Bev Desjarlais

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there have been numerous comments certainly from the member from the Conservatives and from across the way with regard to the agreements. I have a couple of comments.

My colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona will remember back to this time. He may not remember the exact words and my guess is he may not remember from which party the comments came. As we are seeing today, it is not a matter of a different position from the Conservatives or the Liberals, it is a matter of the same position given at different points depending on whether they are in opposition.

The present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said in 1992 when he was in opposition:

We are asking Canadian consumers to pay roughly $4 billion more in drug costs in the next 20 years in exchange for $150 million in research and development. Can you imagine, what kind of negotiator I would have been in my previous life if I came back to the membership that I used to represent and gave them those numbers.

The present Minister of Industry made this comment about the government when in opposition. I would like the member's thoughts on this because I know he was in the House the time. He said:

I want to ask the member and all those members who at some time, when they screw up their backbones and the courage to do it, have to go back and face their constituents: Are they really serious when they say that they expect the sick, the poor, the elderly, and those who live on fixed incomes have to subsidize R and D in Canada?

Could the member comment on that?

[Transportation Safety, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, transportation safety in our country is in question with crumbling and congested highways because the Liberal government will not invest in much needed improvements. Longer bus and truck driver hours, heavier trucks, and a weak national safety code add to highway risk.

Two young people died in a boating accident and the inquest told us that the transport inspectors certified the boat only weeks before the incident. The boat had a number of safety violations that were ignored. The inspector was friends with the boat owner and the inspector's brother did renovations on the boat.

How does the Liberal government respond? Boats this size will no longer be inspected. It rammed the Marine Liability Act through parliament without ensuring mandatory liability insurance for boat owners.

Now the government wants to rush Bill S-3, the motor vehicle transportation act, without addressing the concerns of highway users, including the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the Canadian Bus Association.

The Liberal government might mouth the word safety but it sure does not make sure it is enforced.

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the opposite side talked about the minister being an honourable man. That honourable man spoke in a totally different way when he was in opposition. I want to make that point clear. I will not bring out the reams of comments he made in the House criticizing this type of legislation when he was in opposition.

My colleague talked about a rules based economy and our need for rules. I will give an example from Haiti where rice is the main staple food. Until free trade was instituted, Haitian farmers grew the bulk of the rice they needed to feed their country. Very little was imported.

In the mid-eighties, Haiti was forced to comply with IMF rules to lift tariffs on imported rice. As a result, Haiti was flooded with highly subsidized rice grown in the United States. Haitian farmers were unable to compete with U.S. subsidized prices and were put out of business. That is a wonderful example of a rules based economy from the IMF.

I will give another example in pharmaceutical—

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if the member were more open to a different political view he would have a right to some of Mr. Gates' money, but not half because he did not make it first to the post.

No one is suggesting for a second that there should not be rules but we really need to balance the rights of the patent and the rights of the rest of the world. That is the most important thing. Above all, people need to come first no matter what we are dealing with.

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it is fair. I have said that there needs to be a reasonable period of time where there is patent protection.

On the issue of rental properties, we saw the need to implement landlord and tenant agreements because there were landlords out there who were gouging tenants and tenants out there who were not treating the rental properties properly. They were implemented under provincial legislation so it is not unheard of.

Even though there might be millions of other people out in the world who have the same knowledge, they may not get a patent in the nick of time. How often have we heard about a particular company rushing to patent something before another company does? It is not as if it is only this one individual who has the intelligence.

We have recognized that while we are going to give companies the right of first to the post and to allow a patent, we also have to recognize they are not the only ones with any degree of intelligence and that there has to be time limits on that patent. I am suggesting that the limits we are going by now are as a result of greed and not the right to get one's investment back. I am not saying that a person cannot make a profit, but the bottom line is that it has gone way beyond.

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can answer all the member's questions in the period of time I have available. I was extremely annoyed toward the end of our committee hearings to hear some comments that maybe 20 years was not enough.

I have already been quite sickened by the process of bringing the bill through the Senate and by the speed with which we are pushing it through the House without adequate consultation. My colleague from the Alliance hopes that we get a chance in the fall to really discuss the bill and hear different points of view. However, the bottom line is that we should not be approving the bill without having heard all the facts and recognizing that it is not legislation that will benefit people.

