Bonnie Brown

[Ukraine, November 24th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

Ukrainians are today living through a historic moment. The election was a great opportunity for Ukraine to show that it has developed into a fully democratic country. Unfortunately, the events we witnessed have made a mockery of that election. The problems that occurred were not minor, nor were they technical, and thus the international community has been led to conclude that they were a daring attempt by Ukrainian authorities to steal the election for their candidate, the current prime minister.

The list of electoral violations is long. Here are only some of the things that international monitors saw: fraudulent proxy voting; multiple voting; ballot box stuffing; violence, threats and intimidation against voters; voter list manipulation; and ballot box destruction and vandalism. These are only the most blatant examples of fraud that were reported by international observers, including Canadian observers.

In view of these many instances of serious and significant electoral fraud, Canada has announced that we cannot accept that the results announced today represent the democratic will of the Ukrainian people.

Before the election it became increasingly obvious that the opposition leader was the people's choice. No matter how much the government tried to undermine his campaign, he seemed to lead all credible polls leading up to the first round of voting on October 31.

During that round of voting only three weeks ago, we saw the same sort of fraud going on but not as much of it or as bad as what we witnessed this weekend. What was the result of the first round? The result was that Yushchenko was still the leading candidate, despite the fraud, even though local observers estimated that the government's actions had denied him about 5% of the vote.

The second round of voting saw even more blatant fraudulent practices, but this time the people's choice was thwarted. We cannot easily dismiss what we saw as technical problems. The irregularities I cited are neither minor nor technical; they are serious and significant.

The fraud we witnessed resulted in votes stolen in at least the hundreds of thousands but perhaps in the millions out of a total of approximately 25 million votes cast. The official result declaring Prime Minister Yanukovych the winner was a close one. This suggests, in fact, that if the authorities had not done what they did, opposition leader Yushchenko would have won by a wide margin. In fact, all the exit polls on election day showed Yushchenko winning the election by anywhere between 5% and 19%.

Canada has been a long-time friend of Ukraine and was the first western country to recognize its independence in 1991. We provide more than $18 billion in technical assistance through CIDA. The more than one million Canadians of Ukrainian origin provide financial, technical and emotional support to their relatives in their former homeland. Now more than ever, the people of Ukraine need to know that Canada and Canadians support them in this difficult time.

Canada has now said clearly that we cannot accept the final results announced today because they do not represent the democratic will of the people. I call on the Ukrainian authorities to investigate the many instances of fraud and I call on them to ensure that the results of the election reflect the true will of Ukrainian people. If they cannot accomplish this, perhaps they need another election. In this way, we hope that Ukraine continues on its path to democracy.

It is reassuring to note that more and more nations in the international community are drawing the same conclusion that Canada has drawn. Even this level of comment is unusual. There have been other elections which have seemed lacking, some in emerging countries just beginning democratic processes. At that time, little comment was made, but this level of international condemnation is unprecedented, probably because the world recognizes the aspirations of Ukrainians and their desire for true democracy.

As Canadians we still have to be careful on two fronts. We must try not to become too judgmental of others, because Canada would like to retain its reputation as a peace seeker and a broker of peaceful solutions between opposing views. We always act in a multilateral manner, as we are doing today, and we try to bring people together to find the middle ground.

As a nation of immigrants we also have to be careful that we focus on building our new country and that we not get too caught up or spend too much energy on the troubles of the very homelands that so many of us have fled.

Only if we focus on our future as Canadians and the building of this country will we provide the peaceful and prosperous future we all want for our children and their children.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

I am sorry, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the minister about patent protection. Most people know that the 20 year patent protection given to companies for new pharmaceuticals was given in exchange for a commitment from drug companies that they would indeed invest 10% of their profits in research and development.

A report just last week showed that this is the second if not the third year that the companies as a group have failed to meet their commitment. The group of companies has been averaging about 8% of their profits into R and D.

I want to ask the minister what if any sanctions he is planning for companies which consistently fail to live up to their bargain with the Government of Canada.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, certainly I would beg to differ with the minister on this point of strong enforcement on this. It is voluntary. It is weak.

