Debates of June 12th, 2009

Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising this question, which is to his credit.

I would point out that our bill simply meets the needs of the public.

Someone who is not a lawyer and is not familiar with the judicial system might read in the newspaper that an individual has been convicted of first or second degree murder, and then some 10 years later learn—because we often live in the same city for many years—that the offender has been released from prison. Many people might be upset by this.

When one is not familiar with the judicial system and hears a judge sentence someone to 25 years, one expects the offender to serve 25 years in prison. However, that offender might be released after 15 or 16 years, and that can be very upsetting.

Another goal of our bill is to prevent victims from having to go through these situations over and over. Current legislation allows five parole applications. This bill allows only two.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked some very specific questions and did not get an answer to any one of them, so I will go over the questions again.

First, how many people are convicted on an annual basis?

Second, how many people are wrongfully convicted?

Third, how many people make a faint hope clause application? It is a hearing that they must go before and show that they are entitled to consideration before it is actually granted.

Fourth, how many people actually succeed in their applications on the faint hope clause?

A factual response on each one would be very useful. If the hon. member is not immediately familiar with those numbers, I would appreciate it if he could undertake to the House to deposit those numbers on the floor of the House at some future date, hopefully, in the very near future.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understood my colleague's question.

I would point out that our government has only one goal, and that is to protect victims and victims' families, those who have lost a loved one as the result of a first degree murder.

No matter how many people are affected, I have full confidence in the courts, as does my colleague. When a jury finds someone guilty, that person is guilty. When an offender is sentenced to 25 years in a federal penitentiary, I imagine that the wife who lost her husband or the family that lost their daughter in a first degree murder expect the sentence to be served.

Regardless of the number of people, it is a question of justice for the victims.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us try a third time. These questions are extraordinarily simple.

First, how many people are convicted in Canada, on an annual basis, of murder?

Second, how many wrongful convictions of murder are set aside on an annual basis in Canada?

Third, how many applications are there for this faint hope clause?

Fourth, how many of those applications are successful?

The hon. member, with greatest respect, wanders off into the wild blue yonder of all kinds of irrelevancies. All I want is a very simple answer to those four questions.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague is very interested in the number of murderers who have or have not been paroled and in the number of murderers who have been convicted. It is not a question of numbers. The victims, not the numbers, should be the basis for the bill.

No matter which government presents a bill, the purpose is always to protect society, to protect families and above all to ensure that justice is not just shrugged off and that murderers who are supposed to be in jail are not now out in society.

That is why, whatever the bill, it is not just about numbers, and even if just one person benefits, that is fine. The victims or the victims' families must always benefit. The numbers are not important when it comes to voting for a bill. In voting for a bill we vote for a principle that we have identified and we promise to fix the problem, in this case the problem presented with Bill C-36. I would like to mention that it was in our program. We are pleased to have it in our program and we are fine with that.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pose a couple of questions for the parliamentary secretary on this issue. We have some concerns about the evidence provided and the background and he might be able to help us with that.

With respect to the faint hope clause, could he tell us which jurisdictions have this clause and which ones do not?

Also, concerns have been raised by some in the prison guard community about how this would affect their workplace. Some people are concerned that the changes might have an effect on their safety as prison guards.

Could he address those question?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for also being interested in this bill.

As I mentioned, this bill has the sole purpose of restoring faith in the justice system. We must restore faith in the justice system for those who have lost a loved one.

The purpose of this bill is so that when the courts, through a jury, find someone guilty of first degree murder and sentence them to jail, the murderer will not be back out in society because of an overly permissive system.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the same set of questions three times. The hon. member has yet to answer any one of them, so I will take it as a reasonable assumption that he does not know.

If he does not know, could he at least undertake to the House to deposit the answers to the questions on the floor of the House? It is no dishonour to not know the answers to those questions.

I want to make the point that in listening to the debate, an average, informed Canadian citizen would have to ask how many people would be affected by this. Is it one? Is it 100? Is it none at all? Could he please just answer the question?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice has 30 seconds left.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I will tell the member that it is not a question of numbers. What is important is to protect the victims, and that is what we are doing.

