Réal Ménard

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 10th, 2004]

It was not so very long ago, despite what my colleague may think. Still, it was a good 20 years ago.

In 1982, it was said to be the time of the aboriginal people. There was the sad patriation of the Constitution, with the well-known consequences for Quebec. Nevertheless, it had a positive side for the native people who had been invited to the negotiating table. At that time, the big term was “constituent”. The provinces and the federal government, along with representatives from the various groups, formed a constituent assembly. The plan was to rewrite the constitution. Of course, once again, the legitimate aspirations of Quebec were lost to view, and we all know about the patriation context, and the night of the long knives.

The fact is that section 35 of the Constitution, 1982, generated a great deal of hope among the aboriginal peoples looking for real development, the right to self-government, the right to have original institutions and the ability to have a development model that would strike a balance between their ancestral hopes and their future challenges.

I remember reading some important chapters from the Erasmus-Dussault report. One interesting thing, for example, is that the concept of leadership is not the same among the native peoples. Leadership is much closer to a consensual model. The relationship with wisdom is not the same. Elders, knowledge and tradition are highly valued. Those things are very highly valued.

When the minister responsible for Indian Affairs apologized to the first nations, it would have been appropriate for the government to introduce some legislation to respect the development of the first nations.

My friend, the parliamentary secretary, cannot deny the fact that in this House there was an unprecedented mobilization against the First Nations Governance Act. All the opposition parties are still opposed to that law. We spent hours in committee, with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, as always. My hon. friend from the NDP was also on the committee.

I will never forget how cavalier Liberal members were with the opposition. We were very close. The Liberals displayed lack of respect for the opposition parties and the first nations. On the last day of work of the committee, aboriginal women came and formed a circle around the committee. Aboriginal people have a matrilineal tradition. Women play a much more prominent role in some communities. This is not the case everywhere, but it is in certain communities. Women formed a circle around the committee to express sadness with the unfortunately irremediable character of the governance act.

Why did the government not learn the lesson we wanted to teach it and introduce bills to ensure that another report, much more respectful of the first nations and consistent with the Erasmus-Dussault report, was prepared? It is all the more inconceivable not to have done so, considering that the Supreme Court had issued a number of rulings recognizing the aboriginal rights of first nations.

What is wrong with the bill before us? First, there is an important consideration in this debate.

The government is trying to reject this fact out of hand, as if it were insignificant, but 61% of the first nations leaders are opposed to the bill. If 61% of the first nations leaders, who are authorized spokespersons for their communities, are opposed to this legislation, it must mean something.

I hope that the parliamentary secretary will rise later on and tell us how his government feels about disregarding the legitimate authority of first nations leaders. We are not talking about members of the Bloc Quebecois, the NDP or the Conservative Party of Canada. We are talking about 61% of the leaders elected by their peers under a democratic process, who are opposed to this bill. The government will have to react and show a little more respect for first nations.

The first nations need resources of course, but as the member for Champlain was saying, they really need to have control over the resources on their own land. When we studied the bill on first nations, I recall that we wanted to transfer them some control over resources. We said the first nations could develop some of the resources and decide how to use them. Yet, for more significant resources, the fiduciary responsibility would remain, thus denying the first nations the ability to decide their future by creating their own development plans that are respectful of who they are.

Questions come to mind. For the first nations that do not avail themselves of the right to use financial institutions or the option to borrow through bond markets—and these are legitimate concerns—will there be no reprisals? What is to say that they will not be penalized in their development? These are legitimate questions that we must ask.

It would have been nice if the federal government had drawn from René Lévesque's legacy. I think the people in English Canada know a little bit about René Lévesque. It would be difficult to have lived in this part of the world and be over the age of 15 and not know René Lévesque.

Let me tell you about the man. René Lévesque was one of the first sovereignist leaders to be elected to the National Assembly, something that we as sovereignists are very proud of.

In the history of the sovereignist movement in Quebec, there have been three political leaders who formed political parties. Our party, our sovereignist plan, has always had extremely important democratic roots. Of course I am thinking of Pierre Bourgault, who founded the RIN; René Lévesque, who founded the sovereignty association movement and the Parti Quebecois; and, more recently, Lucien Bouchard, who founded the formidable force of social progress and change that is the Bloc Quebecois.

René Lévesque was an MNA and the minister responsible for the nationalization of electricity under Jean Lesage. Afterward, as we know, he left the Liberal Party when it became thoroughly dogmatic and wanted to hold up the future of Quebec.

