Brian Masse

[Patent Act, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Pickering--Scarborough East pioneered this issue long before I came to Parliament. He made sure it was at the table in the industry committee when I arrived in 2002. That was the first time this issue had a serious review. It did not reach the floor of the House of Commons for a vote, but it at least made it to that stage and I congratulate the member for that.

I can give the member a couple of examples of the cost to Canadians. The anti-depressant drug called Paxil had nine patents on it. The original 20 year patent was due in 1999. The drug did not get on the market until 2003 because of evergreening. There was a delay of 1,442 days which cost Canadians $114 million alone.

Another drug known as Losec was due to enter the market in 1999 but it took until 2004. There are still some outstanding issues regarding this drug. This one particular drug had a loss of $443 million. This is money that is lost to our economy.

The important thing we need to recognize is that Canada is an export country. Almost all our manufacturing and our industries are in surplus situations. We have a surplus in the United States. This is one of the few industries where we have a massive trade deficit. The industry itself no longer calls itself a manufacturer because it does mostly packaging.

[Patent Act, February 9th, 2005]

moved that Bill C-274, an act to amend the Patent Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker,it is a pleasure today to rise and speak about the very important private member's bill that I first introduced in the House in November 2004. The bill is quite simple. The beginning of the bill provides certain definitional changes that are necessary for purposes of clarification, but the real essence of the bill is a small paragraph in bold at the very end, which states:

The Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations are repealed.

I hope that the spirit of cooperation on moving bills forward to committee will be extended to this very important initiative. I think Canadians deserve to know that the politicians they elect take issues seriously, especially when those issues hit them right in the pocketbook.

The cost of pharmaceutical products has been on the rise in recent years. The current regulatory regime puts an upward push on prices, which results in average Canadians not only paying more through their benefit plans or at the pharmacy counter, but also through their tax dollars that support our public, universal health care system.

Before going too far, I want to talk about what this bill is not about. The bill is not about reducing patent protection for innovative pharmaceutical companies. The bill is also not about taking sides in the ongoing war of words and actions between brand name and generic pharmaceutical industries and producers in this country.

This bill is about making sure that the pharmaceutical industry is treated like all other industries before the law. That is what will benefit Canadians most. Currently there are loopholes, which means that both industries can use a variety of tactics which keep lower cost generic drugs off the market longer than the patent period and encourage litigation and waste of money and time.

The amount of legal machinations that are employed as a result of these regulations is sickening because of the money that is wasted, money that could be better spent on development and innovation, on getting generic versions to the market, and lastly, on getting people the medications they need to treat their illnesses.

Ensuring fair competition is an important public policy of this country. However, our drug regulation regime fosters anti-competitive behaviour. The end result is that Canadians suffer en masse.

Drugs are the fastest rising cost component in our health care system. I believe that we all have a duty in this Parliament to try to address this in the larger context of improving the affordability of our public medicare system. In fact, I believe it is part of saving it in order to ensure that we pass on this national treasure and heritage to our children and our children's children.

Consumers pay more for their drugs than they should have to, particularly for some of the drugs most needed by Canadians. When drug monopolies are extended past the 20 year patent period, consumers, patients, governments and our health care system pay more for drugs, because generic drugs are priced on average 40% to 55% lower for the same brand version of a drug. It has been estimated that the various legal techniques used have cost close to $1.5 billion since the regulations came into effect just over 10 years ago.

No other Canadian industry has similar regulations. This is isolated and alone and exceptional, so how does this happen? Why has the Liberal government allowed $1.5 billion of Canadians' money to go into the pockets of the mostly multinational pharmaceutical companies?

It happens because the regulations, known as the patented medicine notice of compliance regulations, or PM(NOC) regulations, allow it. Even though they legally are abusive and generally damaging, these regulations have been in place in their existing form for over seven years. To date the government has not changed those regulations.

The purpose of the regulations was and continues to be to develop a balance between the competing interests of the brand and generic industries. Unfortunately, they have the ability to do the exact opposite. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have chosen to sweep this important public policy issue under the carpet and also keep Parliament in the dark.

Let me give members a little bit of history. The regulations we are talking about now are relatively new in a Canadian context. They took their first form in 1993 with Bill C-91 and have been the subject of several regulatory changes since that time.

