Charlie Penson

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 6th, 2001]

With regard to the Strategis website: ( a ) does the government track visitors to this website; ( b ) if so, what data does the government compile on each visitor; and ( c ) does the site disclose that it is tracking and compiling personal information on visitors?

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to third reading of Bill S-17, an act to amend the Patent Act. I will be brief in my remarks.

The Canadian Alliance supports the bill and its intent to bring Canada's patent regime up to international standards. The purpose of Bill S-17 is to bring Canada's Patent Act into compliance with the trade related aspects of intellectual property rights agreement, or TRIPS, which Canada and all other members of the World Trade Organization have signed and must adhere to.

We in the Canadian Alliance recognize that sometimes at these international bodies we will win cases and sometimes we will lose. However it is a large group. Roughly 150 member countries make the decisions. Overall, Canada gains by the process of the rule of law. We are a small member country in terms of population but we have been very influential in bringing forward proposals to do away with subsidies and tariffs internationally since the end of the second world war.

That is what it is all about. Last fall the World Trade Organization found Canada's patent legislation to be deficient because patents introduced before 1989 were given only a 17 year protection, not 20 as required by the agreement we signed, the agreement called TRIPS.

We must therefore make the necessary amendments to the Patent Act. Bill S-17 would change section 45 of the act to provide a 20 year term of patent protection from the date of application.

About 30 patents in the pre-1989 act represent commercially significant patent drugs. The Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, which represents the generic drug industry, has fully acknowledged that the Government of Canada must make legislative changes to the Patent Act to comply with its international trade obligations. However, the association has objected to what it claims is an imbalance in drug patent regulations, particularly the notice of compliance linkage regulations. It also talks about the two year stay process that is in place.

I agree that this is an important issue but it should not slow down the passage of Bill S-17 which is intended to bring us into compliance with the World Trade Organization. That body gave us until August to change our patent laws, so we must make the amendments as soon as possible.

The Canadian Alliance recognizes that the dispute over drug regulations should not be ignored but should be examined as a separate issue. The Minister of Industry has suggested that he will ask the committee to study the issue in the fall, and we concur completely. We should call witnesses and hear testimony on the important issue of regulations when it comes to drug patents after the 20 year process. We would encourage the committee next fall to take on the issue, listen to witnesses carefully and to make a judgment based on the information that comes before it.

I will talk a bit about how important it is for Canada to recognize and comply with rulings that are made when we sign important agreements such as the GATT under the World Trade Organization. We are a mid-sized trading nation. A large part of Canada's prosperity depends on our ability to sell our products abroad. We need the WTO and other trading agreements such as NAFTA to protect our international trade from unfair subsidies, countervailing duties and trade wars. Some may not like all the decisions coming out of the WTO but there is no question that overall we benefit from the stability and clarity the organization provides to world trade.

I will give an example of how we have gone off track from time to time and why it is necessary for us to work within the framework of these organizations. We need only look at the accelerated trade war between Canada and Brazil over regional jets. Despite winning several rounds at the WTO over the issue, the industry minister announced in January that the government would give an estimated $1.5 billion below market interest rate loan to Air Wisconsin to help Bombardier secure a regional jet contract.

While it sounds okay on the surface, the loan was described as a one time deal to save Canadian jobs threatened by Brazil's subsidies to its regional jet manufacturer, Embraer. Rather than make Brazil see the reason in this, Canada chose not to use the process in place at the World Trade Organization which is to exercise sanctions against a rogue nation that will not comply.

Rather than seeing the reason in this process, as the minister suggested, Brazil has dug in its heels over the issue and feels that it has to continue subsidizing as long as Canada is subsidizing as well. All those years of working within the WTO system on this issue are now in question, and I would suggest in jeopardy, because Canada has stooped to Brazil's level. There is no end in sight to this dispute.

Bombardier is now seeking another subsidized government backed loan for another one of its customers. That customer is Northwest Airlines, the fourth biggest airline in the United States. The industry minister is seeking that loan on behalf of the government so that Northwest can be enticed to purchase Bombardier jets rather than Embraer's.

This is less than five months from the time that the Minister of Industry told the House that this would be a one time deal to bring Brazil to its senses. It has not worked because Bombardier is back asking for another $1.5 billion to keep it going. The trade war goes on and on.

We have been working for 50 years with institutions like the general agreement on tariffs and trade. We went through a seven year process at the Uruguay round of the GATT to bring some sanity to the process of subsidies and tariffs. Canada was a leading nation. We were well respected for our ability to move the process forward. However Canada is now working outside the rules of the WTO.

If Canada is to have any credibility in future negotiations, particularly on the issue of compliance in the drug manufacturing debate, it needs to start to comply with these rulings and work within the framework.

The framework in the Bombardier dispute with Embraer was that on December 6 the World Trade Organization authorized Canada to impose $244 million in sanctions against Brazil to stop that unfair practice but Canada did not take that step. We were wrong in not doing that. That was the only method we had at the World Trade Organization and we chose to work outside the organization on that issue.