One of the committee members had a suggestion about the phone number people might use to complain. This is based upon complaints, and I would ask Canadians who are watching, how many of them know that direct to consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals is illegal? How many Canadians know that if they complain something might be done about it? How many Canadians know the phone number? There was a joke at our committee about this phone number, that because it was so well hidden it was a state secret. Nobody knew whom to phone, so how can Health Canada enforce something that people do not even know how to complain about? It is a very passive approach.

While the American advertising does come over the border into our living rooms, I think this is a perfect example where we do not want to lower ourselves to a lower standard that is happening somewhere else. Instead, we want to set the standard and have these rules, which we to have, and enforce them vigorously.

On these three things, I do not expect the minister to manage to do all of this in a couple of months. I do not want it to appear that I have foolish expectations; however, we are now in the process of preparing the next budget and the Department of Health has had the committee's report for several months now.

The report is based upon the premise that it is our responsibility to keep Canadians safe. I put that as a high priority item, so my question is, does the minister have his officials costing out our recommendations and is the minister planning on including those additional resources in his budget requests for the next fiscal year?

We understand that it will require more people even to answer the phone for the complaints on direct to consumer advertising and more money to advertise the telephone number. There is a variety of ways and we are going to need more people hired at Health Canada to do this work. My question is about how much it is going to cost. Do we know yet? Is anybody working on it? Are you planning to ask for that money?

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, another thing that the Standing Committee on Health concluded was needed is this: specific resources dedicated to the Health Products and Food Branch of Health Canada for vigorous enforcement of direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs.

We heard much testimony in our cross-country hearings that direct to consumer advertising definitely increases the use of prescription drugs, as citizens are inclined to identify conditions from these ads and ask their doctor for those particular drugs. We found out from studies done in the United States, which has direct to consumer advertising, that physicians, in order to keep their patients happy, are inclined to prescribe one of the new advertised drugs, which is probably more expensive than the generic drug they might have otherwise prescribed, thus driving up the cost of drugs in the country.

I wonder if Health Canada has begun to plan to enforce regulations that control direct to consumer advertising.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I am glad the minister is committed to this.

I have some concerns about CIHR managing a database of projects it funds. It would seem to me that it might be loath to report that certain trials had been abandoned when in fact this would indicate that the public money it put into that project might not have been such a good idea. I would really rather have Health Canada carry on from an initial database started by CIHR to monitor the clinical trials in progress or abandoned or completed. I feel that would put an outside source other than the funder in charge of an analysis of the material.

The second thing that the Standing Committee on Health wanted to have included was increased post-market surveillance activities in responding to and making public reports of adverse drug reactions from consumers and health professionals. We have heard a certain amount of evidence about the lack of reporting on adverse drug reactions. It had been suggested in our committee that we might try to get this kind of activity online with a simpler form for health professionals to fill out and then we might get more action.

But today in the health committee we heard from the Canadian Medical Association that only 50% of physicians, its members in Canada, are online and have the facilities to communicate with Health Canada online, or with anybody else for that matter. That of course makes this goal a bit more difficult. However, there might be other ways to accomplish it. I wonder if the minister is planning any changes to the post-market surveillance area with respect to prescription drugs.

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I think most would agree that the progress Health Canada is making on improving the performance times in reviewing new drugs is laudatory. However, as the minister himself has pointed out, this is only one part of a safe pharmaceutical strategy.

As the minister knows, the Standing Committee on Health completed a report on prescription drugs. It recommended, for one thing, a public database to provide information on clinical trials in progress, trials abandoned and trials completed. We wanted to know about trials abandoned because that would give us an indication of which new drugs were having negative effects, so much so that the company cancels the trials.

Is Health Canada moving to set up a public database or registry of clinical trials which include these components of in progress, abandoned, and completed?

[Supply, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, over the past few years the government has responded to calls for action on health through a series of important program commitments, and with the dollars to back them up.

With that in mind, I would like to check on one of those commitments from the 2002 Speech from the Throne: to speed up the regulatory approval of drugs. The reality is that there is a range of new pharmaceuticals and other therapeutic products being produced by researchers and companies in many countries. If we talk to people in the health sector, we learn that they are now using drugs to treat conditions that once required surgery or conditions for which there were no adequate treatments at all. That makes access to these new medications very important.

