Alan Tonks

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, May 17th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his insights. These comments are not often brought to the floor of the House within the context of the budget, comments that reflect on our international responsibilities and accountability which we have shared over the last number of decades, from a developmental and an exchange of ideas with the developing communities of the world. This is nowhere more reflected than in the cities' relationships through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the city to city, municipality to municipality international exchange that exists with developing countries.

One of the highlights of the budget is to emphasize that the new deal is more than a gas tax for infrastructure in Canada. While that may be very important, it is also to empower municipalities to reach out as part of that Canadian signature that reflects our compassion and outlook to the global community, in particular, developing countries.

Would my colleague perhaps expand a little on how he thinks municipalities could be more effective, given that they have been given the empowerment, through the highlight in the throne speech of the new deal and through Bill C-48, which increases the capacity of cities to become part of a much larger new deal at home and perhaps an international new deal in the global context?

[The Budget, May 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, since the introduction of Bill C-48 the House has heard repeated concerns challenging the fiscal sustainability of the bill, particularly in what is claimed to be new spending for post-secondary education, additional support for cities, affordable housing and immigrant settlement services.

Would the Minister of Finance please clarify for the House whether the majority of this money was contained in the budget and whether this, together with the recent agreement with the province of Ontario, was fiscally prudent and economically consistent with the last seven consecutively balanced budgets?

[Quarantine Act, May 5th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague who has just spoken and who has had a considerable amount of experience at the provincial level. Obviously from his remarks he has indicated that he understands very well the requirement in a strategic way, with respect to the changes that have been made in the environment and events that have occurred recently, that there have to be strong partnerships that are going to be looking at those changes, and our reactions have to be immediate.

However, the question still remains in the minds of many people. It seems as if every day there is an invasion of privacy and issues come up that challenge people's personal rights and individual rights. The public generally is always trying to balance out those kinds of changes against the higher public good.

I have a question for the member. In view of that sort of propensity that exists out there, at this particular time why is the government determined that there must be an update of the Quarantine Act within the context and along the lines being suggested? I think people would like to know that in a very clear and succinct way.

As evidenced when we had the anti-terrorism legislation and all of the concerns that were related to individual rights and human rights, people wanted to know what the compelling reason was for changes being made that affected those rights. I would ask the same question of our colleague. What is that very compelling reason that exists as to why we are moving on these amendments to the Quarantine Act in this manner?

[Petitions, May 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the residents of Don Valley West, petitioning for health freedom. The petitioners say that healthy medicinal foods, herbs, spices, dietary supplements and other natural health and nutritional products should be properly classified as foods. To do this, they are petitioning that Bill C-420 be enacted to amend the Food and Drugs Act.

[Patent Act, May 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-274. I would like to congratulate the member for Windsor West who, in putting forward the bill, seeks to exclude certain medicines from the scope of the regulation-making power set out in subsection 55.2(4) of the Patent Act and to repeal the patent medicines notice of compliance regulations.

Members on both sides have spoken with great eloquence and a huge amount of insight into the manner in which the whole pharmaceutical industry operates. Many people have criticized the regulations because they are special rules that only exist in the pharmaceutical industry.

I would put forward the opinion that when one considers the amount of risk associated with pharmaceutical research and development, and society's vital need for the best available medicines at a reasonable price there is a compelling rationale to have special rules in place with respect to this industry.

In no other industry are the stakes as high. The quality of life of people not only in this country but throughout the world is dependent on investment in this particular site. This can only be achieved by an architecture of legal and enforceable rules that would ensure a certain degree of predictability in this particular industry. This is precisely why these regulations are in place. They provide an enforcement mechanism that is time limited, effective, and tailored to the particular features of the industry.

It has been pointed out very eloquently and in a very informed manner that there are problems and shortcomings with respect to the present regulations. However, they are predictable and they are what we have in place at this time. Under these regulations, patent disputes are addressed concurrently with the health and safety review process, and the majority of cases are resolved within a reasonable timeframe.

The enforcement mechanism of the 24 month stay is clear, predictable, and minimizes market disruption. It gives patentees the certainty that the generic competitor will not be able to market its product until infringement issues have been addressed.

The stay also serves as a convenient clock for judges to render a timely decision. The process under the regulations is less expensive and faster than traditional patent infringement litigation, which I am sure my learned colleague would agree is extremely expensive.

Repealing these regulations could be expected to have a number of detrimental consequences. It would necessitate much more costly and protracted patent enforcement litigation. It would also seriously undermine the ability of these companies to compete with their counterparts in other jurisdictions for research and development capital.

While there have been problems with excessive litigation between innovative and generic companies on certain drugs protected by multiple patents, I do not believe the bill provides an appropriately measured solution.

Industry Canada, with the assistance of Health Canada, has completed an exhaustive review of patent listing behaviour and litigation outcomes, and concluded that while the fundamentals of the regime are sound, a number of recent court decisions have enabled more aggressive patent enforcement practices on the part of generic drug companies.