In the past, the Canadian government saw a key role for itself in limiting market monopolies in pharmaceutical products. Compulsory licensing was used, which meant that a generic could compete with the lower priced versions. In 1985, a federal commission of inquiry known as the Eastman commission, set up by Trudeau's government, concluded that: the use of compulsory licensing had saved hundreds of millions of dollars, no adverse impact on the research of the pharmaceutical industry happened, and nor were the decisions of multinational drug companies regarding investment in research and development affected by this regime.

But with pressure from the U.S. around the 1988 and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA in 1994, Bill C-22 and Bill C-91 radically altered the way Canada deals with pharmaceutical patents. The 17 year patent protection became 20 years. Products, not just processes, could be patented, and compulsory licensing was completely removed with Bill C-91.

A federal commission of inquiry today would likely find the opposite of the 1985 findings to be true. The radical shift in government policy, largely the result of pressure from the United States in negotiating free trade deals, has undermined the possibility for our government to retain some element of real control over pharmaceutical prices to ensure Canadians have access to affordable pharmaceuticals at the pharmacy counter and in our public health care system.

What do the regulations do? The easiest way to describe the regulations from a consumer's perspective is that through a variety of legal techniques which even the government itself has tried to stop but has failed in the courts, brand companies are able, if they choose, to delay generic drugs entering the market. How does this happen?

The Liberals would like us to believe it is a very complicated system that is best left to the bureaucrats. I would say it is only complicated if we believe that the bureaucrats are the best people situated to make decisions on behalf of the country. The truth of the matter is that the industry that regularly ranks first among all Canadian industries in terms of profitability, whose main operation is to repackage drugs that are actually researched, developed and manufactured in other countries, continues to get its cake and eat it too.

The regulations got off to a very bad start in the dying days of the Mulroney government when Bill C-91 was rammed through Parliament when the PM(NOC) regulations were instituted without any public consultation through the normal gazetting period. All of the changes since have been regulatory. This means that the representatives of the people in the House had no opportunity to debate them in a binding way. As a result, generic manufacturers have been kept off the market in a couple of different ways through what is known as evergreening and automatic injunctions.

Automatic injunctions allow brand companies to allege patent infringement when a generic applies for a notice of allegation. This process in and of itself would be relatively harmless if the real problem of determining what kinds of patents are allowed to be listed on the patent register were clear, but they are not.

A brand name can list many different patents for the same product by claiming different uses, patenting different forms, such as capsules or tablets, changing the name of the drug, or in the past, the name of the drug company. There sometimes are numerous patents that can hold up a generic from entering the market. In addition, the courts have interpreted that the regulations allow brands to list all of these multiple patents even though in one case the judge reported that it was “opposite to logic”.

Although the generics eventually win in 75% of these cases, they are on average kept off the markets between 15 and 21 months when the automatic stay is applied for. However, when we look at a few blockbuster drugs, we can see that when it is more profitable, brands have been able to maintain their monopoly for up to four years on average by applying for automatic injunctions on patents that it is fairly obvious have been strategically registered to maintain their monopoly and maximize profits, at the expense of consumers and our drug industry.

Is rewarding an innovative manufacturer with strong patent protection such a bad thing? No it is not, but that is not what we have with the PM(NOC) regulations. Instead we have a system that continues to add virtual patent extensions without accompanying results in research and development or domestic manufacturing.

It is important to note that not all brand companies employ such abusive tactics and are not actually in keeping with good business principles and the spirit of the regulations. The problem, however, is that it does not stop all those and a certain amount of patent infringements or claims have delayed generic versions in some of the worst situations costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

In 2003 the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the primary independent policy tool available to Canadians to examine how brand companies operate, reported that of 103 patents added to the patent register, only 16 were new active substances. Patents are being registered for uses not approved by Health Canada, for new coatings, and changes to active ingredients. This is not innovation; this is just delay.

The brand companies promised us innovation when the PM(NOC) regulations were first introduced. They continue to maintain that they are the only way to allow them to do innovative R and D in this country. Even with the favourable regulations today, which the brands actually do support, they have been failing to meet the commitment they made to Canadians of a ratio of 10% R and D to sales for the last three years.

In 2003 brand spending on research and development fell to its lowest level since 1989. Spending on basic research continues to be the smallest portion of R and D. In 2003 it actually fell by over 9%. Over half of the R and D spending was on clinical trials. Meanwhile they spend tons of money and an exorbitant amount of resources on marketing and advertising to people.