Is my time up, Mr. Speaker? No, not at all. I feel like I still have at least fifteen minutes left. Am I wrong, Mr. Speaker? I have five minutes left?

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of taking part in the debate on the old Bill C-19, which is now Bill C-23. I am doing so because I know that, when in the federal Parliament, one must be concerned with the first nations.

This is first and foremost the federal government's responsibility, since, under the Canadian Constitution, it is the trustee of the aboriginal peoples, which, as everyone knows, are not only nations, but the first nations.

When we say that the aboriginal peoples form the first nations, we are referring, of course, to two realities. We are saying that they are among the first occupants of this part of America, and that they form a nation. However, forming a nation means something on both the sociological and the political level.

What it means is that they have cohesion as a group, a desire to live together, the control of a territory, a common history, traditions and symbols, an interpretation of the world that gives them cohesion as a group, which confers great legitimacy to their claims, that is, that we have a different relationship with them.

I believe that is what our aboriginal affairs critic, the likeable member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, has said. Everyone knows that his primary virtue is his ability to keep cool under all circumstances. He is a man who is calm and serene, a man who exercises great self-control in his day to day life. His cardinal virtues are, if I may say so, a great inspiration to our caucus.

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot has, on several occasions, expressed regret that a number of bills have been submitted to members which could have been an opportunity, as the member of Champlain has said, for the federal government to put an end to this guardian mindset, this colonialist philosophy, this philosophy of control, assuming that the federal government knows best what the first nations need, within a context of domination.

There are certain things we as parliamentarians cannot forget. I was a member of this House, as was the member for Champlain, when the Erasmus-Dussault Commission tabled its report in 1999. No, he was still an MP in waiting, Mr. Speaker, and we all know that distance makes the heart grow fonder, do we not? That is a known fact.

When the Erasmus-Dussault commission tabled its report, the minister of the day, the former Minister of Human Resource Development, apologized to the first nations because it had to be acknowledged that there had been a number of public documents between the time of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission and the Erasmus-Dussault proving just how badly the federal level had acquitted itself of its responsibilities to support the development of the first nations.

Regardless of the aspect considered, be it housing, employment, early childhood development, occupational mobility, or any aspect of aboriginal health, if a comparison is made, it is obvious that all indicators point to their being more stigmatized and less prosperous than other groups as far as development is concerned.

This was what lay behind the apology by the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the first nations. We thought the Erasmus-Dussault report provided the basis for a new partnership, a new dialogue, a basis for a nation-to-nation relationship. This was not the first instance of a government apology, as my friend from Berthier—Montcalm knows. The Prime Minister made an apology to the Japanese-Canadian community, for example.

In the House, we voted on a motion to apologize to the Armenians. We also came very close to voting on a motion deploring the behaviour of the British Crown—for the constitutional reasons we all know—with respect to the Acadians, who were unjustly deported.

As parliamentarians we recognize that we have responsibilities toward particular groups, in this case, the first nations, the aboriginal people. In 1982, when I was in the full flower of youth and energy, I was still in school.

[First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, you understand that this is a good speech from a member of Parliament who had the privilege to sit both in the National Assembly and in the Commons. Thus, he has a wide experience. I cannot remain insensitive to the many references that he made to the former member for Taillon and premier of Quebec, René Lévesque, who was said to be part of a much too short list of liberators of the people. Of course, as you know, our liberation will come soon.

I would like to ask this question to the member. If Mr. Lévesque were still alive today, would he find any inspiration in this bill? Is it appropriate that Bill C-23, which we are debating, is totally at odds with the principles that René Lévesque defended throughout his political career?

[National Mental Health Week, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of National Mental Health Week, from May 3 to 9, is to remind us of the importance of helping our fellow citizens detect the early signs of distress or mental illness and to provide them with the tools they need to deal with such crises.

In order to help these people, Quebec has strengthened front-line care, particularly by establishing family medicine groups and local service networks. These approaches facilitate better case management and continuity of care for people affected by mental illness.

This week is also an opportunity to express our appreciation of all those who contribute to the well-being of persons affected by mental illness and their friends and families.

Our sincere thanks go to the employees of the health and social services network, as well as to the volunteers and community organizations that offer support, assistance and advocacy.

[Patent Act, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the member for Trois-Rivières is a humanist akin to those of the 18th century. I am certainly not referring to his date of birth, but to the culture and tradition of the time.

