Michael John Savage

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it does have an impact on people who graduate from cruelty to animals to being cruel and inhuman to other human beings. Again, we are talking about vicious and brutal acts. As kids, many of us witnessed activity among our friends where animals were hurt in some way. I never saw some of the really brutal examples of animal violence that we hear about in the news, but I certainly have seen friends do things that they should not have done.

Society has evolved. I would expect and I know that my children are more respectful of animals than children were in my generation. We have come some way and the bill recognizes that. The fact is that this will obviously catch some people earlier because what they are doing will be criminal at an earlier stage due to the bill. This means that we may well have less violent offenders and get a chance to catch people and rehabilitate them before they go on to injure human beings. That is a bit of a side benefit of Bill C-50.

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the bill and certainly my intent in supporting it is not to infringe upon the rights of hunters or trappers or anyone who practices either a traditional way of life or a recreational way of life that is not meant to be wilfully destructive to animals. Large numbers of recreational, hunter and trapper groups have looked at this legislation and have given it their okay.

It has come before the House on a number of occasions and was modified over the years largely to address the concerns indicated by the hon. member. I would like to indicate from the bill itself that the existing gap in the law is filled by proposed paragraph 182.2(1)(b), which prohibits “brutally or viciously” killing an animal. The proviso makes clear that this offence is primarily concerned with the nature of the act itself and what that act reveals about the person, vicious being defined as bad-tempered, spiteful and violent.

There is always a motive involved in this. People who hunt and who have done so for years, and who have taken hunter safety and hunting courses and know how to kill an animal in an appropriate way, will not be affected by the bill. Those who go out of their way to be vicious in the conduct of hunting or trapping or any other type of activity that involves animals will be affected by this and I think that is appropriate.

The purpose of the bill is not to take away from traditional ways of life, whether it is agriculture or hunting or fur trapping. Over the years the bill has modified itself to answer many of the questions people had about this. I think the bill does a good job. This can certainly be discussed at committee, but it is an improvement over what we have seen before and it is well worth supporting.

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-50, amendments to the Criminal Code in relation to cruelty to animals.

Members who have been in the House longer than I will remember from the last Parliament when the bill was Bill C-22. This legislation has been before this House consistently since 1999 when it was first introduced in an omnibus criminal law bill, Bill C-17.

Canadians from all walks of life have expressed and continue to express support for stronger animal cruelty laws. I know the minister continues to receive countless letters in support of these amendments. I have certainly received letters and heard concerns from my constituents. As MPs we hear from a lot of people. I heard from someone this morning in relation to the puppy mill in Quebec which my NDP colleague spoke about previously. This issue is very much on the minds of Canadians.

For various reasons the bill has never passed both this House and the other place in the same form. It is true that when it was first introduced, a degree of discomfort was felt by a number of industry stakeholders, farmers and animal researchers, about the potential negative impact of the legislation on their activities. These are legitimate concerns and they have been addressed.

Over the past five years, significant work has gone on in Parliament, in the chamber and in committee, as well as in meetings and discussions with concerned parties to bring a greater consensus in support of this legislation.

In the summer of 2003 when a final set of amendments were made to the legislation, a broad based coalition of industry groups came to feel more comfortable with the legislation and in fact supported these amendments, alongside animal welfare groups and veterinary associations. These groups even wrote to urge the minister to re-table this very legislation.

Since that set of changes, not just those people who advocate for the interests of animals, but also many of those whose livelihoods actually depend upon the use of animals are now eager to see these amendments become law. Those groups include organizations representing the agricultural sector, trappers, fur farming industries, and the animal research community. This indicates that we have addressed a wide range of concerns.

One of the objectives of the reforms is the enhancement of existing maximum penalties for animal cruelty. Today even the most heinous mutilation or torture of animals can result in only six months' imprisonment or a $2,000 fine. There is widespread consensus that these maximum penalties are too low to deter or denounce behaviour that we know happens across this country. Our views toward animals have changed a lot in this country and in this world over the past number of years.

Part of the penalty enhancement reform involves making these offences dual procedure and giving the Crown the ability to proceed by indictment in the more serious cases. In those cases, the maximum penalty goes up from six months in prison to five years, and the ceiling of $2,000 is removed, in keeping with the sentencing for all indictable offences in the code.