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, I support the bill going to committee for study. However, why are even dealing with this right now? We have one week to go before Parliament breaks for the summer, not to return until the fall. We have an EI crisis. We have a March motion for EI reform that passed the House of Commons, which has been ignored by the Conservatives. We have an isotopes crisis wherein cancer patients cannot get treatment.

There should be a bill before the House on EI, or on isotopes, not this legislation. We only have one week to go. Why are the Conservatives not dealing with the most serious problems facing Canadians right now?

The parliamentary secretary indicated that the reason the bill was before the House was to give people greater confidence in the justice system. We will have to go through this, analyze it and see if there really is a problem. If there is a problem, obviously it needs to be fixed, but we have to identify a problem before we simply start to change legislation that has been in force since 1975, with one amendment in 1997.

We are dealing with section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada. What everyone has to remember is that when someone gets a life sentence, it is a life sentence. All it currently says under section 745 is that people cannot apply for parole until they serve 25 years. With the faint hope clause in the proposed amendment, all we are discussing is whether someone can apply in theory for parole earlier than the 25 years. If we wish to change the law to, in essence, reduce the standard or eliminate the standard, there really needs to be a problem. What is it?

Under section 745, for first degree murder or high treason, it says, “without eligibility for parole until the person has served twenty-five years”. For second degree murder, a person serves at least 10 years.

The faint hope clause was initially added in 1976, when the death penalty was eliminated and it was part of a compromise at the time. What may be interesting for people to know, or perhaps remember, is that at the time the average sentence for first or second degree murderers, who were not subjected to the death penalty, was seven years before they were eligible to apply for parole. What happened was that changed from seven to twenty-five as part of this compromise.

A lot of our western democracy friends, England, Belgium, a number of others, allow the chance of parole after 15 years. Once again, if we are to change a law that has been in force for years, what is the problem? Where are the statistics? What are we trying to solve, or is this simply ideology, which I do not think is an appropriate way to run a justice system?

With respect to the faint hope clause, substantial amendments came into force under Prime Minister Chrétien's government, under Justice Minister Rock, in 1997. We have to examine those very carefully in coming to this conclusion and answering the question on whether there is currently a problem. Let us look at that.

Under section 745.01, people, after serving 15 years of a sentence, may apply, but they do not have to apply and most do not, to seek to have the years of imprisonment, in terms of their eligibility, reduced. It is not them getting out. It is not saying their sentence is reduced. It is saying that the time period when they can apply for parole is reduced. How do they get there? If we look at the various provisions, they have to apply, pursuant to section 745.6, to a judicial review and they do that in writing. That stage has nothing to do with the victim's family. It is a judge who reads material and then decides whether there is enough reasonable evidence.

The judge has to consider various criteria in determining whether or not this can be talked about. Many people have used incorrectly the example of Clifford Olson or other multiple murderers and said that we cannot let them out. I agree, but they cannot get out under this clause, because subsection 2 says that a person who has been convicted of more than one murder may not make an application. Those people cannot even try under this legislation.

First, a judge, based on written material, has to make a legal determination that on a balance of probabilities, a jury would actually allow for some reduction. The onus is actually on the convicted offender to prove to a judge there is a reasonable possibility this would occur. If the judge finds that there is no such possibility, then nothing happens. If a judge finds there is a possibility, then he goes to a jury.

When the Conservatives talk about the public determining what should occur, or the public having confidence in the justice system, it is the public, not a judge and not the National Parole Board, but the public as represented by a jury, that actually determines whether or not the person is entitled, not to get out of prison, but to have the eligibility for parole reduced from 25 years, in the example of first degree murder, to something lower. It is a jury of our peers that makes that determination. Also, it has to be unanimous. If anybody on the jury determines that it is not appropriate, it does not happen.

Essentially the Conservatives are attempting to take away from a jury of Canadian citizens who have to reach a unanimous decision, the ability to simply reduce the possibility from 25 years to something lower, where the offender can then apply to get parole, but then still have to get the full permission of the National Parole Board. There is no guarantee. It is simply whether it can be done sooner.

Really, the Conservatives are trying to take away power from a jury to unanimously decide that something in theory could be reduced by way of when somebody could apply to the National Parole Board. That is what is happening here.