I think he is right. The bill may be very positive and reflect a consensus, but we have to bemoan the fact that Canada has not lived up to the expectations of the international community with regard to the proportion of the GNP it has earmarked for international cooperation. I know there was a slight increase for that item in the last two budgets. However, I think that all parliamentarians should try to convince the government that it must allocate a higher percentage to international cooperation.

[Patent Act, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, first I would ask my colleague to forgive me because I do not remember the name of his riding. But I know that he is a hardworking member of Parliament.

However, he is a bit devious because he has shifted the debate from an international consensus to national considerations. There is one thing I want to tell him.

The Bloc Quebecois has an honest and powerful debate tradition. As critic for the health portfolio, I am very well aware that the status quo is not acceptable. Basically, what the member is asking for is some support towards the abolition of the liaison rule.

There is nothing to indicate that this is the way my party will go, but I suggest he look at the four proposals that I have tabled with the Standing Committee on Health. His colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik knows it.

I think that we have not achieved a balance in favour of consumer protection. Some current drug practices will have to be revised. I know that some pharmaceutical companies have behaved in a reprehensible fashion.

What is of concern here is not the 20 year intellectual property provision. I want to tell the member, who will hopefully listen, that what is more disturbing is the offensive behaviour of some of the innovative companies grouped under Rx&D where the patents are constantly renewed. I think that this has to be addressed.

However, we will defend the principle of a 20 year intellectual property because to me, if the pharmaceutical companies invest money—it cost about $800 millions to market a new drug—it is just normal that they get a return on their investment.

Consequently, we have to strike a balance between our obligations towards the intellectual property and the interest of consumers in getting pharmaceutical products at the lowest cost possible. In this regard, I do agree with him that we have to look at a number of practices that are unfavourable to consumers.

[Patent Act, April 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in this debate on Bill C-9. As I was saying yesterday, I do so with the belief that, to some extent, we are contributing not only to the north-south dialogue, but we are clearly making history, since this bill was passed unanimously and therefore received extremely strong and continuous support from all parties.

As members know, all the parties committed to working together to ensure speedy passage of the bill, in hopes that the other place will do likewise. However, we know this is another matter entirely.

Bill C-9 addresses the important issue of the contribution of companies manufacturing pharmaceutical products. My caucus colleagues know that, for about ten years now, I have taken an interest in the actions of drug companies, both the generic products industry and the innovative drug industry. I am extremely proud to say that I do not think I have ever been too critical, as the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes knows.

Today, I would be remiss if I did not pay tribute to the innovative drug industry, which has assumed its responsibilities. Let us take a closer look at this issue.

In 1989, the Conservatives, under Brian Mulroney, ended the compulsory licensing program. In other words, it was possible, before Bill C-22, which became Bill C-91 under the Conservatives, to obtain a licence from a company with a monopoly. This licence was granted to a generic drug company, which had to pay royalties to be able to produce and reproduce the drug.

We must not forget that, back then, the term of a patent was ten years. What is a patent? I think that the President of the Privy Council has doubtless thought about this. A patent is important because it is a social contract. The President of the Privy Council will agree with me that it is a social contract by which society gives exclusive right to the protection and production of an invention or pharmaceutical product.

Furthermore, 18 months after the patent is filed, a full description of the invention is made public. There are, however, three criteria that must also be met. There are three criteria for patentability, at least in Canada.

First, the invention must be new. A search is conducted worldwide, not just in North America. The Commissioner of Patents conducts an international search to ensure that it is a new invention.

Second, the invention must show ingenuity.

Third, the invention should be useful.

If these three conditions are met, a patent is granted, and it provides trade exclusivity and complete protection. Copying the invention or chemical process is against the law, and there can be counterfeit charges. This is an extremely strict system.

In matters of copyright, we have case law and judicial mechanisms, since extremely important trade issues underlie the whole concept of copyright.

In 1989, the Conservatives did away with compulsory licensing. From then on, Canada was in line with what was being done in other countries. That was very important for Montreal, since the biotechnology industry is concentrated there. The Conservatives set the patent protection at 20 years, once the patent has been granted by the commissioner and the three conditions—new, useful and not obvious—have been met. Patent protection is then provided.

However, when Bills C-22 and C-91 were enacted, they also had provisions forbidding the export of drugs. It was illegal to export drugs, and sanctions could be imposed.

Since 1989, another factor has been added, and this is intellectual property rights. Governments signed what has been called the TRIPS agreement.