In a 2003 study by Research Infosource a generic company placed high, ranking at number 13 of Canada's top 100 corporate R and D spenders. This is the first time a generic company has ranked higher than a brand company. This clearly indicates it is not just the brand companies that can make exclusive claims to R and D expenditures as a justification for the system.

The president and COO of that highly ranked generic company made a presentation at the June 2003 industry committee hearings. That person in favour of a review, in favour of eliminating the automatic injunctions and the need for stronger regulations to prevent evergreening and argued that more R and D would happen on the generic side if the situation resolved.

Why should automatic injunctions and evergreening concern us here?

Drug prices are the fastest rising component of our health care system. The average price of a drug produced by a brand company increased by 75% in the decade between 1993 and 2003. In the same time period generic drug prices only increased by 42%. Generic drugs are part of the solution to keeping drug prices under control.

The system and the regime needs to change. Recently there have been many calls from a variety of sources not only for a review of the regulations but also to make sure that regulations allow for accelerated access to non-patented drugs.

We must make a real effort to improve this situation. Those who can least afford it are suffering the most because of the abusive strategies that are legally used under the PM(NOC) regulations.

Canadians, benefit plan workers, benefit plans themselves, employers and all levels of government that purchase pharmaceutical products for delivering public health care are hurt the most under the current regulatory regime. In fact, it often leads to labour disputes because benefit packages are one of the most contentious issues among organized workforces and their employers. Generic companies which may be prevented from entering markets and thus are losing potential revenue at least have an opportunity to sue for damages when they are put off in the market, but the Canadian public does not.

Brand drug companies can be investigated by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and if they are found to be selling at excessive prices, they are asked if they will voluntarily pay back the money. This is called a voluntary compliance undertaking, known as VCU. There is, however, no mechanism for this money to be reimbursed to consumers, drug benefit plans, or even provincial governments. All the money simply goes back into the Liberals' general coffers. There is not even a guarantee that the money will be spent on health care.

The consumers at the most vulnerable state overpay for drugs; the companies pay that money back and it goes to the government, not back to them. That is unconscionable and it should be corrected.

The PM(NOC) regulations are above and beyond what we is required in terms of patent protection for the pharmaceutical industry.

Public policy objectives must be more important than pressure from multinational companies. Any changes to the regulations must address the most important public policy objective when it comes to pharmaceuticals: making sure that Canadians and our publicly funded health care system have access to affordable drugs.

Just last September the Liberals promised to work with the provinces. The first ministers task force on developing a pharmaceutical strategy has as one of its nine key components to accelerate access to non-patented drugs. In order for that to happen the PM(NOC) regulations in their current form have to be eliminated.

Some independent sources have reviewed this issue over the last several years. One of the more interesting ones came from stock analyst Hemant Shah from the Wall Street Journal :

The anti-generic strategy by pharmaceutical companies has probably the highest rate of return of any business activity they do right now.

That shows the demonstrated awareness of Wall Street on what the practices of the industry have been through these regulations to maximize their profits at the expense of people.

I will conclude with the following quote from Dr. Marcia Angell, who is former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine :

Nothing drug companies do is as profitable as stretching out monopoly rights on their blockbusters. Extending that privileged time by a variety of stratagems is the most innovative activity of big pharma. For blockbuster drugs, it is certainly the most lucrative.

The health and welfare of Canadian citizens, and with an aging population, the requirement of access to drugs and medicines to treat their illnesses is a paramount issue not only for our generation but also for the future of Canada and saving its medicare system. Let us stop the abuse and make sure that we innovate and do not litigate.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question gives me a chance to discuss Ontario becoming the number one producer of finished vehicles this year. It overtook the state of Michigan, and that happened for a number of reasons.

Michigan recently lost several plants that suffered the same fate of having to leave or close, and this affected production quite significantly. Therefore, it has taken a step back. A couple of plants have been retooling. Because of that, production over the last year was reduced. However, in the future this will be good for Michigan because new vehicles and products will begin to roll off the assembly line.

Ontario taking the place of Michigan is a testament to our own auto workers in terms of the high degree of their productivity and the value they place on quality. Additional shifts have been added because of the experience, skills, commitment and pride that those auto workers have for their products.

