Alain Giguère

[Financial System Review Act, March 27th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with a quotation from Mr. Hollande, the socialist party candidate in the French presidential election. He said:

...my real adversary has no name, no face, no party. It will never run for office, will never be elected, and yet it governs. My adversary is the world of finance.

We had a golden opportunity to make major legislative changes that would have benefited all Canadians, not just the financial institutions as institutions, but also the people who use them, the people who need them, the people who deal with them.

The first problem with this bill is that it comes from the Senate, an unelected institution that does not include a single NDP member even though the NDP is the official opposition. Naturally, as a New Democrat, I have issues with that. We have been left out of the back-room-election-making and fundraiser-ticket-selling club. We are not there, and that is a shame.

This also means that those people are not listening to Canadians. They are not accountable to the public nor did they even hear from them. This bill was introduced surreptitiously, but Canadians deserve more. They deserve to see more studies, more deliberation and much more ideological exploration. The people in the other place did nothing more than gather a few technical facts. They did not ask any questions about how Canada's future should look in terms of wealth distribution. No such questions were raised in the Senate. Those people are not accountable to Canadians. That is the first problem.

Let us also talk briefly about something much more serious. At present, the large corporate financial institutions, taken together, have access to a pool of $500 billion. That $500 billion is not being used at this time. If only a small fraction of that money were invested in industry, this would generate substantial economic gains for Canada. Instead of exporting Canada's raw materials, we could process them right here. But the financial sector is not interested in making that kind of investments.

The question is whether we want speculation and foreign takeovers and purchases, or whether we are simply trying to build a modern, competitive industry. This would have been an interesting question. It would have been appropriate to bring in regulations to limit increases in speculation in order to steer our financial capital towards what our industrial capital needs. That is not the case here. Unfortunately, that is never the case with the Liberals or the Conservatives. They are always seeking immediate gain. It would have been better to look more than just a few years ahead and to look at what we can do better. None of that was considered in this bill.

There is another problem. In Canada, the co-operative sector plays a major role. It was introduced, in the past, in Canadian operations. There is also the phenomenon of mutualization inherent in the co-operative system. It is not protected and that is too bad. The co-operative system needed to be protected from privatizations whereby all the capital of past generations is divided among the current owners or members of the co-operative. This means that all the sacrifices made by past generations in order to create a co-operative will be distributed to a few individuals. There have been some abuses in the past, there are some happening in the present and, unfortunately, there will be some unacceptable abuses in the future. There is no mention of that, but it is a financial sector that deserves to be defended.

Where do consumers fit in all this?

Households are currently overloaded with debt in part because of the inflated value of homes and the speculative nature of purchasing a home. People are taking on too much debt and that debt is not going down.

Unfortunately, this is triggering bankruptcies at a time when salaries are stagnating and prices are increasing, including the cost of borrowing. As a result, the Canadian financial system is becoming an aggressive force against consumers. Consumers are paying dearly: 19% interest on credit cards, very low interest rates on deposits, extremely low returns on RRSPs. All these flaws remain unaddressed.

The bill could have addressed credit cards. By all accounts, 19% interest on credit cards is excessive. The bill could have put a cap on the glut of credit that causes people to go further into debt. This could have been limited or tightly regulated. That is not the case.

With respect to holds on deposits, apparently the fact that a $1,500 federal government cheque will not have to be held, that financial institutions will be required to deposit it immediately, is a major development. However, this was already included in a previously passed bill. It is not a major development.

The representative of the Standing Committee on Finance, the member for Saint Boniface, made it sound as though this was a significant improvement. Representatives of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions told her that the only problem was that it was already being done, that the amendments to these laws are already reflected in current practices and that there were no improvements. That is a major problem. Much more could have been done.

There is also the matter of one-week holds on deposits of corporate paycheques. This period is far too long. It could have been reduced through regulations. There are abuses and red tape. This government boasts about wanting to minimize red tape and, in this instance, it has failed big time.

Finally, there is no mention in the bill about a whole host of new financial products, such as commercial paper and derivatives. That is dangerous. The Conservatives say that our financial institutions are highly regulated and that our system is doing well because of regulations governing our access to credit. That is fine, but the bill deals with financial products that already exist.