The amendments in the regulations will reaffirm the strict rules for listing patents on Health Canada's patent register and will clarify when generic companies must address listed patents. This will ease Health Canada's administrative burden, cut down on litigation, and accelerate the market entry of generic versions of patented innovative drugs. As a whole, these amendments will bring greater stability and predictability to the intellectual property environment for pharmaceuticals by introducing firmer lower and upper boundaries to the market exclusivity of innovative drugs.

In contrast, the radical measures that have been proposed in this bill would forsake any semblance of balance, undermine R and D investment, and lead to instability and unpredictability in the marketplace. As I said, while the hon. member for Windsor West may have the best and most well intentioned desire in tabling the bill, its objectives will be counterproductive and would be better served by the government's current regulatory initiative.

[Infrastructure, April 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities.

Last week the Government of Canada announced the first bilateral agreement in the delivery of the promised new deal for cities and communities in British Columbia.

With agreements reportedly close to being signed with Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Alberta, can the minister inform the House on the status of negotiations with the province of Ontario, where the Government of Canada is committed to delivering $1.9 billion over the next five years to cities and communities across the province?

[Chinese Canadian Recognition and Restitution Act, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it would be an understatement to say that the Government of Canada understands the strong feelings underlying requests for redress from the Chinese community. The circumstances surrounding the Chinese Canadian claim are not proud moments in our past, nor are they the actions that Canadians today would consider acceptable. That is because Canada today is a far different kind of Canada than that which it was when those events took place.

Canada today values fairness, inclusion, equality, and respect for diversity. Canada today actively shuns racism and discrimination of any kind. Canada today embraces multiculturalism as a source of its strength. For Canada, multiculturalism is a conscious policy of accepting, respecting and yes, celebrating differences. This is what defines us as Canadians. Our multicultural policy encourages us to maintain our ancestral, ethnic and cultural ties, while simultaneously being a part of Canada is one of the reasons why Canadians have been able to live in peace and successfully address their internal tensions.

A quick look back over the past decades reveals just how we have achieved this, and how we have together built a Canada that embraces cultural diversity as a source of strength to be celebrated and not merely tolerated.

From as early as 1950 our cultural diversity has come to be understood as an essential ingredient of Canadian identity. In 1960 the Canadian Bill of Rights recognized and declared that certain human rights and fundamental freedoms existed without discrimination on the grounds of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex.

In 1970 Canada ratified the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination. In 1977 the Canadian Human Rights Act proclaimed that all individuals have equal opportunity before the law and with others. In 1982 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognized every individual as equal before the law. The multicultural character of Canada also gained constitutional recognition in the charter. In 1988 the Canadian Multiculturalism Act affirmed multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of our society.

To suggest that we have not already learned from our past is to discount the importance of these changes and the present debate must be seen in this broader context. I would suggest that it is because of the Chinese experience that modern day Canada has a myriad of safeguards in place to prevent history from repeating itself.

However, we all know that more can be done to ensure everyone has a voice in society and a chance to shape the future direction of this country. We have the responsibility to help individuals and groups to speak out and be heard, and in order to participate in national debates we need programs that equip communities and organizations to tell their stories, commemorate their experience, and then advance their interests, so that all Canadians in perpetuity understand the total context of their experience.

For this and all generations, we must focus our efforts in areas where abuse and discrimination can be prevented. As my colleague from Parkdale has eloquently pointed out, the government is taking concrete measures to strengthen the fabric of Canadian life by combating racism, prejudice and discrimination. These are forward looking measures. They are positive and they build on the success Canada has achieved in managing the tensions that can undermine our values and goals of society, and they are important in the unique model of Canadian citizenship. While they provide us with an understanding of our past, they will take us further along the path that will take us into our future.

Chinese Canadians have helped build this country in the same tradition that wave after wave of immigrants have and we know how much Chinese Canadians have given despite the treatment they have received.

As with many issues, while there are no simple solutions, Bill C-333 provides us the spirit to take a step toward moving forward on this issue and deserves the collective wisdom that a committee can provide. I believe it is critical to keep the doors open for a more comprehensive and forward looking bill.

For that reason, while we cannot change the past, we can as a government commit to changing the future. I would urge my fellow members of this House to support sending Bill C-333 to committee where we could work toward a more comprehensive, forward looking approach, while recognizing the injustice inflicted on Chinese Canadians, and produce a positive report, conducive to a cohesive Canadian society.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, as obviously time did not allow me to bridge or link the climate action plan that was presented by the minister a few days ago and which will be the subject of ongoing consideration by the environment and sustainable development committee.

Let me say in relation to the issue of the large emitters, which was raised by the member, the large emitters have been reduced to 45 megatonnes. That is their target; there has been a huge amount done through the sustainable development and economically sustainable framework to evaluate what those reductions should be. There is a huge degree of buy-in from the large emitters. That means they will meet their targets and in fact they will continue to create jobs at the same time. We have achieved what the minister says is a sustainable economic approach.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am not experienced to the extent that others are in the House with respect to procedures. I can only infer, from the degree of support that had been in the House from all sides with respect to the Atlantic accord, that the government thought it would not be a hindrance and it would not fetter a bill on which there was so much agreement.

It would appear that the omnibus approach is being held back somewhat because while there is total agreement on the accord, the instrument appears to be the part that is contentious. I would hope that we would find some resolution to that.