The issue of the Toyota plant is potentially back on the table. However, Canada still does not have an auto policy so we have to shoot from the hip on individual plant procurement, which is the wrong way to go on a national auto strategy. Windsor lost a plant as a result of this and Liberals were quite critical of the situation.

A little more than a year ago DaimlerChrysler, which is with CAW, negotiated a potentially new plant in Windsor. The government was not interested in pursuing it very hotly. Later on the tide turned. The government became interested, but the automaker changed its mind and Windsor lost the plant. Even Liberals were critical of what happened. That is because we do not have a national auto policy.

The member was quite correct to point out the excellent work being done in research and development. The University of Windsor, the Ford Centre for Excellence and the St. Clair College in my constituency are great examples of investment in R and D, improving not only the knowledge base at the university but more important newer technology.

The important thing though is whether that new technology will be used for assembling and manufacturing in Canada to create Canadian jobs. We have seen with the textile industry and other industries in the past that we can invent new technology only to have it exported somewhere else. The company might benefit, but the workers do not. That is the catch with the national auto strategy. That is one reason why I would like to see a national strategy for the auto sector. That is why I believe the textile industry is linked to the debate today. It requires the same support in terms of a national industrial strategy which would benefit Canada.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the House today to this important motion. It is becoming a pattern that we have seen in our manufacturing industries and textiles is the latest to get debated here in the House of Commons. Others in the past have been the auto industry and the aerospace industry. It is important to recognize this motion and the spirit of it and what has been recently happening.

What we have happening is a pattern of behaviour where we have to go from crisis to crisis in our manufacturing sectors across the country.

It is not that the introduction of these programs was not a good first step. It is the fact that they always come at the 11th hour and they always come without any real sustainability for the entire industry. The issue just kind of drifts off the table and then we do not see anything again until another crisis erupts.

What is troubling about what is happening today in our manufacturing sectors across Canada is that they are facing all these challenges. As I mentioned in my starting remarks, the auto sector is one of those industries that has been drifting and we still have seen no action from the government. What ends up happening is that the government, even when it is pushed into taking a position on something, will create a report or a report will come through at committee and the recommendations will be set and then they will just be discarded or put on a shelf to gather dust.

For the auto sector, that was recently done with the Canadian Auto Parts Council. Three years ago it was asked to come up with recommendations. The government came across as being very sincere when it said that it knew the auto sector was in trouble, that it knew the sector had problems with overseas and production issues related to other countries, that it knew technology was changing, and that it knew there were challenges in infrastructure, so it wanted the auto sector to come up with some solutions.

What has ended up happening, after two years of meetings with some of the biggest players in the industry and a report at the end of the day, is that the government, months later, has yet to move on the recommendations in the report. It is shameful.

A lot of those same issues face the textile industry.

We have a report on vested interest partners, absolutions, and nothing has come to fruition.

I was glad to see the minister respond, to a certain degree, in The Montreal Gazette when he said that this did not mean this industry was on the brink of extinction.

Although he said that the industry was not on the brink of extinction right now, the government will be investing haphazardly in terms of a one shot element. That is not good enough for the vested interest partners, for the people who have their jobs in this industry, nor for this nation that has to compete with other issues relating to this around the world.

Today I had the opportunity to meet with Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters. They have a 20-20 vision about building a vision for our future. They are talking a lot about the same issues that we are discussing here today. I want to read from the preamble of the submission they made. I think it is important because it ties in very significantly to the issues that we are debating here. I just want to read the first two paragraphs. It states:

Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters embarked on our Manufacturing 20/20 initiative to create a blueprint that ensures the future prosperity of Canada's largest business sector. Entering into this landmark consultation, we were overwhelmed with the support of Canadian industry. After 98 meetings involving 2,500 manufacturers and stakeholders in communities across Canada, we heard virtually the same message from Newfoundland to British Columbia--business as usual is not an option.

Change is reshaping our industry, not only in Canada but around the globe at an unprecedented pace. The result is the emergence of a new paradigm of manufacturing where innovation instead of volume drives growth; where global business systems instead of production systems are employed; where companies do business not only across the country, but around the world and where competition is not among companies but in supply chains.

Welcome to the 21st century and the new age of manufacturing of global business. Welcome to the future

I think that is a good document because it actually highlights some of the things that we need, one being a national industrial strategy.