Moreover, two years ago a bill was passed to harmonize all Canadian patents. Some were still in the 10-year system, others 20. There was a challenge by the U.S. under the TRIPS agreement, and the mandatory arbitration went against Canada.

A noteworthy point about the WTO is that the relative clout of the countries has no importance. There are dispute settlement mechanisms in place that allow a country like Costa Rica to win out over the United States. Canada lost and so it has to harmonize all of its patents to the 20-year period.

Today we have a bill before us that will make it possible to export drugs, but not to export them just anywhere, just to designated importing countries listed in the schedule to the bill. Basically, these are the developing countries.

The list was incomplete in the first version of the bill, and the Minister of Industry has revised it. To all intents and purposes, the countries able to import drugs fall into the category classified as developing countries.

How will this be possible? Countries wishing to obtain drugs issue a call for tenders on a web site, so the competition is international, of course. Canadian companies will be competing with others in the U.S. and Europe.

When a company wants to compete in order to supply drugs to a third world country, there are two things in the bill that govern this. First, generic companies will be able to obtain the contract. Initially the bill contained what was termed the right of first refusal. This meant that companies holding a patent could, even if the contract had been negotiated by the generic companies, be the first supplier because they were the patent holders.

All of the international cooperative bodies criticized this bill, from Development and Peace to Doctors without Borders. All those involved in delivering humanitarian aid said that this was impossible, that if this right of first refusal were maintained there would be a dissuasive effect on the generic companies which might want to negotiate contracts.

At least in this one instance, though far from a regular occurrence, the government did heed the stakeholders in committee, and the right of first refusal was done away with.

The supply of drugs is not a trivial issue. Just think that, every year, 10 million children die from diseases relating to malnutrition which could have been avoided. Every year, one million people, most of them children under the age of five, die of malaria. Every day, over 8,000 people in the world die of AIDS. We know that the HIV-AIDS epidemic is concentrated in certain parts of the world, particularly in African countries.

Why are these figures important? Because, for each of the diseases that I mentioned, there is a drug available. However, if this drug is not accessible at a lower cost to countries that are facing these epidemics, we will not be able to fight these epidemics.

Even if Canada, through cooperation agencies such as CIDA, allocated $100 million per year for the development of third world countries, if the nationals of these countries are not themselves active, productive and healthy citizens who can make a commitment to help build and improve their country and their economy, these developing countries have a major problem on their hands.

We need legislation that will allow third world countries to have access to drugs at a lower cost. The way drugs are being produced—and that includes the factory price and the distribution to retailers—it is clear that the system is not competitive.

Of course, in Canada, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board was established when the Conservatives passed Bill C-91. The board is a quasi-judicial tribunal. Let me give an example. When Merck Frosst produces a drug, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board monitors the situation to ensure that, once the drug leaves the factory and is distributed to wholesalers and retailers, the price charged is not prohibitive or exorbitant. We have a price index to determine if prices are excessive. If they are, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board may ask the company to refund the overcharged amount. Such a measure has been taken in a number of cases.

When it comes to exporting drugs from Canada, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board has no jurisdiction. It was up to the international community to amend agreements on intellectual property rights and trade in order to make these drugs accessible at a better price, a cheaper price. This raised a number of issues.

I think that everyone in this House understands how this works. A voluntary licence is issued by the patent holder. If the latter refuses to issue the licence, the patent commissioner may issue an order. The agreement amended in August 2003 does not require the patent holder to transfer their drug.

A royalty of roughly 2% of the commercial value of the product has to be paid out. This is not a donation. Companies that hold the patents will receive royalties for the person or company that obtained this voluntary licence. If there is disagreement on the royalty or the terms of the licence transfer—which initially has to be voluntary—the patent commissioner can be asked to rule and the licence, which was to be voluntary, will become mandatory.

Concerns were raised during the work at committee on how NGOs fit into this. For example, there is Doctors Without Borders, and Development and Peace, which are Canadian NGOs working in third world countries. Some NGOs, if not all, would have liked to be able to negotiate directly with the manufacturer. Obviously, thought needed to be given to this. There was a risk of interfering in national sovereignty.

Governments are subject to international law. In major international conventions, government means something. One of the first conventions provided a definition of sovereignty. That word simply rolls off my tongue. Sovereignty was defined in 1934 at Montevideo. It was said that a government has five characteristics: a functioning government; a permanent population, of course; control over a territory, which is increasingly being described as a defined territory; the capacity to recognize citizenship; and, of course, international relations.