This points out that we need a rules based system. We have worked hard to develop it in the past. We know it is effective in cases like the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association and its dispute in terms of the 20 year patent. Now Canada has moved to come into compliance with it. We need to continue that process and continue to work within the organization to build Canada's credibility in the future.

Other industries are watching, such as shipbuilding, agriculture, steel and softwood lumber. We need some resolve or some process to settle these disputes. Canada has been a leader for 50 years. If Canada will not work within the rules then who will?

Matching subsidies is sometimes called levelling the playing field, but the Canadian Alliance and I believe it is misguided policy. Instead taxpayers of the two countries involved end up subsidizing foreign airlines in this case.

A company in Arizona bought regional jets from Bombardier and is now saying that it did not get that kind of deal. It wants it too and is asking why it was given to everybody else. Instead of subsidizing Northwest Airlines in the United States, we should work within the framework of the WTO.

Coming back to the business of the drug patent law or patent law in general, we heard a lot of testimony in committee indicating that we need a strong intellectual property system in Canada so that those who come up with new ideas are able to realize some profit and protection for their property. I suggest it is no different in the area of drug patents. A reasonable length of time is required to recover the money. Once the patent is up, it is fine. The generic companies can then get involved and manufacture products which might be cheaper than research based pharmaceuticals.

I hope the important debate over notice of compliance and the regulations will take place next fall. I am looking forward to it, to see who is right on this issue. In the meantime it is very important for Canada to comply with the WTO rulings, bring Bill S-17 forward, and pass it as quickly as possible to bring us into compliance so that Canada is not a rogue nation but is working to try to resolve international issues in a reasonable manner.

[Natural Resources, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there will be a negotiation. I guess the premiers and the provinces would be more trusting of the federal government if it had not betrayed them in ignoring the limits agreed to at the Kyoto negotiations with the provinces. That is why they are asking to be at the table this time. That is why they are insisting on being at the table, because they were ignored last time and betrayed.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to the western provinces and the western premiers that they be at the negotiating table when they meet with the Americans to hammer out a new energy agreement?

[Natural Resources, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday western premiers were united in their demand that Ottawa give energy producing provinces a seat at the table during the negotiations on the continental energy policy. They stated that the provinces were the keepers, owners and guardians of our natural resources.

The constitution is very clear on the subject. Natural resources belong to the provinces. Will the minister recognize that provinces are full partners and respect their demands?

[National Defence, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we will see. The memo we obtained indicates that the Sea King helicopter is one of only three aircraft armed with significant weapons systems in the Canadian forces and that a change to the statement of requirements is in effect directing the staff to acquire a non-combat capable aircraft to replace the one meant for combat. They are to replace that one with a non-combat aircraft.

Why did the minister's office rewrite the requirements?

[National Defence, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, according to an internal briefing note from the chief of the maritime staff, senior navy and air force officers were stunned to learn of changes to the statement of operating requirements for the new marine helicopter project. They note that there was no explanation of why the changes to the statement of operating requirements were necessary.

Since these changes probably came from the Prime Minister's Office, could the Prime Minister please explain why they were necessary?

[Trade, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I really wonder where the consistency is in the government's policy. It seems that corporate welfare programs are only available to Bombardier's customers.

What about other Canadian industries facing unfair subsidies? What about agriculture? What about shipbuilding? What about the steel industry? What about the jobs in those sectors that do not get subsidized credit?

Could the Prime Minister tell us how he decides which jobs are the most equal and therefore the best able to qualify?

[Trade, May 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister declared that Canada would fight fire with fire over Brazil's aerospace industry. However, only last week the minister responsible for wheat told grain farmers in western Canada they had to stop growing wheat because that subsidy war was unwinnable. Of course the Minister of Industry claims he does not believe in subsidies because they are not productive for the economy.

When will the Prime Minister develop a plan to end the dispute with Brazil that does not rely on using illegal subsidies?

[Trade, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see why we can have national champions when the government is the banker for this company. That is exactly what has happened.

In January the industry minister said the Government of Canada would offer subsidized credit to stop Brazil's Embraer from benefiting from unfair trade practices. He sold this to Canadians as a one time emergency deal. Less than five months later, and as we predicted, Bombardier is back for more.

When will the Liberal government learn that Canadian interests lie in a rules based policy and not an accelerated trade war with Brazil by being Bombardier's banker?

[Trade, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government is at it again, undermining the World Trade Organization by offering Northwest Airlines a subsidized loan worth more than a billion dollars to ensure that Bombardier secures a contract with another large American airline.

Only 15 years ago, the federal government sold Canadair to Bombardier to end the drain of public money to the aerospace industry. Why do Canadian taxpayers have to continue financing the former crown corporation in the year 2001?