As we saw in 2008, the problem lies with all the financial products not governed by any regulations. This proved to be very costly for Canada, and people are still paying the price, especially in their RRSPs. These plans and Canadian pension funds sustained major losses. The situation has not been addressed by this bill, which does not protect consumers. The bill does not protect pension plan members. It only protects a financial system that wants rapid and massive growth, looks for the quickest profits, and is not interested in the general prosperity of Canada, only in the prosperity of its financial institutions.

In view of the fact that the legislation will be reviewed in five years, we have missed a good opportunity to finally meet our economic needs and to come up with something useful, if only in terms of available capital, ensuring that the industry has the means to promote investment. This would help Canada in these times.

[Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, March 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague is right to want to address the abuses present in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. That is a fundamental role of government. It is our duty to protect Canada from abuse.

The problem with this bill is that it throws the baby out with the bathwater. Historically, Canada has always welcomed refugees. During the time of slavery in the United States, there was an organization in Canada called the underground railroad. Small Christian communities knowingly and voluntarily agreed to break the law to help people escape slavery.

People like Diefenbaker, the Canadian Prime Minister who condemned apartheid in South Africa, would have been on our side. Diefenbaker would have condemned a bill that prevents us from helping people. That is the problem. Under Bill C-31, people working to save slaves would have been considered—

[Emergency Debate, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the parliamentary secretary, the Patent Act is a federal act. Quality control for drugs is governed by federal legislation. It is as though she were saying that because we want to control the quality of manufacturing and investments in this industry, we want to take over a provincial responsibility. As far as I know, the provinces have never had this responsibility.

[Emergency Debate, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it can listen to the suggestions that we have made this evening and the entire House can listen to proposals from all the provinces, all the hospitals, all sorts of professionals and even people from this government. The main thing is that we have to succeed. That is what is important. We have to resolve the shortage problems now and forever.

[Emergency Debate, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the government of Quebec has sole jurisdiction over the delivery of health care services to its people. The problem is not that services are inadequate, that services are not provided, or that we want to provide services instead of the province. The pharmaceutical industry is under federal jurisdiction, and we need to figure out how the Canadian government can ensure that the industry supplies drugs to people, governments and hospitals so that they can use them. That is the problem. It is not a matter of jurisdiction; it is a matter of production.

[Emergency Debate, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this problem has been around for a long time. We have this problem because our country, like many others, has surrendered an essential aspect of public health to pharmaceutical companies, particularly generic drug manufacturers.

Canada is not a third world country. It is perfectly capable of producing drugs. It has the people, the know-how and the natural resources to do so. It has everything it needs for a drug shortage to be unheard of, yet here we are with a drug shortage. That is because, for too long now, we have allowed an industry that clearly does not grasp its public health duty to call the shots. In a civilized country, as we like to think of ourselves, we do not let sick people suffer because of a lack of drugs. This important aspect has obviously been forgotten.

There are many people we can blame for this policy. The important thing is not laying blame, but solving a problem that starts with drug production. Blaming the people who provide medical services or who produce a particular drug will not solve the larger problem, which is the drug shortage.

We can point accusatory fingers at some, but will that help us, as a country, to address this public health challenge? The answer is no. Perhaps it is time to overcome certain federal-provincial quarrels and certain internal parliamentary politicking to tackle this problem more seriously.

We are dealing with a generic drug industry that will do everything it can in the fight to destroy a competitor's patent, that will do everything and invest everything in order to be able to produce a drug without the patent and without having taken part in the research. This industry tends to be very generous in marketing its products to doctors and pharmacists. This industry invests more money in PR and advertising than it does in production or in building facilities capable of producing these drugs. This industry cares a lot more about the bottom line than it does about the shared goals of public health. This is nothing new, and it is every private company's prerogative to try to maximize profits.

At times, this industry has gone too far. It was called to order by the Commissioner of Competition, who rightly said that generic drugs are being sold at unacceptable prices in Canada. In response to that situation, the service providers got together to make bulk purchases at a lesser cost in order to lower their overall drug budget. We cannot blame the hospitals and provincial governments for lowering their costs, especially when the federal government is cutting transfer payments for health. They are doing precisely what they are being asked to do: making a concerted effort to reduce their costs.

