Anthony Rota

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I would echo the hon. member's thoughts and also continue on the wonderful work that our troops are doing.

I found it very interesting living with the troops. When we were there we lived in tents, slept on cots and ate with the troops in the morning. Someone earlier said that when we talked to the troops, they would say whatever we wanted to hear because they knew who we were.

I am not a high profile politician or a high profile person in Canada. I would sit down with some of these soldiers who were not familiar with Canadian politics. It was not with the leadership. It was with the average guy in the bottom. We would start to talk, and it was interesting to get their feedback.

Nothing is perfect. In a war zone nothing could be perfect. However, contentment was one of the things that I got from them. They were happy with their situation, considering what was going on. They were content with much of the support they were getting, not only from their leadership, but from their government as well.

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this very important debate. There is no question in my mind that the mission currently being undertaken by our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan is vitally important for the future of the country and the security of Canada.

Last month, I was fortunate enough to accompany the Minister of National Defence on a trip to Afghanistan. During that trip, I had a first-hand look at the extraordinary work that our dedicated men and women in uniform are doing to help a country that faces some incredible challenges. I saw just how grateful the Afghan people are for the tremendous efforts that Canadians are making to help rebuild their country.

In Kabul, we met several members of the Afghan government including the defence minister, the foreign affairs minister and the rural development minister. We also met President Karzai. During these meetings, we discussed Canada's involvement in Afghanistan not only from a military perspective, but also in the areas of diplomacy and development.

I must say that all the ministers, as well as President Karzai, expressed their deep gratitude to Canada for what we are doing. They see Canada as a true friend to Afghanistan, a friend that is determined to support them during these difficult times.

We heard very complimentary comments from Afghan officials, local community leaders and ordinary citizens about how the men and women of the Canadian Forces were going out of their way to help people. A British general actually said to our troops that they were an inspiration to other NATO contingents. This is truly something that we should be proud of.

When we were driving in the streets of Kabul on our way to our meetings, I saw a city that does not live in fear. I saw a city where buildings were being reconstructed, where the markets were busy, and where boys and girls both were going to school. I saw a city where people looked to the future with hope.

Our trip to Afghanistan also took us to the southern city of Kandahar, where Canada has deployed a provincial reconstruction team. There we met with Pushtan tribal leaders and with the governor of Kandahar province to discuss Canada's role in bringing stability to the region. The Chief of Defence Staff, General Hillier, also joined us in the ceremony to name the Canadian camp in Kandahar. As members might know, the camp is now known as Camp Nathan Smith, in honour of one of our four Canadian soldiers who lost their lives in an unfortunate incident that occurred at Tarnak Farm in April 2002.

Through its work, the Canadian provincial reconstruction team will help extend the authority and the reach of the Afghan government. By helping to build a just and peaceful society, our team will foster prosperity and improve people's lives.

The multilateral nature of our work in Afghanistan means that Canadian Forces will once more work alongside friends and allies. They will no doubt prove yet again that Canada can be counted on to stay the course and fight against terrorism. By preventing Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for terrorists, the Canadian Forces are not only protecting the people of Afghanistan, they are protecting all Canadians.

The tragedy of September 11, 2001, proved to Canadians that we are vulnerable to the threats of terrorism and the spillover effect from failed and failing states. In today's increasingly interdependent world, domestic security is closely linked to events happening outside our borders. That is why the Government of Canada has made a commitment to respond to a potential threat to Canadian security before it reaches our shores. That is why we are in Afghanistan.

In Kabul, as in Kandahar, we spent a lot of time with members of the Canadian Forces. Discussions with these men and women only confirmed what I already knew. These people are very professional and very dedicated. They are open, generous and sensitive to the Afghan culture and to the needs of the local people. They are prepared to take risks and are determined to use their many skills to provide the people of Afghanistan the stability and security they deserve.

Of course I have just as much admiration for the members of our armed forces who support our deployment in Afghanistan from our sustainment base in the region. They also do fantastic work.

When I look at members of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, I see a remarkable group of Canadians with the right training, the right equipment and the right leadership, and I can see that they perform an important mission in Afghanistan and for Canada.

I really wish all Canadians could see the fine work that our soldiers are doing, just as I have. We should be proud of the work that our men and women in uniform are doing for us in the rest of the world. The Government of Canada certainly is. That is why it is providing the Canadian Forces with the right equipment and financial resources to allow them to do their job.

In closing, I would like all the troops in Afghanistan to know that even though they may be far from home and far from their families--after talking to the troops I have learned that is probably one of the most difficult things, that time of being away from their children, their wives, their loved ones and many of the things Canadians take for granted--our thoughts, our support and our nation are with them.