I was also sickened to hear comments saying that it was not enough. I would refer to my point that this is pure and simple greed. It is not a matter of not getting money back on our investment. I would not suggest that for a second, but we have gone beyond that. It is pure and simple greed.

Why is there this flip-flop by the government? We in opposition often hear comments that the government does it all wrong the moment it gets in. I would suggest that the present industry minister was very vocal and critical of the Tory government when it was going about this process but who had an absolute flip-flop once he showed up in the House in the last couple of years.

I would suggest that the flip-flop is due to the major lobbying effort by the brand name drug manufacturers of the government side. Major investment dollars from the brand name drug manufacturing companies go to the Liberals. I would suggest that has carried far more weight than it should have. It is disappointing. I want Canadians to be on guard and to know that there was a suggestion of increasing the patent protection even further.

I want us all to hold each and every member of the government accountable for every increased health dollar that has to be spent as a result of the legislation or any increases that they might be thinking about. I want the government to continually be taken to task this summer. I want the people in Canada to be a force out there and let the government know that it is not acceptable.

I heard my colleague from the Bloc indicate that the Bloc is in agreement because there are a lot of drug manufacturers in its province. I want the people of Quebec to also hold the Bloc and its members accountable.

Anybody who supports the legislation is, in my view, wasting valuable health care dollars as a result of pure and simple greed.

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I will comment on a number of different issues relating to the bill. A good number of them have been mentioned by other speakers but probably from a somewhat different context.

As someone who has been sitting on the committee dealing with the issue for a very short period of time among many other issues that were being rushed about, I will not make a point of rushing through the debate. Everyone else is talking about the need to be brief but I think this is one time when we should not be brief.

We are talking about an issue that relates to the health of Canadians and the health of people of the world, for that matter. It is related to the issue of patent protection and its relationship to drugs throughout the world.

I will comment on the brief period of time the Government of Canada has to deal with the issue and make sure it is passed to meet the WTO trade agreement. In its submission to the tribunal body which was ruling on the matter, the U.S. presented the reasons Canada had to comply by August 12. Normally a 14 month to 17 month period of time is given to countries to comply. In this case Canada got a whole lot less time. We got 10 months.

The U.S. submitted that Canada had a parliamentary system which would allow its government with its parliamentary majority to effectively ensure that whatever legislation it wants will be passed in a short period of time. The United States asserted that as past practice illustrated many bills had been swiftly passed by the government. For instance, in the 36th parliament 40 of the 78 government bills that received royal assent were passed in four months or less. Indeed bills have been enacted in as short a period of time as a week.

I suggest that the past practice of the government of not having full debate, full disclosure and full input from the people of Canada are the reasons Canada was given this brief period of time. It was because of the actions of the Liberal government.

According to the United States, with Canada's ability to promptly pass legislation, the underlying question was whether Canada would make the passage of the bill a priority in its legislative agenda.

The government did not make it a priority and did not start discussions on the bill some time ago. It brought in the bill a short time ago so there would be less discussion. Instead of bringing it through the elected House it brought it through the Senate, once again to delay the process where Canadians elected by Canadians would have the opportunity to speak their minds on the issue. What we have is very limited discussion on the whole issue of patent legislation.

We should not have to wait until the fall of this year to have a discussion which really needs to be had. I listened to my colleague in the Alliance and I was thoroughly disgusted with his comments. He was saying that we would discuss it in the fall and hear the positions then. We should not have to wait until the fall. We should have pursued the issue a whole lot sooner.

When something as important as the health of Canadians and of people of the world is at stake, why would we wait until the fall to discuss this important issue? It is probably one of the single most important issues we have been discussing for a period of time, and it is to be rushed through.

That ends my comments with regard to why we are passing the legislation through the House so quickly. I will now discuss why we have the issue before us at all. At one time Canada would not have been subjected to rulings of the World Trade Organization which said that we had to move as a country on a decision.

We decided to have 17 year patent legislation, which is no short period of time. I challenge any drug company to say that it has not received its return a hundredfold in 17 years. It is not a matter of getting a return on research investment. It is a matter of pure and simple greed by drug companies. Prior to the legislation not a drug company was suffering. If there was a need for more research dollars the government had a responsibility to respond to that need.

The issue between the 17 years and 20 years is a matter of pure and simple greed. It is the same pure and simple greed that led a number of wonderful drug companies to work in collusion to increase the price of an additive to vitamins and other medications a few years back. They all ended up charged. It was pure and simple greed. They were not making enough billions of dollars. They wanted many billion more. We are not dealing with companies that have corporate ethics and the well-being of the world as their primary concerns.