Once a government or administration is in office, it is responsible for the delivery of health care. I understand the industry minister has amended the bill to ensure not that NGOs can directly negotiate with the manufacturers but that they can be involved in the negotiations since they have the ultimate responsibility for service delivery. That is one of the responsibilities governments have.

Parliamentarians also wanted to ensure that the additional pharmaceuticals needed to supply third world countries are manufactured in a manner that distinguishes them from the products sold on the domestic market. Under the bill, pharmaceuticals for export would be differentiated through different colours and different labels.

This is an extremely humane and responsible piece of legislation. I want to say a few words about the companies grouped under Rx&D. I remember having breakfast at the parliamentary restaurant with representatives of that organization, along with our industry critic, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, and also, of course, our international trade critic, the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières, who has a long-standing interest in the third world, also joined us. I even recall that he asked very relevant questions. He was most interested in Africa.

We understand, of course, that pharmaceuticals would not only be exported to Africa. They could also be exported to Central and South America. However, I remember how much emphasis the member for Trois-Rivières put on Africa.

We wanted to ensure that the member companies of Rx&D would co-operate. It is clear that if the companies had not been interested in issuing voluntary licences, we would have found ourselves in a very embarrassing situation. Various arbitration mechanisms would have led to compulsory licensing. The commissioner of patents would have had to intervene and it is clear that it would have caused undue delay.

I must say that the innovative companies have behaved very responsibly in this matter. I hope that this sense of responsibility is reflected in the various domestic debates we shall have.

Perhaps I could take a few moments to talk about what is going on in Canada with respect to the price of pharmaceuticals, even though I know this is about the international level. Members are aware that it is the largest expense in all health care systems. In fact, each year in Canada, a total of $120 billion is spent on health. The fastest growing budgetary item in that area is the cost of drugs; the hon. member Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik knows this because he has sat on various regional health boards.

I had proposed a number of solutions to my caucus, in order to fight the rising cost of pharmaceuticals. In fact, the cost of medicine is rising at a faster rate than costs in the health care system in general. On average, health care costs in Canada, in each province, are rising by 5% per year, but the cost of medicine is rising more than that.

I shall conclude by saying that we are going to support the speedy passage of Bill C-9, because it is a good bill for third world countries, for our international obligations, and for the north-south dialogue.

I salute the innovative companies that have shouldered their responsibilities. I congratulate all members of this House—in particular, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques—who have worked very hard in committee. I hope the other place will enjoy the same kind of energy that has characterized this House's work on Bill C-9.

[Patent Act, April 28th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-9, particularly because I feel this is a historic moment. In fact, it is not every day that parliamentarians agree to act with diligence and speed. It is a historic moment because the members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology have worked very hard, entirely without partisanship, and also because it is an important contribution to the north-south dialogue.

The bill before us at report stage is a legacy from the previous prime minister, who must be recognized. It is first and foremost an extremely significant contribution to the advancement of the north-south dialogue.

What will happen if the bill is passed? Canada had rejected the compulsory licensing program. Before the Conservative government amended the Patent Act, it was possible, indeed compulsory, to obtain a licence, not only for the approval of a drug but also for its sale and marketing. In 1989, the licence system was terminated. Once a patent holder has been recognized by the commissioner, there is a 20-year period of exclusivity. Nevertheless, this period did not permit the export of pharmaceuticals to the third world.

The bill before us suspends this process. It proposes that we re-establish—and I think it is important to say this—the licensing system, for exports to a specific list of countries. What is the situation now? It means that it will be possible for generic companies to negotiate contracts to supply designated developing or third-world countries.

I understand that in its original form Bill C-9 contained a much more restrictive list. The government, responding to the arguments of various NGOs, decided to expand the list. That deserves to be recognized.

This, then, is the situation. A generic company will be able to satisfy or fill an order from a government on the list of eligible countries. What is known as the right of first refusal has been set aside. This right applied to situations in which a generic company could have negotiated a supply contract with a third-world country, but would have had to give up the contract to the initial patent holder. The NGOs were worried, saying that this would be dissuasive, that it was not the kind of practice or legislation that would encourage generic companies to negotiate to supply the designated countries.

Under the amendments introduced by the government, the right of first refusal will not only no longer exist, but the innovative companies will not be required to reveal their contracts before they are signed, even when there is still a patent holder.