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I could draw a parallel and perhaps give an example. Let us take a city like Ottawa for example. We have a mayor and some counsellors, maybe 24 or 25, but how many police officers do we have? In this example, we see that diplomacy is at one level, but keeping the peace is at another level, and it is the police who take care of that.

[Canada's military mission in Afghanistan, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to travel to Afghanistan about a month ago. It was most interesting to see. The member mentioned the three D s: defence, diplomacy and development. They do not really all take place at the same time or follow one another. They occur in various places and not in any special sequence. Sometimes they do occur at the same time.

One thing I find very interesting is the fact that the development going on in Afghanistan can be seen.

I had the opportunity to visit Kabul, where I went first. I thought things were very difficult there. Later on, I went to Kandahar. I saw there the difference it made. I saw that Kandahar had once been what Kabul is now.

The armed forces have made the difference. I saw that people appreciate what they are doing. I was especially proud watching children and the people talking with the Canadian armed forces. They were very proud and treated them very warmly because they understood that the Canadian Forces were their friends and had come to help them. I was very moved to see that a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan is welcomed by the people of the region.

I come back to what I said at the start. It all begins with defence. Going there and providing some stability is essential. Once there is stability, development can occur and progress follows. In Afghanistan the difference it makes can be seen. I think the three D s happen all at once in places all over in Afghanistan, wherever our forces have been.

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

Mr. Chair, I will start with the question regarding the north and then go on to arbitrage.

The supply and quality of medicine have to be guaranteed. The last thing we need in this country is a shortage. Once we have a shortage, we cannot supply our own people with medication.

There is one thing I would like to make clear. Some of the opposition members on the other side make it sound like this is the end of Internet pharmacies. This is not the end of Internet pharmacies. This is merely the end of transporting our drugs to the United States or any other country that would undercut our prices.

One of the things to remember as well is that someone in a northern community can still order drugs through the Internet.

On the issue of arbitrage, I will cover it quickly. Arbitrage is a trading term used in the stock market and many markets. It is about finding a lower price somewhere and then selling somewhere else at a higher price. Unfortunately, it is all based on grabbing a supply and exhausting it. As soon as we exhaust it, then we are back up to normal. Otherwise, we see something average out.

What ends up happening with arbitrage is that once the supply ends, we end up with all the prices going to the higher price. In this case, we are looking at the United States, which is about 10 times our size. If we took our one-tenth of our size, and put it up against the U.S., which is 10 times our size, and we average it out, we know the prices are coming down. What will happen in fact is that our prices will rise to the price that the Americans are charging.

Not only would something like that be detrimental to Canadians' health, I think it would also be detrimental to our health care system and what it costs us to supply it.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise this evening to add my voice to the many who are speaking out on the issue of cross-border drug sales. From 2001 to 2004, Internet pharmacy sales grew by 1,100%, rising from annual sales of $70 million in 2001 to $840 million in 2004. Combined with cross-border foot traffic, the total industry accounted for approximately $1.35 billion Canadian in sales in 2004. Internet pharmacy sales growth has stabilized since mid-2004 and actually began to decline in early 2005 due to enhanced manufacturer restrictions to participant Internet pharmacy operations.

I note that the Government of Canada is fully aware of the economic significance of this industry. The minister has been clear that it has never been his intention to shut down the industry. However, the responsibility to ensure that 32 million Canadians have continued access to safe and affordable prescription drugs is paramount.

The appeal of Canadian prescription drugs is driven by the price differential for patented drugs between Canada and the United States. The latest Patented Medicine Prices Review Board annual report identified the fact that Canadian drugs are, on average, 40% less expensive than those in the U.S. It should be noted that such price differentials with the United States are echoed in other OECD countries.

It is a fact that the United States has the highest prices for pharmaceuticals in the world and its citizens are looking to Canada for some relief. Recent estimates indicate that one million to two million Americans are now filling their prescriptions through Canadian pharmacies each year.

A combination of factors has kept drug prices lower in Canada, one of which is the key role played by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board in regulating the prices of patented drugs.

I applaud the government for its unwavering and continuing commitment to our regime of price controls. Furthermore, it is worth noting that our belief in the necessity of such regulations is in line with all other industrial countries, except the U.S.

The mandate of the PMPRB was developed in 1987 to balance increased patent protection for innovative medicines with affordable domestic prices. Under PMPRB guidelines, Canadian prices for patented drugs cannot exceed the median international price of a basket of comparator countries.

It s crucial to note that our price regulatory regime was implemented by the Government of Canada for the benefit of Canadians and our health care system.