In terms of what the jury decides, a jury decides various factors. A number of these factors are enumerated. One of them is the applicant's conduct while serving a sentence. This is all new.

There will be hearings. If the bill passes and goes to committee, and I expect it will, we want to hear from multiple groups about it. My understanding is that prison guards use this as a method of keeping order. What would they say about it? I assume that people who want to rehabilitate these offenders, which is one of our goals and I will come back to that, would be against it. Let us hear from these various groups. Let us hear the evidence. Let us also hear what the problem is. I will address that in terms of numbers.

Before we get to the actual legislation, once again the jury decides unanimously whether this is even possible, in terms of whether somebody is allowed to go to the National Parole Board earlier. I will provide the jury questions and members can decide whether they are very soft.

On of them is, “Do you unanimously agree that the applicant's number of years of imprisonment, without eligibility for parole, ought to be reduced, having regard to the character of the applicant, his conduct while serving his sentence, the nature of the murder for which he was convicted and the victim impact statements, yes or no?”

If it is not unanimously yes, it is over. If it is unanimously yes by a jury composed of Canadian citizens, then it can go to the National Parole Board, but there is a second jury question, because in terms of the reduction of the sentence for when a person can apply for parole, a jury votes a second time. Essentially the jury has to agree by two-thirds what the reduced period of time will be, not for when the person gets out, but for when the person can apply for parole.

The second question is, “Are no less than two-thirds of you satisfied that the applicant should be eligible for parole immediately, having regard to the character of the applicant, his conduct while serving his sentence, the nature of the murder for which he was convicted and the victim impact statements, yes or no?”

Then, the third question is, “Having decided that the applicant's number of years of imprisonment without eligibility for parole ought to be reduced from 25 years, what lesser number of years do you, at least two-thirds of you, order substituted?”

We are getting a unanimous decision by a jury as to whether it could be reduced at all, and then two-thirds of the jury have to decide what the reduction is for when the person can simply apply for parole. If the jury can jump through all of those hurdles, it then still goes to the National Parole Board for the board to decide whether the person gets parole at all, and if so on what conditions.

Once again, with that current system which is very strict, the question is, with one week to go before Parliament breaks for the summer, why are we dealing with this legislation rather than economic legislation, isotopes legislation or employment insurance legislation? What is so urgent?

In terms of the statute that the government is proposing, the first section proposes to abolish entirely these provisions, not retroactively, prospectively, to abolish them entirely. There will be repercussions for that, whether it is rehabilitation, prison guards or whatever it may be.

We have an obligation to listen to these people, to get their opinions before simply deciding if something should pass the House. That is what the committee process is for. Once again I do support sending the bill to committee.

In terms of a change of legal standard for the persons who are currently incarcerated, they wish to change it from “reasonable prospect” to “substantial likelihood”. It is phraseology. At the end of the day, the judge can decide that there is no appreciable difference, it means the same thing and the case law will build up in terms of what that means. Essentially, I do not think that is much of a change. I personally have no difficulty with that change, but I do not think it is going to do anything. Once again, I do not know why we are spending time in Parliament now, during an economic crisis, dealing with this issue.

In terms of comments, the John Howard Society currently does not support the repeal of the faint hope clause. The society said, “Our position is that we're not sure that this is something that does need fixing or repealing”.

Let us hear from the government why it is doing this. What is the evidence?

In fact, the society is concerned that this could lead to increased violence in prisons because there is no incentive for prisoners to be on their best behaviour because there is no possibility that they might, even in theory although remote, be able to apply earlier for parole.

In 2008 there were 109 offenders who were successful in such an application. Of those, only a handful were sent back to jail for breaching parole conditions, not for the commission of any serious crimes. The question is, since this is a recent 2008 statistic, what is the urgency as to why we are dealing with this in the House of Commons now rather than dealing with economic issues or isotope issues?

There is also a recent quote from the Minister of Justice. His rationale for why we are dealing with this now is, “We cannot bring back those who have been so callously murdered” . The justice minister said, “We cannot repair the hearts of those who have lost loved ones. But what we can do is ensure that those who commit the most serious crime, taking the life of another, pay the price and thereby validate the life lost”.