I am not suggesting for a second that we do not need trade regulations. I am not suggesting that we do not need recognition of patent protection. I am saying that we have gone beyond reasonable patent protection to pure and simple greed.

At one time we did not have the World Trade Organization. Therefore we did not have to meet those regulations. At one time we would have had countries fighting for what would benefit the people, not for corporations making a profit. We now have a number of countries agreeing to get together, not to do what is best for the people of the world but purely for the profit of corporations.

Who do we want negotiating on our behalf when we have governments negotiating patent agreements up because they believe it is right for people to have to pay millions of dollars more for their drugs? I suggest that those negotiating are not doing their job. Those government representatives should be saying that it is out of hand and that they are not doing what is best for the people of the world. They should be negotiating those patent agreements down, not up. If our representative is not doing that he is not doing his job for the people of Canada.

That is where the changes have to be made. It is not okay to accept the fact that we have a World Trade Organization that is protecting profits for corporations and not ensuring the well-being of people of the world.

The whole issue was related to drugs. I will fall back on a comment my colleague in the Alliance mentioned, that we cannot have rogue states. Was it a rogue state that went out and said that it wanted AIDS medications cheaper, otherwise people would die off by the thousands? Was that a rogue state or was that a government acting responsibly for its people that said it would continue producing generic drugs and to heck with World Trade Organization rulings because that was good for people, not corporations?

I will comment on the specific regulations that seem to have created the greatest problem at this point, recognizing that the Liberal government's approach to getting legislation through quickly, recognizing that we are part of the World Trade Organization and recognizing that by August 12 we need the bill through. We know it will be passed.

There are some issues that the government could have addressed in the legislation that it has failed to address. First is the notice of compliance regulations. In the period of time available to us it is difficult to explain the whole process of the notice of compliance regulations, which have to come through the Department of Health, and their effect. Ultimately it lengthens the amount of time it takes generic drugs to get on the market.

It has been suggested that the period of time will not mean a great increase, but I suggest it could be $50 million for the few drugs that may be affected. We in the New Democratic Party are often criticized because we say it is not that much money. I can tell the House that $50 million is a lot of money. Nobody in the New Democratic Party thinks any differently. We just do not like the government's priorities on a number of issues, but $50 million is a lot of money.

As a result of the change from 17 years to 20 years in the patent regulations it could mean $300 million over a period of time. That is a lot of money. It is a huge amount of money. The notice of compliance regulations could have been addressed.

Rulings were made in the Senate committee. It made recommendations with regard to notice of compliance. Patent or brand name drug manufacturers came up with automatic injunctions against the generic companies to delay the process. A comment was made by the supreme court. As a result the Senate committee recognized that the observations were outside the purview of Bill S-17. It also indicated that the minister said that things would be looked at. I am just giving a general view of it.

The Supreme Court of Canada criticized the notice of compliance regulations, describing them as draconian. The high court ruling indicated that to subject generic drug producers to such a draconian regime would be manifestly unjust. Generic drugs are kept out of the market immediately, without any consideration of the merits of either position. According to Judge Iacobucci, manufacturers of generic drugs were entitled to market their products years earlier.

We are not talking about an issue that could not be dealt with in the legislation or that would affect the trade ruling. It would not.

Another area of the bill that would not affect the trade ruling is the right of the government to make regulations related to stockpiling. We have already met the criteria of no longer allowing stockpiling right now. That is not happening. Why is it necessary to remove the right of the government to put that stockpiling back in should there be a change in the World Trade Organization ruling? Why not leave the right of the government to make that regulation?

Governments are supposed to be doing what is best for the people of their countries, not meeting World Trade Organization rulings. Therefore that regulation could have been left in. We would have adhered to the World Trade Organization ruling but still left in the right of the government to make the regulations.

Another issue the bill dealt with was ensuring that we went from 17 years to 20 years to make sure that the World Trade Organization ruling was met. However a number of patents go beyond 20 years. Instead of the bill making everybody fall within the 20 years, some patents out there will be allowed to go beyond 20 years. Why they were not all brought into the same 20 years is beyond me.