Last year the American market for prescription drugs was worth about $300 billion. Last year sales of pharmaceuticals in the U.S. were equivalent to one-third of Canada's total GDP.

We have been fortunate thus far that the cross-border drug trade has not caused systematic drug shortages in Canada, but we should not take this to mean that shortages will not occur. At present, half of Manitoba's drug supply goes to the United States. The Government of Canada has a legitimate concern that any significant expansion of this trade could be at the expense of Canadian patients.

If Canadian drug policies were forced to the U.S. level, annual prescription drug expenditures in Canada would increase by more than $14 billion. The effect of such an increase on our drug programs and potentially on the finances of Canadians would be tremendous. It is also worth mentioning that if prices in Canada are forced to rise to U.S. levels, the price differential driving cross-border drug sales would vanish, as would the industry.

There are currently nine bills, four in the House of Representatives and five in the U.S. Senate, before the 109th U.S. Congress to legalize the bulk importation of prescription drugs from Canada. Import legislation currently has majority support in both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and has a strong potential for passage.

In addition, while illegal under U.S. federal law, the cross-border drug trade is receiving broad support from state and municipal governments. At last count, there were some 30 American states, representing over half the U.S. population and more than five times the Canadian population, at various stages of implementing state operated drug import programs.

Import programs adopted by state and municipal governments are intended to control the escalating costs of prescription drug programs and to support drug affordability for individual residents. However, the motivation behind at least some of the current proposed federal import legislation is to weaken, if not remove, foreign price controls.

At the 2004 OECD health ministers meeting in Paris, then U.S. Secretary Thompson implied that OECD members should lift their drug price controls to generate greater corporate revenues to fund innovation. More recently, U.S. Senator David Vitter, sponsor of a leading drug import bill, has indicated his intention of using drug importation as an indirect instrument to undermine foreign price controls. These are not incidental or innocuous developments.

We are not unsympathetic to the plight of millions of uninsured or under-insured Americans, numbering some 70 million at latest count. I do believe, however, that the Government of Canada's focal concern must continue to be the continuity and adequacy of supply of safe and affordable drugs for Canadian needs.

To that end, the Government of Canada is proposing a strategy to help ensure a safe and adequate supply of affordable drugs for Canadians. This strategy includes three elements.

First is a pan-Canadian drug supply network to provide Health Canada with a more comprehensive understanding of our drug supply.

Second is an export restriction scheme. This means that if the domestic supply of an essential drug were dangerously low, we would have the authority to introduce appropriate export controls to help preserve the supply for Canadian patients when necessary to protect human health. These export restrictions would remain in place only as long as the threat to domestic supply makes them necessary.

The third piece of this strategy involves the strengthening of existing federal regulations under the Food and Drugs Act governing the sales of prescription drugs in Canada, strengthening patient safety.

Although the threat to Canada's domestic drug supply may not be imminent, responsible government requires that we monitor potential threats and be prepared to take the steps necessary to mitigate those risks.

[Canadian Forces, October 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the distinct honour of travelling with the Minister of National Defence to Afghanistan to visit with many of the Canadian troops serving overseas at Camp Julian, Camp Mirage, as well as Camp Nathan Smith.

Spending Thanksgiving week among the Canadian men and women who are risking their lives to help the Afghan people rebuild their country and their lives was an experience I will never forget.

While in Kabul and Kandahar, I was reminded of just how dangerous life can be in that part of the world and how fortunate we are here in Canada to not have to face similar peril.

Our troops are doing a wonderful job and seeing the positive difference that they are making in Afghanistan made me extremely proud to be a Canadian.

On behalf of all hon. members, I would like to thank the Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan for their hard work and dedication, and pray for their safe return.

[Year of the Veteran, October 3rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Government of Canada launched its annual Canada savings bonds campaign. At the event in the new Canadian War Museum, the Minister of Finance, together with his colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and in the presence of distinguished veterans, drew the link between today's bonds and the original victory bonds, which were issued during the second world war.

From January 1940 until war's end, Canadians poured an incredible $8.8 billion into buying these bonds to help the war effort. The Toronto Globe and Mail , which for a while featured the ubiquitous “V for Victory” Morse code symbol on its masthead, once devoted an entire front page to a victory bonds poster.

In this Year of the Veteran, let us recall all those who served their country, as well as all those on the home front who did their part in helping return peace and freedom to a troubled world.

[Government Accomplishments, June 27th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the significant accomplishments the government has spearheaded in the House of Commons during the spring session of Parliament.