I do not disagree with the quote, but if the rationale as to why we are here rather than dealing with economic issues is vengeance, I do not think that is a substantial reason for not dealing with isotopes, EI and economic issues with one week left in this sitting of Parliament.

Prison guards in particular would be a group that we need to hear from. I am personally concerned about what happens in prisons with incarcerated individuals. I have a couple of examples.

We talk about rehabilitation. A former inmate who is out and I understand is leading a productive life, said that before being released he has spent his entire adult life in jail. He said that the possibility of early release was the only thing that provided hope and the motivation to change. He said that he thought for the longest time that he would never get out of jail, so he created his own freedom by getting involved in drugs. He said that realizing that he had an opportunity to get out early, gave him a different attitude. He gave up drugs, pursued his education, re-established contact with his mother and two younger brothers and began exploring his native roots. He said he looked at what he could do to better himself. He got out and became a productive citizen.

He did all that, in terms of rehabilitation, because of the theoretical, although difficult, possibility not that his sentence could be reduced, but that he could apply earlier for parole to the National Parole Board.

I went through the current statistics. In 2008, there were 109 inmates released with no serious recommission of offences. Once again, why are we considering this bill, with the current economic crisis and a week left to go in Parliament?

There are other important statistics. If the government were serious about the criminal justice system, in terms of an overall package, it would be taking into account other goals, not just retribution, but things such as rehabilitation and deterrence. We should have a very sophisticated analysis from the Conservatives, including from the Minister of Justice, as to why they are not doing this rather than this blunt instrument approach.

In terms of the criminal justice system, we have heard from many experts in the last couple of weeks that it is broken down. The prisons are overcrowded and it costs over $100,000 a year for each inmate. There are serious addiction issues. About half of all convicts committed their offence while intoxicated by either drugs or alcohol. Four to five people going into prisons have an addiction issue. Yet, there is a clear admission, as we heard in committee this week, that they cannot stop the drug trafficking in prisons. Why? Where is the legislation fixing that?

There are mental health issues. Thirty-nine per cent of Ontario inmates have mental health issues. There is an admission there is not the capacity at present to give them treatment. Where is the legislation on that?

The reason this is very important is that over 90% of all convicted persons in our jails get out. Our focus should be our responsibility to the Canadian public to ensure that when inmates are released, they have received the treatment that has been required for them. Where is the legislation on that?

Earlier this week I had the honour of speaking in this House on the legislation regarding the sex offender registry. I recommended many additional changes to make that legislation stronger because I thought it was too weak.

What I do question is, with a week to go in this sitting of Parliament, why we are dealing with this legislation when nothing has been shown by anyone as to why it is urgent, especially with the current economic and isotope crises.

We have to consider this entire issue from a reasonable perspective. There will be committee hearings if the bill passes, and I believe it will. However, we also have to look at the broader perspective, in terms of a criminal justice analysis. It is not sufficient for a western democracy such as Canada to simply have the justice minister use retribution as the rationale for changing a law that has been in force since 1975.

We need to look at the statistics and approach the problem not with rhetoric or any other form of motivation, but in a reasonable and rational manner.

I have no difficulty with this bill going to committee, but I expect to see good evidence, hear witnesses and have considered reflection as to what this legislation should truly do, rather than simply a rationale of being tougher.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Recently the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville rose in the House to express his support for private member's bill, Bill C-391, standing in the name of our colleague from Portage—Lisgar. On June 10, the member for Yorkton—Melville sought unanimous consent to withdraw his Bill C-301.

I note that the subcommittee on private members' business has yet to report back on the votability of a number of items within the order of precedence, including Bill C-391.

While the two bills are substantially different, and our rules and practices would warrant that Bill C-391 remain votable, people do play politics in the House, and unfortunately sometimes it is politics that governs procedural decisions. It would be unfortunate if the presence of Bill C-301 was used as a political reason to impede the votability of Bill C-391.

I have spoken with the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, who cannot be here today, so on his behalf I seek unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Bill C-301

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It does not sound like there is unanimous consent, and I am not sure that the member would be able to do it on behalf of another member anyway.

As there is no consent, the Chair will take it under advisement as to whether or not that type of procedure is admissible.