Second, generic drug companies must still obtain a licence, at first on a voluntary basis. If a licence is denied, the Commissioner of Patents will decide and it will become a compulsory licence.

So clearly, the fundamental mechanism underlying the bill is a schedule designating countries eligible to import pharmaceutical products. Generic drug companies will be able to ensure adequate supply, but they will first have to obtain a compulsory licence. It must be noted that, out of respect for our international obligations, companies granting the licence, initially voluntary, will receive royalties. There is a formula for calculating these royalties. They should be the equivalent of 2% of the product's commercial value.

But an index has been provided that takes into consideration the United Nations' human poverty index, so that the allowable royalties for the patent holder could be less than 2%, which is also an extremely positive amendment for third world countries.

Some witnesses and some NGOs, as the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine knows, asked for the right to contract directly with the manufacturer and the importing country. I believe that it would be a mistake for the government to give in to this demand.

I understand that some amendments to the legislation ensure that the identified entity can be an NGO, but the government, at all times, must be involved in the negotiations. This is normal, first because the subjects of international law, the ones with international sovereignty, are naturally governments. Second, those who will dispense and organize care, ultimately, are still governments. They are the ones responsible for this plan to provide public health.

I am pleased with what we have accomplished and with the increased role being given NGOs.

It is particularly vital to adopt this bill with diligence because of the three realities that must be kept in mind. Every year, 10 million children die of diseases relating to malnutrition which could have been avoided. As well, every year one million people, most of them children under the age of five, die of malaria. Every day, 8,000 people in the world die of HIV-AIDS.

The bill we are preparing to adopt with this splendid parliamentary unanimity that is being promised, must give particular precedence to HIV-AIDS. As hon. members are aware, HIV-AIDS is a terrible reality on certain continents, Africa in particular. When it was first discovered in the 1980s, here in Quebec, in Montreal, people had no idea of the extent to which this disease was going to ravage all of humanity. Resistant strains have developed in some of the African countries, and these require urgent attention.

If it were not for this bill we are preparing to adopt, whole segments of the population would not have access to anti-retrovirals. As hon. members may know, there is a resistant strain in Africa that differs from the HIV/AIDS we are familiar with in North America. It is our duty to do something about this, as a rich country, one with great wealth, even if ours is not a perfect country and we have our own problems relating to the supply of these drugs. Yet our reality as a country, in Quebec and in Canada, bears no relation to the realities in the third world, Africa in particular.

My colleagues in caucus know I have sometimes been critical of the innovative companies. I do not think I have ever been overly critical, but I have sometimes been harsh on them and I must now thank them for their maturity and compassion in agreeing fairly readily to grant voluntary licensing rights. Once the bill is adopted, we will be ready to move.

There are, of course, provisions in the bill so that, if there is no agreement on the royalty to be paid once the voluntary licence has been applied for, it will fall to the Commissioner of Patents to set the amount.

With the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, we met with the innovative companies, which are of course a very important industrial sector for Quebec, particularly the Montreal area.

I will stop there, since my time is up. It is my hope that this bill will be passed as promptly as possible, and I congratulate all the members of the parliamentary committee.

[Housing, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, after repeated requests from the Bloc Quebecois and FRAPRU, the federal government finally decided to free up the $320 million already announced in its 2003 budget to fund the second phase of the agreement on affordable housing.

However, we were stunned to learn that this money will not be distributed on the basis of those provinces that need it most. Indeed, the Liberal government stubbornly insists on allocating it on a per capita basis, which means that Quebec, which accounts for 27.4% of families living in core need will only get 23.7% of the $320 million, or $75 million.

This shows how the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, it boasts about being receptive to the needs of the public, but in fact the amount it is offering falls well short of the estimated $90 million Quebec is asking for.

[Health, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the federal Minister of Health has made an active commitment to promote new health partnerships. He made that the core theme of his speech in Toronto on April 20.

The minister has clearly expressed his vision of the future of health care. The provinces would deliver the care, and Ottawa would guarantee its accessibility. In fact, for the Liberal government, health is becoming the matrix for the Canadian nation building it plans to carry out in the coming years.

Let us get serious. If the federal government wants to do something useful as far as health is concerned, it needs to improve aboriginal health, improve drug licensing processes, keep a better eye on the surgical equipment coming onto the market, and above all do what all stakeholders are unanimously calling for: raising its contribution through transfer payments to at least 25%.

It must also respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces over health. These are the conditions that must be in place for there to be a new health partnership.