At one of the final meetings of the committee it was suggested that once we give someone the right to be over 20 years we cannot really take it back. There seemed to be a question of that not being the case, that as a government we pass legislation and that is the way it has to be. It leads us to question why all patents would not have been brought down to 20 years. If we could move them from 17 years to 20 years, certainly those that had 23 years protection could have been brought down to 20 years as well.

The bill is not coming before the House to benefit the people of Canada. It will not benefit the shortage of dollars in our health care system. Quite frankly it will tax our health care system that much more. Again, what kind of negotiator agrees to something like that?

I would like to refer to another area that has not yet been discussed. I represent a number of first nations communities. At a time when we are looking toward allowing first nations people the right to self-government and the right to look after their own affairs, I am extremely concerned with the shortage of adequate funds to provide the overall services first nations communities need.

From what I have seen in the area of health transfers I have real concern that dollars were cut in the last year or so before health transfers were to take place. I am happy to say that a number of first nations communities are treading very slowly into health transfer now because of that. They have recognized that they were being shorted on funds to look after their health services. They knew that taking over those health services would be tough.

At a time when first nations communities should be given adequate funds to take over their health services and want to do it, I am extremely concerned that we are accepting legislation that will increase the cost of health services to a large degree to first nations people.

Because of the conditions they have been living in, a higher majority of first nations people end up in our health care system for a variety of reasons. Each and every one of those first nations communities will have increased costs related to health care. From what I have seen they do not get the needed support dollar-wise or the increased support they need on a year to year basis. I am truly concerned that they will bear a greater portion of the bad effects of the legislation.

We have heard the U.S. position on how things get done by the Government of Canada, so I know the bill will pass. When first nation communities tell us that the dollars they are being given for health care just do not cut it, we will need increased resources because of the increased cost of medications. When the provinces tell us that they do not have enough money to provide our health care because of the increased cost, we will need to make sure that they are getting increased dollars to provide those services.

That is what this debate is about. It is about being forced into the position of having to ration what we have because we do not have the dollars to provide the services. That is largely due to a lack of priorities within the federal government.

There is no question that preventive health care is the best route, preventive measures for sure, but in the interim we must make sure we have the dollars to provide much needed medications and other services.

I urge all members to recognize that in the upcoming years after we pass the legislation. Even though it may only affect 30-odd medications, some of them are high cost medications that people just cannot do without right now.

I am getting to the end of my comments on the legislation. I know that my colleague from Winnipeg, our health critic, has her thoughts to add to it. She has seen firsthand and dealt with the issue for a number of years. She has been greatly involved for a number of years and has listened to people throughout Canada who have felt the impact of the previous increase in the patent legislation.

Certainly seniors groups around the country have indicated their objection. There is no question that seniors were a vibrant force the last time the legislation came before the House. Because of that the government of the day was made to feel some shame over what it was doing. When the present industry minister was in opposition he felt the same way as those seniors did, that it was unacceptable the government would allow it to happen.

That is part of the reason the government took a roundabout route to getting the legislation before the House this time. I commend seniors for their fight in the past. I know we will join them in the future as we continue to make sure the government acknowledges that it should be doing what is best for Canadians and not just for corporate profit.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, there was a situation where a woman in India wanted to come to Canada to see her first grandchild. She travelled close to 200 kilometres to make her application only to then have it denied. She did not have a record so there was no reason for the denial. It was suggested that she would not return to India even though she had a husband there and they had a business. Once again it was presumed that the person would commit a crime before it was committed. I find that disheartening.

I will take this opportunity to admit to those who are not aware that I am a grandmother. For that reason it was especially upsetting for me to hear that this woman, who wanted to come and see her first born grandchild, was not allowed to. Again, there was no reason for it.

I know of another situation involving a young woman from China who wanted to visit her sister who is married to a Canadian. I am not sure if the woman's sister is working but the husband works in Canada.

This young woman lives on a very low income in China and I understand her family helped out by making sure she had enough money to visit Canada. Once again, she was denied the opportunity to visit Canada just because she might not go back.

In every case that I have seen like this it has always involved women. I have seen issues relating to men wishing to come over but there had always been some reason why they could not come. In most of the cases that I have dealt with dealing with men there was no problem. However, in each of the cases involving women there were no crimes committed but they were not allowed to come to Canada just in case.

The gender issue has to be recognized as a problem. I acknowledge that an amendment was passed that dealt with that issue. I hope when I do have the chance to speak to the minister in more depth about these cases that we are able to sort out some of those issues.