We will move on with debate.

[Dona Cadman, Conservative, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be a bit soft on criminals. I am sure that the John Howard Society is against this too, knowing what it stands for, but someone has to start getting tough on these people.

I do not know if my colleague has ever attended a section 745 hearing, but I have, and it puts the victim right back to the beginning. Do these people need to have this done to them again and again? Very few people come up for a section 745 hearing, but when they do, it is devastating, it hurts, and it is just disgusting.

Does the member have any comments on that?

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given her first comment in terms of being soft on criminals, obviously the member was not in the House of Commons when I gave my speech earlier this week on the sex offender registry. I was challenging the government to get tougher on its own legislation.

We are dealing with this legislation without any statistics, without any background information, without hearing from experts, without anything suggesting there is currently a problem. In 2008, 109 people were released and there were no offences other than parole violations.

I want to know why we are here now, with a week to go in Parliament, and we are not dealing with serious issues such as EI or medical isotopes.

I would have no difficulty addressing this legislation in the fall or later on. Should we study it? Yes. When we are in an economic crisis, and with a week to go, why are we not dealing with the important issues I just mentioned?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member whether there have been any long-term studies on the impact of such legislation? Would it be more likely for an offender to reoffend or not? Would there be more incidents of violence in jails or less? Is there any academic research showing which country has the faint hope clause? What would the impact be, not just in a five year time frame, but within a 30 year or 50 year time frame? Have there been any good international studies, or even studies within Canada, regarding this matter?

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of what is currently available, my chief concern at present is that the government has produced this legislation during this crisis without any expert evidence in terms of a problem. I think it is trying to turn the channel from the economy to criminal justice issues, when frankly they are not urgent.

I have a study on how the views of the public are shaped in terms of the media and political parties. There is a study by Ms. Julie Belinda Erb, which says essentially that there is a misperception by the public in terms of offenders reoffending. They really do not. For rehabilitated people who are released early with conditions, the chances of reoffending are actually very low. There is a whole range of views that are not really tied to statistics in terms of what people believe is happening in society based on what politicians and the media say.

My simple point is that I am not for or against; I am in favour of a study, but let us see what the actual intellectual arguments are rather than rhetoric.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments on this bill. It is a matter that has come up from time to time.

I believe the last time it came up was in the early 1990s, and one of the issues was the public's perception of who criminals are. I recall at the time that a very large proportion of those who committed crimes in fact turned out to be family members and close friends as opposed to those people one might think would be bad from the get-go.

I want to ask the member if there is updated information, or is this the kind of information we should have from experts in committee?

[Andrew Kania, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent point. That is exactly the sort of information that must be produced in determining whether the law should be changed.

There are current statistics, which I am aware of and that I mentioned, in terms of who is going into prisons. They are people with addiction issues essentially. That is something that should be examined both in prisons, for rehabilitation purposes, but also in Canada.

It is true that the vast majority of murderers commit crimes on family members or someone they are close to. A lot of that is in the heat of passion. There is no excuse for it, and I will not make any no excuse for it. However, I am concerned that an ideology or a previous Reform Party position, call it what one will, is now being brought forward when we should be focusing on isotopes and the economy.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Brampton West will have four minutes left for questions and comments the next time this bill is before the House.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Patent Act

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved that Bill C-393, An Act to amend the Patent Act (drugs for international humanitarian purposes) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege for me today to begin to speak to a bill that has been the product of so many hours of work by community activists and NGOs right across this country and around world. I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-393, which is an act to amend the Patent Act and to ensure that we can flow drugs for international humanitarian purposes.

Our day to day work in this place clearly impacts upon every aspect of Canadian lives, but rarely are we, as members of Parliament, presented with so clear and direct an opportunity to save lives. We know that 14,000 people a day die from infectious disease, such as HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, and that these deaths are preventable because they can be treated with medicines that are on the market today. The dimensions of this crisis are almost impossible to comprehend, with the personal cost to victims' health, the cost to their families, the plight of those left as orphans, and the strain on grandparents thrust into the role of providers.