I know the Canadian Labour Congress has been pushing that issue. We had representations at a meeting here in Ottawa about four months ago that actually included members of all the opposition. However the government did not send a member. There was good representations among all political parties. We heard from the union and the labour organizations that put forth the challenges that we face.

When I met with manufacturers today, I heard a lot of the same stuff. In fact one of the delegates used the term “fairer trade”, something that we as New Democrats have pushed for a long time. They cannot compete with low cost wages that exploit workers, or in situations where safety issues go uninvestigated that put workers at risk or in environmental actions where post end products of waste management are not addressed. That is used as a subsidy to trump the Canadian workers.

That is wrong for a number of reasons. It is wrong for Canadians who are put on the streets or have to rely on a government supporting agency for a cheque, not because of their skill, not because of their dedication but because other people are manipulated, taken advantage of or work in deplorable conditions and do not receive a fair wage.

We are not helping those individuals either in the textile industry by allowing sweat shops in the world to go unchallenged to the degree that they have. We are not helping those individuals. Everyone around the world deserves a fair wage, not just the people in Canada.

We have to turn this around for our country. My colleague brought forward the issue of national pride related to the flag pins because there was a symbol involved. It does not matter if it is a pin or the Turner delegation. We had an emergency debate on the Ukraine. Two days later a delegation went to Ukraine bringing the face of Canada on hats made in China with the Canadian flag on the front. That says something is wrong about our symbolism. The made in Canada issue is something of which we need to be proud.

I know auto workers have run campaigns to buy domestic. At times people criticize them for that. They want to ensure that people understand that wages they receive in the procurement of those products pay for schools, health care and all kinds of initiatives.

The textile industry is one that deserves greater support. The things it can do are fantastic, not only in terms of places for people to work. It also brings pride to the manufacturing sector for all Canadians.

One recommendation on new technology is interesting and it has been talked about previously. It would be a step forward in helping the industry compete with other cross-subsidizations elsewhere. The recommendation is the tax treatment of businesses that provides an investment environment second to none in North America by implementing accelerated depreciation allowances for machinery, equipment and automated processes used in manufacturing and tax credits for investments in new technologies.

There has been a great deal of debate in Canada about moving to higher end newer technologies, about being innovators and all those things. If that is going to be our strategy, if we are going to put all of our eggs in the same basket, then there has to be recognition of the systemic way to ensure that newer technologies move through the R and D element and are on the shop floors at a quicker pace with higher turnovers to ensure that the jobs will be flexible and can adapt.

These are the types of things we can do to provide some flexibility. It is important for the government to take notice, not only of this debate but that of all manufacturing in Canada. This provides yet another example of a reason for a national industrial strategy, something that New Democrats support. We would like to see the government bring it forward so we have strong workers, a strong economy and there is a pattern dealing with success, not crises. We are seeking a national industrial strategy.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask my colleague from the industry committee a question on this important debate. In his speech he referenced the sad closure of Gildan. I know, in the context of that closing, that there was a big CEO payout, which was interesting to see at the same time. What is interesting, and people should know, is that the company was profitable in Canada. It was very viable but is now closed.

I would like the member to expand on his comments in terms of the repercussions to people in that area, of losing this manufacturing facility, and whether or not he feels that could have been avoided had we been more progressive on this file?

[Telecommunications Act, February 7th, 2005]

Absolutely, a great idea. It is something that provincially as well we have been advocating.

The bill is going to be very important to get at some finer details that are still missing from the legislation. Although we are going to support moving it to committee and we are supporting the concept, there are a few things we need to take a look at.

I want to start by giving some background to this. We know there already is a process from the Canadian Marketing Association where if we do not want to be on a call list we can put our name on. However many of my constituents have complained about wanting to have actual legislation with repercussions for those who violate the process. They want accountability in terms of legislation. If people really want to get off the list and they know the companies will be mandated to follow those initiatives laid out in the legislation they will be able to check every 90 days to see if they are on or off the list.

One of the things we value so much in this country is our privacy. In fact it is not talked about enough. Our personal privacy and the personal privacy of our families is really the essence of democracy, the ability to feel free at home and out in society, but that is being invaded to a certain degree by telemarketing.

There are some great telemarketers out there and the legislation would provide access for those who do want this service to their homes. At the same time, there are also telemarketers who are very determined to call multiple times. They use different strategies by forward calling to see if someone is home. They call at different hours depending upon the region and the times. It is just inconvenient for some people.