I also want to comment on an amendment that did not pass, which I was quite upset about.

I will talk about another situation involving an older woman from India. However at the age I am at now she is probably not all that much older than I am. The woman had some problems with her knees. We are all getting on and we might have a little bit of arthritis or something like that. She was denied access because of her health problem. As it was not a severe health problem, there was no justification for not letting her in. This was a minor health problem and she was denied entry. The family was willing to sign a form saying that they would look after any medical costs but she was still not allowed in. On those issues alone I have been extremely disappointed with the system.

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, because there is an impression out there that a lot of single Russian women only want to come to Canada for one reason, they all get painted with the same brush. I found that rather disheartening because I firmly believe someone is innocent until proven guilty. If someone has not committed a crime they should not be denied access to our country because they might commit a crime. To me there must be a justifiable reason. That was disappointing for me.

In Russia $50 Canadian is a whole lot of money. It might not seem like much to us but in Russia it is a whole lot of money. It was about three months' salary for that person. She applied and was denied and did not get her money back. Any time there is a new application the money is gone.

Another situation involved a woman from India who had to travel some 200 kilometres to apply to come to Canada to visit her first born grandchild. Her son had been adopted out to another family but had kept in contact with his biological mother. He had his first child and the biological mother—

[Immigration And Refugee Protection Act, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-11 today. There is no question that it has been a long time in coming and contains comprehensive changes. However, as my colleague from the NDP indicated, the bill does not contain enough changes for us to support it. We still have great concerns about many areas in the legislation and I will reflect on a few of those.

The people who work in Citizenship and Immigration Canada have been absolutely excellent for the most part when my staff and I have dealt with them. They are extremely helpful and go out of their way to try to resolve issues. Problems tend to arise not because they do not want to help or do their best but because of the policies and processes that have been put in place. As a result, some people have come into the country who should not be here. There have been instances where people have not acted their best while in Canada. As the saying goes, one bad apple spoils the whole bunch.

Those cases have not been blown out of proportion, but a number of them seem to have been. As a result, people immigrating to Canada, especially in the last few years, have been attacked by people with certain agendas. As a Canadian, I am disappointed to see that because I expect more.

I grew up in a Canada that was quite different. In rural Saskatchewan where I grew up there were often only one or two obvious minorities or other nationalities. Other than first nations people and the usual European mix of people and French speaking people whose parents or grandparents had come over, there was only the odd obvious minority.

However I grew up with a very great respect for multiculturalism in Canada. It was taught in our school system. I grew up respecting the diversity of cultures and not expecting everybody to be the same. I grew up respecting people's differences and understanding that we were all here to enjoy Canada and be active participants in the country.

As I said, my experience with departmental officials has been for the most part very good. However there are extreme failures in the system. One of those failures, which has not been touched on in this or previous debates, is the fact that changes within the department have led to case files of people who enter the country being dealt with by people who are not always the most qualified or experienced. As a result, we do not necessarily have the best outcomes.

I am not blaming the individuals. However the experienced people are not dealing with the files or not enough people are dealing with the files and as a result things do not flow as smoothly as they should.

I will comment on some cases I have personally dealt with within my office. I apologize to the minister because I have never discussed the cases with her. I often intend to because I have certain views of how things happen but I have not had the opportunity. These cases are not ones on which the minister has been made aware but it is obvious that there are other such cases or we would not have these clauses in the bill.

One of the major issues is in relation to gender and race. I was quite surprised to get the impression, from a number of cases I have dealt with through my office, that women from certain countries do not get treated the same.

That has been hard for me to handle. The first situation was regarding women in Russia who want to come to Canada. In one case there were teachers in Canada who were willing to sponsor a young woman. The woman worked in Russia as a teacher. She was single and probably in her late thirties. The teachers had known her for some five years. They went over and visited regularly as part of an educational program in Russia. I had the opportunity to see how that program worked when I was in Russia so it was a great experience for me.

I think the young woman paid the equivalent of $50 Canadian to apply to come and visit the teachers in Canada. She was denied outright. The Canadian teachers told me this was an ongoing problem whenever they wanted to bring someone over for a visit, even when they signed on the person's behalf. There seems to be an impression that a Russian woman coming to Canada does so for only one reason: to somehow try to stick around, stay in Canada and not adhere to the rules.