There are 33.2 million people living with HIV worldwide, 22.5 million, or 68%, live in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2007, 2.1 million adults and children died of AIDS, and 76% of them, or 1.6 million, were in sub-Saharan Africa alone. An estimated 2.1 million children under 15 were living with HIV worldwide in that same year, and again, nearly 90% were in sub-Saharan Africa. Some 13 million children have been orphaned by HIV-AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, and it is now estimated that by the year 2010, as many as 20 million children will have been orphaned by AIDS worldwide.

Finally, without treatment, an estimated one-third of infants infected with HIV will die before reaching the age of one. Half will die before the age of two.

Tuberculosis patients and malaria sufferers are also losing their lives for lack of available medicines, medicines that are on the market today. Five thousand people die from tuberculosis every day, while more than one million people die each year from severe malaria, a disease relatively easy to treat with proper drugs.

This is mind-boggling when we think about it. It is a crisis that no Canadian wants to turn his or her back on. Everyone in this country wants to see Canada do its job and carry out its responsibilities on such a serious life and death situation.

Canadians were very proud when Parliament took action quickly five years ago, following the landmark decision by the World Trade Organization in 2003. It allowed more prosperous nations, like Canada, to offer humanitarian medical support to developing nations.

Canadians were very proud when Parliament unanimously passed reforms to the Patent Act in 2004, called Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, otherwise known as CAMR. That regime was created to provide a framework to use a system of compulsory licensing to allow generic drug companies to produce cheaper versions of the latest most effective drugs to treat infectious diseases even though they were still under patent.

However, we all became disillusioned. Canadians right across this country were very disappointed when we actually came to realize that this medicines regime produced practically no results.

Since that time, four years ago, when we passed the legislation unanimously in the House, there has been only one compulsory licence completed under that legislation. Last September, the first and only shipment went out. It was a shipment of 7 million Apo-TriAvir tablets, shipped to Rwanda by Apotex, Canada's largest generic drug manufacturer. That was an important shipment. It will help 21,000 people. However, given the statistics I just mentioned, it is a drop in the bucket. That has been the only shipment.

There is obviously something wrong with the legislation. I am here today to try to fix it. The burden of drug costs for the world's lowest-income nations has intensified. Despite the efforts of those like my former colleague, the hon. Alexa McDonough, Canada and other prosperous nations are shamefully not on track to meet our commitments to the United Nations millennium development goals, such as reaching 0.7% of GNP in international assistance by the year 2015, increasing our efforts toward the global fund, reducing child and maternal death, and reducing HIV-AIDS.

Other G8 commitments to reduce poverty have not lived up to their hype. As a final blow, the world is now in the midst of an economic crisis of unprecedented proportions. Within their own borders, the devastating loss of large numbers of productive adults to infectious disease has further compounded the already difficult road to economic security and stability. Countries are obviously even less able to cope with high drug costs for their citizens. I am sure that members of Parliament realize that Canadians will not tolerate us carrying on with a dysfunctional drug system that keeps cheaper drugs from getting to where they are needed.

Former UN special envoy for HIV-AIDS in Africa and respected Canadian Stephen Lewis has been at this for years, tirelessly. He has never given up trying to reduce the incidents of HIV-AIDS in Africa and elsewhere, and has never stopped pushing and prodding us to find solutions. He, like all of us, is concerned about the inaction under the legislation we passed five years ago. He said:

Delaying action is inexcusable when the path forward is so clear: streamline CAMR, get affordable medicines to those who are dying for them, save thousands of lives, particularly those of children with HIV. Every day counts,

Stephen Lewis is right. Every day counts. Canadian generic drug maker Apotex has made a priority of clearing up the mess. It has committed to making a low-cost version of an important pediatric AIDS medication as soon as this access to medicines regime is made workable. I want to remind members that, in sub-Saharan Africa, half of all the children born with HIV died before reaching their second birthday.

This type of drug, which is so needed, is not currently being made. If we could only change the rules, it would happen and it would improve the treatment of these children tremendously. Peggy Edwards, co-chair of the national advocacy committee of the grandmothers to grandmothers campaign, echoes the call for CAMR reform. She says:

Right now, African grandmothers are carrying the burden of caring for children orphaned by AIDS and dying of AIDS without appropriate medicines. Streamlining CAMR and getting affordable medicines to children with HIV would ease that burden considerably.