There are more specific sentencing measures in addition to these general standard ones. Currently there is a two year maximum on orders preventing the offender from owning or possessing animals. This two year maximum ceiling will also be removed so the courts will have the power to make an order for any length of time the court considers appropriate.

In addition, Bill C-50 will introduce a new power for the court to order, in addition to any other sentence, that a convicted offender repay the costs of taking care of the animal in question. If a person or organization took in the animal after the cruelty incident, the person who committed the offence would be responsible.

In every province there are statutorily created societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals. We all know those. These agencies are under a legal obligation to protect animals from cruelty by seizing and caring for them when they are in distress, for example a puppy mill, yet these statutory bodies receive very little in the way of public funding. When they take in an animal that has been abused, care for it and provide veterinary services, food, shelter and comfort, they generally do so with money obtained from public donations.

We all know people in our communities who do this kind of work. In my community of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour, I think of people like Judith Gass, a former Progressive Conservative candidate in the 1993 federal election, who does great work. I also think of the many vets in my riding who talk to me about the concerns they have when they see animals in distress.

Bill C-50 will make it clear that the offender may be found responsible for repaying the costs associated with his or her criminal act. That is good sentencing policy. By holding the offender accountable for the costs, we do a better job at educating the offender about the consequences of his or her crime and hopefully this contributes to his or her rehabilitation.

Law reform is about more than adjusting numbers. It is also about making sure the substance of the law prohibits all forms of misconduct and does so in the clearest possible language and provides the most coherent structure of offences. Bill C-50 also contains a number of elements that accomplish this important set of objectives.

The amendments will create a new offence that directly targets the wilful killing of an animal with brutal intention, such as by strapping an explosive on the animal--we have heard of that--or fastening the animal to a railway line. These types of acts, which most people consider impossible to imagine, are perhaps the most despicable form of cruelty we can imagine and may not be caught by our existing law if the person had or could prove a legitimate excuse for killing the animal. We are closing this loophole so that even when the law allows a person to kill an animal, he or she cannot do it with the intention of being brutal.

Euthanasia, slaughter, hunting practices could be humane. The hallmarks of humane euthanasia are that the methods are tried and true. They involve a minimization of pain and suffering. They are reproducible and reliable and do not pose any risk of failure or risk of harm to others.

Sometimes a person who kills an animal has another set of intentions reflected in acts that are not reliable methods of killing, which pose risks to that person or to others and which have uncertain and non-reproducible effects. Exploding an animal in a microwave, which we have heard of, or dropping it from a tall building are examples. If someone kills an animal with that state of mind, there is a good chance he or she is being deliberately brutal. The law must clearly prohibit and sternly punish this type of behaviour.

Another set of changes will clear up some of the language that is currently confusing. The code now has a set of offences in relation to cattle, a set of offences in relation to animals that are kept for a lawful purpose, and another set of offences for all animals. This produces duplication and some overlap. There are also omissions. For instance, there are special provisions on cockfighting and the keeping of cockpits. We know, sadly, that dog fighting also happens in our country. Why should our law not also prohibit that? There is no reason.

Bill C-50, a comprehensive law reform package in this area will rectify that deficiency. It will also remove current language, such as “dogs, birds and other animals”, which is a phrase that can do nothing except confuse. It will also remove the nonsensical notion of wilful neglect, which does not exist anywhere else in criminal law because it conflates two entirely different concepts. Wilful means deliberate and intentional, whereas neglect means inadvertence. Combining these two into one concept is bad criminal law. Bill C-50 will rectify that.

The bill will also provide a definition of animal when none currently exists. That definitely will be a “non-humane vertebrate”, for example. Today, there is no definition. This means that a worm or a snail or any possible living creature would probably be included. Since many industry groups have expressed concern over such an interpretation, Bill C-50 brings desirable clarity to the question. Without Bill C-50, the question of the scope of the law remains open and it leads to uncertainty.

Finally, Bill C-50 will create a new part of the Criminal Code with the title “Cruelty to Animals” as a chapter devoted just to these offences. This will permit the offences to be taken out of part XI, “Wilful and Forbidden Acts in Respect of Certain Property”.

