. It is important to note that it was identified that the government has not done nearly enough. I can point to some media reports. If people are interested they can go to politicswatch.com which has been covering this story. It has identified quite rightly that Canada has not been providing the proper support. In fact, there has only been mild promotion and a web page. That is what has been happening. The confusion out there is phenomenal.

I would also point out the issues that are being faced. The government has to bring forward immediate changes in its attitude and in the way the policy is being developed.

Stephen Lewis made a presentation to the committee. He was quite right in noting that many countries are not accessing this because of intimidation. We can look at the situation in Thailand which issued a licence itself for a generic drug. That country has been intimidated by the pharmaceuticals with threats of pulling out other types of drugs.

There has also been evidence presented by Oxfam--

7:20 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Mr. Speaker, this government has acted when the last one would not. The previous government held press conferences, had pictures taken with rock stars and took credit for what was billed as a humanitarian effort where Canada would lead the world. In the end, it left a program that does not work.

Our government took charge of this file by advancing the mandated review of Canada's access to medicines regime almost a year early.

In addition, the government has taken a number of positive steps to encourage eligible importing countries and Canadian generic drug manufacturers to make use of the regime and improve access to medicines in the developing world.

The process to access medicines with this regime has been described to the industry committee recently as onerous. So, in July 2006 the government released a CD-ROM which explains the CAMR process in detail. This government is doing what it can do to move drugs to the developing world through its program for the first time by addressing the access problem in CAMR.

I think it is apparent that the Jean Chrétien pledge to Africa has flaws that we are working to repair.

As the member knows, we have just wrapped up a very good set of meetings on CAMR in the industry committee. The government will have its consultation paper out when it is ready.

After the hype, all the previous government left was its old press clippings.

7:20 p.m.

NDP

The Deputy Speaker NDP Bill Blaikie

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:22 p.m.)