That is very well said. Let me also quote Richard Elliott, who is the executive director of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network. I should mention that his organization has studied this process more than anyone and knows it inside and out. He says:

The current system just doesn’t work...The need is enormous, but CAMR just isn’t user-friendly in its current form.

That is why, in Bill C-393, I have drawn on the legal network's expertise and that of others knowledgeable of the strengths and weaknesses of the current CAMR system to come up with a workable proposal for change. It is a proposal that will get these drugs into production and to the children and adults who have been waiting for them for far too long.

Bill C-393 proposes critical changes to Canada's access to medicines regime. Let me mention a few of them.

It provides for a one licence system to replace the need for single applications for every drug, for every amount of drug produced, and for every country which is seeking medications. That is important.

It gets rid of the narrow list of eligible drugs in order that new medicines can be incorporated at the earliest possible time.

It gets rid of the two-year time limit on compulsory licences with only one reapplication allowed.

It lives up to our international trade agreements while dumping the CAMR's requirements that exceed WTO demands.

Finally, it discourages unnecessary legal action by allowing generic producers to correct minor errors within a limited time.

The reforms we are proposing today in the bill have been supported by many, including 37 humanitarian and health organizations in Canada. They have said so in their submissions to government. That we are here today aware of the problems with CAMR and with solutions to offer to resolve these problems is due to the ongoing effort of so many individuals and organizations.

I want to particularly thank the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Results Canada, Stephen Lewis Foundation and Oxfam Canada. I would particularly like to mention the incredible work of the Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign that now has more than 200 groups spread across Canada working tirelessly to raise awareness and rally support for these grandparents struggling for their own and their families' survival in sub-Saharan Africa in the wake of their children's premature deaths from HIV-AIDS. In Winnipeg, the group is named Grands 'n' More Winnipeg and I have been helped by discussions and information from Linda Watson, Irene Rempel, Enid Butler, Nancy Cosway and Shelley Coombes.

This spring, the grandmothers, as they have become known around this place, and I am wearing the pin that they have given to us all, brought petitions with more than 32,000 signatures to Parliament. We all had the privilege of presenting some of those petitions.

I want to cite the work of a present colleague of mine who formerly worked on this issue. The member for Windsor West was active on this file when Parliament first passed this bill a number of years ago.

In presenting the bill, I feel a great sense of responsibility. Normally, I have had the responsibility in this place to speak for my constituents in Winnipeg North. That responsibility is daunting in itself.

Today, I am speaking to this bill for millions of women, men and children who have a right to health, a right to life, just as we do, but who through circumstances of birth find themselves faced with serious conditions and diseases in countries unable to afford them the help they and their families need because of economic limitations.

As I have said, the challenges are unimaginable, but the spirit of the struggle is strong. We have a choice today, whether to break down a barrier that is denying them a future or to stay with the status quo and extinguish that spirit. I urge members to choose the former.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request the hon. member to explain why she would be in favour of making a review by Health Canada optional? I understand that Bill C-393 does this. Perhaps she could explain why she thinks that it is not unethical to export products to other countries which have not met the same safety standards that we have for consumption by Canadians?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I should put the question back to the member because in fact it was the government that committed to a review to ensure that all drugs were safe, that all drugs met the requirements as he is expressing today. The government has failed to carry out its commitments, so we are back today with legislation that is trying to redress this situation, address those problems, and to move forward the agenda.

It is clear when we have had only one shipment for one drug to one country in all of these years that something is wrong. I have identified those barriers to the problem. I have presented some very modest proposals to improve the situation so we can actually start to flow drugs as quickly as possible.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Winnipeg North for this initiative and especially the response and support that she is giving to the Grandmothers to Grandmothers Campaign. I am a very strong supporter of that campaign.

I had the chance to meet with some of the grandmothers from South Africa in my riding of Vancouver Quadra. Being from Africa myself, I have a great deal of empathy for the struggles they are facing, especially at a time when the government has reduced by half the number of the poorest African countries that are being supported by CIDA on its priority list, so it is very badly needed that the help comes some other way.

What would be the estimated timeframe that the member's bill would enable these drugs to get to the people who need them so badly?