At the same time, common sense tells us that we need to take a good look at drugs before they come to market and afterwards too. We need to ensure that a new drug not only does what it purports to do but that it has no unexpected side effects or impacts, either on the people who take them in general or on specific groups.

On the issue of speedier review of these pharmaceuticals, may I ask the minister how this project is coming along?

[Committees of the House, November 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present in both official languages the first report of the Standing Committee on Health. On October 28 pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee agreed to report to the House its unanimous support for a motion on the extension of federal compensation for hepatitis C victims of tainted blood. The motion was adopted by the committee on October 21, 2004.

[Ford Motor Company, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the Ford Motor Company of Canada, as 2004 is Ford's 100th year of operation in this country. It was established in Windsor in 1904, making it the country's longest established automaker. Since 1904, Ford has produced approximately 25 million vehicles.

Over the last 10 years, Ford has invested $9.5 billion in its Canadian operations. It is one of the largest employers in our country with 16,000 employees, 11,000 retirees and 500 dealers who employ another 22,000 Canadians.

Last year Ford produced over 460,000 vehicles and 1 million engines, products that were exported to 24 countries in the world.

The head office of Ford is in my riding of Oakville. I want to congratulate everyone in the Ford of Canada family on their 100th anniversary.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in support of Bill C-34, an act to amend the Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994 and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act of 1999.

Most Canadians remember only too well the devastating pictures after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in one of the most environmentally sensitive habitats in North America. We all remember the oil drenching of birds, fish, seals and other marine life, and most of us were alarmed at the damage this caused.

Yet as devastating as that incident was, we have a tragedy of larger proportion that occurs every winter off the coast of the Avalon Peninsula in Newfoundland. We are quite certain it occurs in ocean waters elsewhere along the east and west coasts of Canada.

Some 300,000 seabirds die because of the illegal discharge of oily waste. The oil penetrates their natural defences against the cold Atlantic winter waters and they die a slow death. These birds have no hope of survival. Most of the time we find them alive, but they are totally exhausted from the struggle against the cold and they are beyond hope. This unhappy scenario happens every winter, and it does not have to happen.

In the shipping industry there are many fine environmental corporate citizens. They obey the law and they do the right thing by discharging waste where it belongs: that is on shore based facilities. Unfortunately, there are a few who dump their bilges at sea. They do this because our penalties are too low and they figure that a fine is better than doing the right thing. However, the cost to our marine wildlife and the environment in which they live is much too high. It is time for us to take additional steps to deal with this issue.

In the United States there have been some high profile prosecutions over illegal discharges at sea, prosecutions that have resulted in strong penalties. We now find ourselves in the position of having Canadian waters viewed as a safe dumping ground, or at least a cheap one. I am certain all of us here do not want Canada to be seen in this way.

Bill C-34 under consideration does not propose fundamentally new policy positions. Pollution of the oceans has been an offence in Canada under several acts. However, Bill C-34 proposes a strengthening of two important environmental laws and emphasizes our longstanding commitment in the area of biodiversity conservation through the biodiversity convention. These amendments also set the framework for close co-ordination among Environment Canada, Transport Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard, so that together they can be even more effective.

The act makes good sense for conservation. It makes better sense for habitat protection. It makes good sense for us all, because a clean marine environment also means cleaner beaches, cleaner estuaries and a better future for wildlife and for ourselves.

There are also opportunities with the bill. The key opportunity we should remember is that we can act to make stronger two major pieces of environmental legislation that will equip us to get tougher with those in the shipping industry who are breaking the law and who are polluting the ocean waters and killing seabirds. Another opportunity is that we can send a strong message that Canada is serious about this issue and is prepared to take serious measures.

I must acknowledge at this time and praise those in the shipping industry, and there are many, who take their environmental responsibilities seriously and do not pollute.

These proposed amendments will have no impact on those good corporate citizens, and we applaud them. Let us verify their good actions by ensuring that those who disobey the law are brought to justice, and let all in the House join me in supporting this bill.