Svend Robinson

[Patent Act, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the eloquent comments of my colleague from Churchill, who is also our spokesperson on industry and primarily responsible for this legislation.

The hon. member has reviewed the quite appalling history of the Liberal Party on this issue. I am one of those members who was actually in the House in 1987 when Bill C-22 was brought before it by the Conservative government of the day. I recall vividly Liberal MPs viciously and vigorously opposing the legislation. They said it was a sellout to multinational drug companies.

[Petitions, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by residents of my constituency of Burnaby—Douglas and others in British Columbia.

The petitioners point out that since 1994 the Canadian government has been secretly negotiating a future free trade area of the Americas agreement with 34 countries of the Americas and the business community. They are concerned about the negative impacts this agreement could have on the environment, on their communities, on their children and, indeed, on all the people of the Americas. They do not wish to have a treaty that is inspired by the destructive elements of the WTO, NAFTA or the MAI. They point out that this has been negotiated in secret for too long and that the right to know is fundamental in a democracy.

Therefore the petitioners call upon the Canadian government to immediately publish the integral version of the free trade area of the Americas negotiation text. Certainly that request is long overdue.

[Points Of Order, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to give the Speaker and the House notice of a question of privilege.

I have informed the Speaker that I believe a serious question of privilege has arisen from the conduct of both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his officials concerning documentation with respect to the activities of Talisman Energy in Sudan and the use of its airfields by the government of Sudan for offensive military purposes.

In view of the fact that the minister is not in the House this morning, I wanted to give notice that I will be pursuing this question of privilege at the earliest opportunity when the minister and myself are both in the House.

[National Defence, May 9th, 2001]

So much for leadership, Mr. Speaker. Even Brian Mulroney had the guts to say no to star wars in the 1980s.

My supplementary question is for the Minister of National Defence.

If Canada has really taken no position on the NMD, why is it that we are posting a senior military officer in the Arlington, Virginia headquarters of the U.S. ballistic missile defence organization, the only non-American in that position? The BMDO says that the guy is much more than an observer. Why is there this direct Canadian military link with the missile defence plan, right in the heart of the scheme?

[National Defence, May 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Yesterday the U.S. defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, confirmed that the Bush government wants to weaponize outer space, realizing the U.S. space command's goal of dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect U.S. interests and investments.

Now that the U.S. has confirmed that its missile defence plans will in fact include a new star wars scheme, will the government finally make it clear that Canada will have nothing whatsoever to do with this dangerous U.S. missile defence scheme.

[National Defence, May 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence.

The minister knows that this week George Bush's officials are in Canada lobbying for the national missile defence, the new star wars, and that last year his officials stated in a briefing paper that while NMD does not require Canadian involvement, intercepts would occur over Canadian territory.

U.S. defence analysts have said that Canada might want to request extra funding for hard hats, but that there is not much else that can be done. The debris will not fall on Toronto, we hope, but who knows?

I want to ask the minister when the government will finally stand up to the United States and say no to this insane escalation—

[Patent Act, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for his eloquent speech. He spoke with a lot of passion about this very important issue.

The member has always spoken out on behalf of the elderly, the poor and the less fortunate, not only in his riding but anywhere in Canada. As New Democrats, we know very well that this bill will cost the elderly and taxpayers who pay for provincial drug programs an extra $200 million.

It is frankly unbelievable that we are now the only political party in parliament that stands up for the consumers, for the poor and for sick people, as the member for Acadie—Bathurst has already done.

For example, I am sorry that the Bloc Quebecois is voting in favour of the bill. As far as the Canadian Alliance is concerned, it is understandable since that party has always supported the large corporations. As for the Liberals, we heard what they said in 1987. I was here. My colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona was here. It was in 1987. I remember. The Minister of Industry said “We will do all we can to stop this bill.”

It was the same thing in 1992 with Bill C-91. I am sure the member for Winnipeg—Transcona remembers it very well. The Liberals were there. They said that they were against the bill because it was a gift to the large pharmaceuticals.

Now that they are in office, what are they doing? They are handing out gifts like this one they are bestowing on the large pharmaceutical companies.

As the member for Acadie—Bathurst pointed out, we were in Quebec City. All our members, including our leader, the member for Halifax, were in Quebec City, because we say no. We say no to this agenda, which would change our hemisphere forever by using the rules governing intellectual property to protect the rights of private businesses throughout the Americas, the FTAA.

We are very familiar with what is happening at the WTO and under NAFTA. We have seen what is happening, for instance, with the price of patent drugs.

I wonder if my hon. colleague could explain why we were in Quebec City to protest against these deals that would bestow more gifts on large pharmaceutical companies.

[Patent Act, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the very eloquent comments of my colleague from Winnipeg Centre and to note that earlier in the debate one Liberal member suggested that the only way we could develop quality pharmaceutical drugs was if a healthy profit went to the private sector to develop those drugs.

I remind the House of the pioneering work of Jonas Salk who refused to patent the polio vaccine. He said that it would be like patenting the sun.

When the Liberals prattle on about how we have to make sure that the profit levels are high enough for the pharmaceutical companies, I say that there are dedicated women and men, scientists working in this field, who would be quite prepared to ensure that the product of their deliberation and research goes into the common good and does not go to contribute to corporate profits.

My colleague from Winnipeg Centre referred to the member for Ottawa West. I have a speech here that the member for Ottawa West made on December 9, 1992, an eloquent and passionate denunciation of Bill C-91. She went on about the obscene profit levels of the pharmaceutical companies and said:

I think we have to ask who pays for these great gains? As I said, there are billions of dollars of revenue to be gained by the drug companies. Seniors will pay. Taxpayers will pay through medicare. Anybody who is too poor to have a drug plan or who works for a company that does not have a drug plan will pay.

That was the member for Ottawa West then. Where is the member for Ottawa West today?

[Patent Act, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer is that we have ceded much of our sovereignty already. Surely before we succeed in dismantling democracy and sovereignty in Canada, we have to stand up and fight back and say no to the WTO forcing this kind of change on Canadians in our pharmaceutical drug policies. Unless we say no now there will be no opportunity to change this in the future.

[Patent Act, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Bloc member will take another look at history, because he totally lacks any historical perspective on this issue.

Before the Patent Act of 1987, pharmaceutical companies were making huge profits. They had one of the highest levels of profits among Canadian industries. In the meantime, because of the compulsory licensing program set up in 1969, under a Liberal government I must add, drugs were quite affordable, especially for the poor.

The suggestion that we cannot have at the same time drugs being sold at a reasonable price and large pharmaceuticals ringing in huge profits is patently false.

We, in the NDP, do not agree with the Bloc members that we have to focus on the profits of the pharmaceutical companies. It may be their objective but that is not a very social democratic position for the Bloc to be taking.