I am aware that this change has been the subject of debate and discussion, but let us be clear about it in the bill. This change will not and cannot have the effect of altering the legal status of animals as property. The fact that animals are property is a result of property law, which is within the constitutional authority of provinces, not of this Parliament. The common law of this country and that of our Commonwealth cousins bears out centuries of jurisprudence that firmly establishes that animals are the property of the people or of the Crown. There are some people who would disagree with that. There are people who were referred to earlier as radical in this cause. This is a mainstream bill. This is not an extreme bill. It is legally impossible for the relocation of offences from one chapter of the Criminal Code to another to have any effect whatsoever on the legal status of animals as property.

The bill reflects the mainstream and widely held view of Canadians that the people with whom we share this planet are worthy of more respect than maybe we accorded them years ago. The bill is a meaningful and reasonable solution that addresses the needs of many stakeholders, people who work with animals, people who own animals, as well as people who just like to be with animals. The bill provides a sensible solution for all Canadians. I urge the adoption of Bill C-50.

[Multiculturalism, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday residents in my riding of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour awoke to the shocking news that our community had been desecrated by racist graffiti aimed at Lebanese Canadians. These remarks reflect neither the opinions of the vast majority of citizens in our community nor those of communities across Canada.

Lebanese Canadians have contributed enormously to the growth and betterment of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour. In every way imaginable, business, education, health and culture, Lebanese Nova Scotians like the Chedrawes, Khourys, Haddads, Habibs, Fares, Karems, Toulaneys and others have contributed in countless ways to building our common community.

I strongly condemn this racist graffiti which does not in any way represent Canadian values. They represent hate and ignorance, nothing more.

These events, as unfortunate as they are, remind us that we must continue to do more to understand one another and to have the wisdom to embrace our diversity.

Canada was the first country to officially adopt multiculturalism as a national principle. It defines us as a people who believe in celebrating those things that bring us together, not those things that drive us apart.

[Petitions, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from residents in my constituency and the surrounding area on the issue of autism.

The petitioners recognize the tremendous burden that is placed on families who have children with autism. They are calling upon Parliament to amend the Canada Health Act to include IBA and ABA therapy for children with autism and to contribute to the creation of academic chairs at universities to teach IBA and ABA treatment. It is my pleasure to present this petition.

[Remembrance Day, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great privileges of being an MP for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour is the opportunity to represent a constituency with a strong military tradition.

In my community, people are acutely aware of the sacrifices that have been made to preserve freedom. As a major base of Canadian military operations, we know all too well the sacrifice that men and women from Dartmouth--Cole Harbour have made to win and preserve peace around the world.

Next Friday, in both Dartmouth and Cole Harbour, our veterans will be honoured and their sacrifice acknowledged.

One of the most positive aspects of Remembrance Day in recent years is the increasing number of children who come out to pay tribute to Canada's heroes. I will have the opportunity next week to visit a number of schools in my riding where children are actively connecting to this important part of our history.

As more of our veterans leave this Earth, it is encouraging to us all but particularly to them that their dedication and courage will continue to be remembered. There is no more fitting nor encouraging tribute to our great veterans than to see a child standing by the cenotaph in the cold at full attention and in awe at the sacrifice of these great Canadians.

We will continue to remember them.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I would love to see our health committee work on a non-partisan basis as reasonably as possible. I certainly am prepared to work with it.

With all due respect, the health committee has been inundated with ridiculous motions on everything from asking the Prime Minister to appear before it and talk about why he wanted to get rid of the Canada Health Act, as per Sheila Copps' book, to recently proposing that Earnscliffe should appear and discuss why it received contracts with Health Canada. These motions were discussed in committee instead of important issues like the one we are discussing tonight.

If the health committee can play a role, I would be very much in favour of that. The motion was passed on June 6. It was brought up on June 29 by the Minister of Health. We recessed for the summer. It came back before the House and was passed on October 5. We are just barely past October, so we have acted expeditiously on this. The Minister of Health is very sincere and consistent and committed on this issue. I hope the entire House will support this when it comes before us.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the parliamentary secretary talked about research and the investment that the Government of Canada has made juxtaposition with the private sector research that has been in place in Canada. When my colleague was the regional minister in the province of Nova Scotia, he was very involved in a large number of those research grants and investments in post-secondary education in Nova Scotia and Canada in general.

As most members in the House probably know, Canada has been hugely successful since 1998, investing in the range of $13 billion in publicly funded research through initiatives like CIHR and supporting granting councils like NSERC, SSHRC, and CFI.