Of the 70 bills introduced by the government, I am proud to highlight the recent passage of the progressive Liberal budget. The budget will lay the groundwork for a new deal for Canada's cities and communities, a national child care and early learning system and new financial help for students and seniors.

However, there is much more. From land claim agreements for the Labrador Inuit to the passage of a veterans charter, to a historic 10 year plan to strengthen health care, the government is planning for the Canada of tomorrow.

Having retained the confidence of the House in over 40 tests during an eight month period, we are proud of our record of achievement. Looking back at the majority governments of the mid-1980s and early 1990s and the minority governments before them, I am pleased to say that the legislative record of this Parliament is second to none.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today to say a few words about Bill S-14.

I fully recognize the role that lighthouses have played in shaping Canada's history. Over the centuries they have come to symbolize coastal life to such an extent that they are now one of the most popular, if not the most popular, symbols of Canada's coast.

While these proud symbols still stand, their function has evolved over the years. Lighthouses are no longer a primary aid to navigation for mariners. New marine technology has usurped the role that lighthouses used to play. Technological innovations like digital global positioning services and automatic identification services offer today's mariners kinds of modern efficiencies that lighthouses never could.

This technology is also extremely cost effective, an important consideration in the highly competitive marine transportation sector.

For cost efficiency and overall effectiveness, lighthouses simply cannot compete, but this does not mean that lighthouses do not have a role to play in modern Canadian life. These structures continue to occupy a special place in the hearts of everyone from coastal communities.

Take their tourism potential for instance. Tourism is a burgeoning industry in Canada's coastal region. Lighthouses continue to be a popular attraction for visitors looking to experience coastal life first hand. In a similar vein, their educational value cannot be overestimated. For young Canadians they stand as an important symbol of our history and a tangible link to origins of modern Canada. To lose this link to our past would be an immeasurable loss to our society.

The question remains: how do we maintain these lighthouses? Given their function in modern Canada, what is the best way to preserve this key part of our shared heritage for future generations? This is a serious issue for DFO, because the reality is these lighthouses are playing a smaller and smaller role in DFO's operational work.

The department currently owns more than 750 structures that are considered by the public to be light stations. About 250 of these are known as major lighthouses which used to be staffed and were built complete with accommodation buildings.

In cases where the lighthouses remain staffed, DFO has tried to maintain the integrity of these lighthouses and outbuildings. For the remainder, the department has limited its maintenance to keeping aids to navigation service.

Over the years DFO has worked to transfer lighthouses that are surplus to program needs to other levels of government and local not for profit organizations which are finding new alternate uses for light stations, including promotions for tourism.

As it stands, Bill S-14 would place new responsibility on DFO to maintain and preserve light stations. Moreover, these responsibilities would detract from the department's ability to provide its ongoing operational services through the Canadian Coast Guard services that are essential in keeping mariners safe in Canada's waters.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are well aware of the key role that the Coast Guard plays in Canadian life. Like lighthouses, the Coast Guard is a visible symbol of life in coastal Canada but it is also far more than that. This is a proud Canadian institution that provides a full range of valuable life saving programs and services to Canadian mariners and indeed to anyone plying Canadian waters.

Investing departmental resources to maintain lighthouses would take much needed resources from these programs and services, programs and services like search and rescue, which play a direct and immediate role in keeping Canada's marine transportation system and the thousands of men and women who use it each year safe and secure.

Quite simply, the department does not have the financial flexibility to invest in light station maintenance beyond what is strictly required for operational reasons. It has no ability to take heritage considerations into account.

Without significant additional funding, DFO would not be able to maintain Canada's lighthouses as described by Bill S-14 without jeopardizing the valuable life saving services it provides mariners in Canadian waters.

The application of Bill S-14 must not compromise DFO's ability to fulfill its mandate and to make operational decisions about light stations as they relate to mariners' safety and security in Canadian waters. Having said that, I do believe that government has an essential role to play in protecting Canada's heritage, including its light stations. During the first reading of Bill S-14 it was indicated that we would like to see a better way to preserve the bill's intent.

While ensuring that DFO can carry out these responsibilities for safety and security in Canada's waters, it is essential that they continue to provide some heritage protection. A more comprehensive approach to the protection of built heritage including light stations would be through the proposed federal historic places initiative. This would give Canada's historically important light stations the level of protection they need. At the same time this approach would ensure that DFO could continue its high quality of service for mariners. It would provide that protection that mariners have come to expect while travelling our waters.

That is why while I offer my support for Bill S-14, I would prefer to see it amended to deal with the associated financial impacts on DFO and the services it provides in support of Canada's marine transportation system.