It has been brought to my attention that we would be prepared to pass the budget today if we had unanimous support.

However, on the second point, we also, creatively, will find solutions to that particular issue. I think we have found a solution with respect to the second case that the member has mentioned and that is the proposal to take toxic out of the CEPA legislation and to incorporate that into the budget bill as it has been deemed to be a necessary instrument to the implementation of some of the funds that are mentioned.

There appears to be a resolution to that. I tabled a report from committee that delineates why there is another way of doing it. I would suggest that once that goes through finance there will be no obstacle to approving the budget bill, at least not from that perspective.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2005, April 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the budget today. The last overview that was given in response to a question from my colleague was an entree into the perspective on the budget that I would like to address.

In as much as I am the chairman of the environment and sustainable development committee, commenting on those aspects of the budget from an environmental perspective is probably very appropriate.

From time to time in the House the economic sustainability with respect to what we do is often drawn into question. It has often occurred to me that in the heat of partisanship we tend either to forget what the corporate memory is with respect to our economic advancement or we deliberately choose not to remember it.

In fairness, when we do reflect on Canada's economic position on a comparative basis in the world, it bears repeating that we have achieved, in a global context, a pretty remarkable and quite substantial fiscal success.

I would like to emphasize that in a world where even our provinces are struggling with fiscal deficits, Canada's record, in several consecutive budgets since the early nineties, has been to bring the deficit under control. In fact, in 1997 we eliminated the deficit. Among the G7 countries, Canada continues to have one of the most progressive and successful economic strategies, to the extent that we have one of the best job creation records with the creation of nearly three million jobs since 1997. For people watching their government struggle with economic pressures and issues in the global village, that in itself is a tremendous success.

Yes, we face huge challenges with respect to rural areas, in particular in our farming and agricultural communities, in our softwood lumber industry and in our cattle industry, but, generally speaking, living standards across our country are improving. When we look at those who are most affected, such as our first nations people, many aspects of the budget reach out and attempt to deal with those issues.

When one reflects on the stagflation and inflation cycles over the last 30 years, one cannot help but look at the economy in terms of its key indicators: the low rate of inflation and the stability within our interest rates and financial regime. These have contributed to the kind of confidence that people have, not only domestically but externally, entrepreneurs and those who are looking to invest capital, and are looking at Canadian opportunities. They have in fact voted with their confidence in sustaining that level of growth in the economy.

I think the budget attempts, which is what the Minister of the Environment said, to find the confluence of two important and fundamental phenomena. One emphasizes what Canadians truly feel in terms of the environmental legacy that they would like to pass on to future generations. All the indicators are, in terms of climate change and so on, that legacy is threatened and every poll has indicated that Canadians are very concerned.

The second phenomenon is the economic phenomenon, the value added that comes from the investment in new technologies, the recognition that globalization is changing a lot of things in terms of tariffs and barriers to commerce and capital. The Minister of the Environment has captured those two essential economic phenomena and has said that we have to combine the concept of sustainable development with a sustainable economy. He calls it the sustainable economy in the sense that we are not only creating a legacy for our environment but also value added in terms of our economy. Everything we do is an attempt to balance those two particular characteristics.

The other criteria that we attempt in this budget and in everything we do is to first invest in people. We want to know what capacity the people of Canada have to be entrepreneurial, to be creative, to add value to their own lives and, in turn, build a stronger Canada, to also invest in ideas and research and enable the commercialization of that research to add value to the Canadian economy.

The third criteria was to look at the regions. Canada really is, and has been throughout history, cognizant of regional needs. Whatever the budget does it should attempt to satisfy those regional needs, to maintain a fair and competitive tax system and to finally to make markets more efficient and more effective.

When we talk about the environment, we try to capture the stability of our economic past in this budget by attempting to maintain those five or six critical areas for investment in reinvigorating the Canadian dream.

When we come to the economy, the record has been quite clear in terms of the environment. Since the 1997-98 budget, the government, with the support of the opposition parties, has invested over $10 billion in areas related to adding value from an environmental perspective to the Canadian economy.

The 2005 budget delivers on some key commitments that have been in two or three red books or throne speeches. The budget delivers on the government's commitment to a green economy with a $5 billion package of measures over the next five years. It does this by addressing the issue of greenhouse gases and by recognizing that investing in environmental technologies will transform the economy and add jobs as we do it. It also recognizes that building on the tax measures that have been announced in the past will create a stronger investment climate and, in particular, in the area of renewable energies.

The whole concept of investing in public infrastructure, be it through cities or be it through the areas of the green funds through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, cannot help but add value to the Canadian economy.

In terms of climate change, I just wanted to mention, in case it has been missed, if we look at the $1 billion with respect to the climate fund; the $250 million in the partnership fund that is reaching out to the provinces and regions, the cities and rural communities; the $225 million over five years for the retrofitting programs in residential and commercial homes and buildings; and the sustainable energy science and technology strategies, all of these form a comprehensive framework within which there will be investment and returns that will come back. Those returns cannot help but improve life for Canadians, make us more competitive and create a better environment for the future. I would hope that those elements of the budget would be supported by all members of the House