Canada has become a leader, reversing the brain drain, bringing researchers back into Canada, not only repatriating researchers but keeping them here and bringing new ones here. When we look around the world, we see China and India, with populations over one billion people, investing heavily in research, innovation, technology and commercialization, it reinforces the wisdom of Canada's decision over the past five years. It also shows us the importance of keeping that up.

We have not had the level of private sector research that some other countries have had. We have been able to partner in a lot of cases. CIHR partners and leverages a lot of research money. Drug companies and others, some of whom are really responding to the challenge, would do well to keep Canada in mind, when they build their research plants, and continue to invest in Canada where a lot of their consumers are.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for his indication that we might have some meeting of the minds on parts of this. It leads me to believe I might have made a mistake, but that is not the case.

In terms of the health committee report, we all endorsed that. We all believe that this is an important thing. I believe it was June 6 that our health committee endorsed the resolution. There had been a previous one on February 3 by hon. colleague who asked me the question, indicating that the committee refrain from any action pertaining to the Internet pharmacy industry until the committee had fully studied the issue and submitted its recommendations to the House.

However, on June 6 we asked for action and on June 29 the minister moved. He is consulting in a way that is prudent and reasonable. He is ensuring that stakeholders are considered and he is balancing that with the need for action.

Therefore, I commend the minister and I think we can look forward to a common consensus when the bill comes before us.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak tonight on this issue. It is an issue that is important to me. When I came to this place last year, I sought out the health committee. It was the committee I really wanted to be on. I am proud that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health is a Nova Scotian. It did not necessarily help me get on the health committee, but I fought to do so and am pleased to be on it for specific issues.

The official opposition critic on health will know my passion for the issue of a national wellness program, for example, and there are other issues that are important to me as well, such as caregiving and seniors. The issue we are discussing tonight is an issue that has a big impact on seniors, among other Canadians. It is a pleasure to have a chance to speak late this evening on this important piece of pending legislation.

On June 29 my colleague, the Minister of Health, on behalf of the government, announced the three prong strategy on cross-border drug sales that included proposed legislative and regulatory changes to safeguard the safety and the supply of Canadian drugs. I would like to speak briefly about those proposed changes to emphasize how they respond to concerns about this industry. They respond to the concerns of ordinary Canadians, Canadians from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and across this country.

The security of our drug supply must be maintained. I think that when Canadians give it thought, they are concerned about the availability of drugs, particularly at times like this when there are concerns raised in the media and other places about specific health concerns like pandemics.

The measures that we are talking about are simply: a drug supply network, legislation under the Food and Drugs Act to restrict the bulk export of prescription drugs, and strengthening the food and drugs regulations to require that drugs be sold based on a prescription issued within an established patient-practitioner relationship.

The first measure to establish a drug supply network to be housed in Health Canada is essential for the federal government in order to have more comprehensive data to identify when or if a prescription drug supply shortage actually exists in this country. Such a shortage could be caused by exports to the United States or many other causes, such as manufacturing problems.

The growing importance of drugs in modern health care and the threat to Canada's drug supply through the potential legalization in the United States of bulk imports makes it necessary for the Government of Canada to have the capacity to introduce appropriate controls. It is essential that we know when shortages of essential health products such as drugs occur, so we can respond in an appropriate manner. Indeed, the health of our economy could be at risk at a time when the world is bracing for an overdue influenza pandemic. We must have all the necessary tools at our disposal in order to respond.

The second measure is export controls. They would only be implemented in response to a shortage or the risk of a shortage of a drug or a class of drugs essential to the health of Canadians that would only be maintained for a specified period or as the risk persists. We will respect our international trade obligations and investors can be assured that any actions under these measures will be reasonable.

The third initiative to strengthen the existing provisions under the food and drugs regulations is required, so that prescription drugs are sold pursuant to a prescription that has been issued within an established patient-practitioner relationship. The necessity for this measure has become clear as technological innovations such as the Internet, electronic prescribing, and telemedicine create new ways of linking patients with health care practitioners. These are important innovations for the health care system, but they also provide certain challenges and this is one of those.

Authorities responsible for regulating the practice of medicine will work to ensure ethical practices that are based on that established patient-practitioner relationship. I think most Canadians believe that this type of practical procedure makes sense. The patient-practitioner relationship is, after all, paramount to most Canadians in their experience.