They are successfully staying within their drug budget, but now they are being criticized. Perhaps we need to be more consistent. We could continue to try to find who is responsible. We are all responsible. We did not work together to put an end to this situation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development said that it was time to work together to find a solution. That is a great idea, but we must find an effective solution that leads to concrete results, an observable change and a marked improvement. Essentially, the solution must put an end to drug shortages. We must develop a truly Canadian pharmaceutical industry that is able to respond to our country's needs. We must no longer depend on imports—rather like public charity from other countries—to address our drug shortages. We must attack the problem, not just draw attention to it. Everyone knows that there is a problem. We must find a solution.

It is true that the federal government is likely incapable of finding a miracle solution on its own. The federal government must co-operate with the provinces, hospitals and other who provide medical care. There must also be some co-operation with the pharmaceutical industry. I am sorry to say it and to insist so strongly, but the pharmaceutical industry must conduct a thorough review of its priorities.

The pharmaceutical industry's role is to manufacture drugs, not to pay for doctors or pharmacists to go on trips to Thailand. The industry's role is to produce inexpensive and effective drugs for all Canadians, not to have the biggest advertising budget. This is exactly where the problem lies. Their priorities are not compatible with the establishment of an effective public health care system.

Canada has the resources. It has the means. It is up to us to ensure that it has the intention. The intention of this government, of this Parliament, must be to guarantee public health, to ensure that Canadians will have absolutely guaranteed access to these drugs both now and in the future.

The NDP has proposed some solutions. Not only have we proposed solutions but we have also listened to the suggestions of other authorities: provincial governments, pharmaceutical industries, doctors' and pharmacists' associations, hospitals and even the government. The basic requisite is that these proposals must lead to solutions. The current solutions are no good. Asking these people who are too focused on profit to take care of public health is unacceptable. That is not their role; it is ours.

It goes without saying that I do not intend to abdicate this government's responsibility to private companies.

[Emergency Debate, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my question and my comment are relatively straightforward.

Has Canada become a third world country, one that cannot produce the drugs it needs? Does it really need to rely on foreign companies that are raking in huge profits and, unfortunately, are not delivering the goods?

Canada is not a third world country. If this government wants to take measures to correct the situation, all of the political parties will support that decision. When will we finally have such a policy?

[41st General Election, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that, when Canadians see just how far the Conservatives are willing to go to affect the outcome of an election, they are losing confidence in our democratic institutions. We know that the fraudulent calls, the harassment and the in and out schemes did not happen only in the Guelph riding. Those things happened in dozens of ridings, despite what the Conservatives claim. And their only response is that we are attacking democracy. Quite frankly, Canadians will not tolerate those kinds of tricks.

That is why the NDP moved a motion yesterday to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their democratic institutions. By giving greater powers to the Chief Electoral Officer, we can finally get to the bottom of what happened during the most recent election and ensure that it never happens again. People deserve to be able to cast their ballots with confidence. That is why, in 2015, this government will be replaced by the NDP.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, March 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should know that when I first began practising law I dealt with compensation for victims of crime. I know a great deal about victims of crime.

First and foremost, they want the people who attacked them to be arrested. After that comes punishment. They want justice. But what they want most of all is to end impunity for criminals, not to impose exemplary sentences. In that regard, I would point out that putting a rope in every inmate's cell is not necessarily what victims have called for.

The Minister of Justice informed us that these laws are constitutional. However, a few weeks ago we were advised of a legal decision indicating that the omnibus bill's provisions on firearms possession were considered cruel and unusual punishment. Is that what we can hope for from Bill C-10 over the next three years, that judges will dismantle it piece by piece?

[Pensions, March 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, taking action now also means using available data. After inventing a false OAS crisis, the Conservatives are now backpedalling.

The minister is now saying that there is no need to rush to increase the retirement age. Once again, the government will say anything, depending on the mood of the day and the polls.

Will the minister finally confirm that the retirement age will remain 65 for eternity?