I would like to take a closer look at the economics of the cross-border drug business with regard to the rise of Internet pharmacies. I acknowledge the inventiveness and the entrepreneurial spirit of our Internet pharmacies. However, we cannot forget that their business is based on an ancient and fundamental business practice known as arbitrage, which, in essence, is the old adage of buy low and sell high.

It is a fundamental tenet of our health policies that drug prices in Canada be affordable. This is increasingly important as pharmaceuticals replace many older forms of medical treatment.

Not so long ago, for example, ulcers were routinely treated with special diets, antacids and in the end, surgery. Then some scientists in Australia made the remarkable and unexpected discovery that ulceration of the stomach or duodenum was the result of an infection of the stomach caused by the bacterium H. pylori. The importance of this discovery is reflected by the receipt of this year's Nobel Laureates in physiology and medicine. Now we routinely treat such infections with antibiotics and avoid significant costs and intervention with patients and doctors and hospitals.

Many within the industry have attributed Canada's low drug prices to the Patented Medicine Price Review Board, the PMPRB, that regulates patented pharmaceutical prices. Most other developed countries in the world also regulate prices with a similar mechanism with the notable exception of the United States.

The PMPRB establishes the maximum price that can be charged by manufacturers for patented medicines sold in Canada to ensure that they are not excessive.Annually, it ensures that prices do not rise faster than the rate of inflation. Now on occasion manufacturers tend to set their prices internationally at a level that reflects the ability of the marketplace to pay. That is the relative purchasing power in different countries. In Canada's case these prices are often below the PMPRB maximum for marketing purposes.

Despite the sudden growth of cross-border drug sales since December of 2003, sales stabilized at about $1 billion Canadian retail per year, and Internet drug sales have declined from $617 million to $506 million over the past year. Currently, cross-border drug sales represent more than 8% of prescription drug sales in Canada, but less than 0.5% of the $300 billion U.S. market. Average savings to American consumers have fallen from 44% in December 2003 to less than 30% nationally. This is due in part to a strong Canadian dollar and to pharmaceutical manufacturers' restrictions on the supply of drugs to Internet pharmacies.

The recent decline also is due to the fact that Canadian Internet pharmacies are increasingly meeting U.S. demand indirectly through non-North American suppliers in places such as the U.K., India, and China where drug prices are often even lower than they are here. The top three Canadian Internet pharmacies source 50% of their product from Europe. These products do not flow through Canada and do not require approval by Health Canada. We should remember that these Canadian Internet pharmacies are businesses, not philanthropies, that are responding to market demand in the United States. If they do not, other foreign Internet pharmacies will fill that demand.

Another major constraint on the growth of these exports to the U.S. has been the refusal of pharmaceutical manufacturers in Canada to sell to those pharmacies which they have reasonable grounds to believe are exporting to the United States. A March 2003 ruling by the Competition Bureau in Canada determined that since cross-border sales violated U.S. laws against importing prescription pharmaceuticals, manufacturers had a reasonable business justification from restricting the export of Canadian products to sales contracts with pharmacies and wholesalers, so long as they continued to supply our market.

Ten manufacturers have limited the supply of their products to Canadian Internet pharmacies. While these manufacturers supply controls have caused concern for some that Canadians in general might face potential drug shortages, there is no evidence for this concern. Manufacturers have clearly indicated their intention to stop supplying export pharmacies but continue to ensure adequate supply for Canadians.

As well, pharmaceutical manufacturers' inventory levels in Canada continue to be at an all time high, double the level of three years ago, providing further comfort that the drug supply is okay. However, we do not want to rely solely on the current provisions to protect our access to affordable drugs.

In the U.S. 27 states and 19 municipalities are considering drug importation at various levels. Currently, there are bills before the U.S. Congress to legalize the importation of drugs for both personal and bulk rate. Given the relative size of our two markets, I think the health minister has noted that Canada cannot be a drugstore for the Americans. This has resonated strongly in Washington and in the U.S. media.

The government strategy to address the issue of cross-border drug sales has those three clear initiatives: first, a drug supply network; second, legislation to restrict bulk export of prescriptions; and finally, strengthening Canada's food and drug regulations to ensure that drugs are sold based on a prescription within that established patient-practitioner relationship. All of these are undertakings to safeguard the safety and supply of Canadian drugs.

We must continue to be sensitive to the economic dimension as we go forward, but we will move as a government to protect the drug supply of Canadians and we will ensure that our citizens have no reason for concern.