For example, I have a one year old son and a four year old daughter and when a telemarketer calls at dinner time it is not very convenient. I would argue that most of them are getting better about respecting people's privacy at home but others will call back and insist on it or push it forward to the next person.

There are issues related to the actual type of calling as well. The people receiving these calls often feel assaulted or pressured about that type of initiative. I know seniors have sometimes felt compelled to purchase or say things to get telemarketers off the phone. Working in the past with persons with disabilities I know they have the same type of experience where they just wanted to get the caller off the phone, or where there was a misunderstanding about the commitment that was taking place that would lead to another stage of the process of either acquiring a ticket for something, or a contribution for something, or a product that would then be billed to the person in their home. It is imperative that we have an examination of the bill.

One of my concerns about the bill is that it would have the CRTC monitoring this and it would be the actual provider of the service but it would be able to outsource this work. We have seen from this government the breaches in personal privacy because of the patriot act. We know the government is currently auditing many of the different departments and it is one thing that gives me great concern. It is costing Canadians millions of dollars to go back and redo work. I am glad that is happening finally now but I will give an example.

When the government decided to outsource the census, it realized that the data collection by Lockheed Martin, one of the world's largest arms manufacturing outfits that won the contract, which was highly controversial in itself, but second to that, it was going to outsource the data collection to the United States. That outsourcing caused a breach in Canadian security and a breach of privacy that has cost us dearly. The government has refused to answer in terms of how much specifically it has cost right now but it had to go through a number of steps, which is why I will be very interested to see how the outsourcing issue works.

One of the steps that it had to admit to, and this is from the chief statistician, was that for the 2006 census operation site we will have a security audit completed by at least three independent information technology security firms prior to beginning the processing operation. In addition, even though the census test operations are in Statistics Canada's head office building, the chief statistician has requested an independent security audit at the site as well.

They also took three other types of initiatives. Because this government was absolutely driven by the ideology that the public service is bad and the civil service cannot complete tasks, even though the fact of the matter is that the census had always been done in-house, for many years, it was driven by this ideology and so it outsourced the contract and caused the privacy breach.

That is my concern with the CRTC in this situation: we could see outsourcing with another breach of Canadian privacy. People who call in to be on the do not call list are going to be providing information to make sure that they are registered and to make sure that they are not going to be harassed or solicited the way they were in the past by these companies. That is very important. If we are going to give that up to the CRTC and it is going to be able to independently do this, then we need to find out the terms and conditions to ensure that we do not have a breach of Canadian privacy.

A number of different things are also very important in the bill. They will be special features as opposed to the voluntary issue that we have right now. One is the start of administrative monetary penalties. Penalties can be imposed on an individual, who could be charged $5,000 for an illegal call, and corporations will be charged up to $15,000.

There will be a process whereby companies and individuals that violate this law can then be prosecuted. We are actually adding teeth to what currently exists. That is very important, because if this type of activity is just seen as a drawing a slap on the hand or a warning and there is no real complaint process that leads to a penalty, there is not much of an incentive to stop this practice and respect people's privacy.

I would also like to point out that we as New Democrats are really proud to have finally pushed the government to do the right thing in stopping fines from being tax deductible. Business fines, environmental fines and a number of different levies after court cases, or penalties after tribunals, issued to companies for practices and behaviour that led to the breaking of laws used to be tax deductible. That tax deductibility element is finally being ended right now.

It was promised in the budget speech and never happened. We forced it at the industry committee so that it would be tabled back in the House of Commons and in Bill C-33 the government finally agreed to reintroduce that legislation. We now are going to see that very important aspect. It is just unbelievable that in this day and age a company can be fined and at the same time claim it back at tax season as a business related expense.

I am sure that a lot of Canadians who have paid a traffic ticket or a parking ticket would like to be able to claim it at the end of the year and get some of it back. Why companies could do it forever, I have no idea. Since 2002 it has taken three years to get this corrected. We are very pleased that we have been able to push that victory, because there is no sense in increasing fines if people are going to get more taxes back. Why the government would shovel money their way, we have no idea, but that has finally ended.

We are going to be looking at the impact of the bill on charities. Charitable organizations often derive many of their proceeds from calling. It is important to note that there are going to be provisions whereby they would be able to work with this legislation. We want to make sure that it does not eliminate or block the ability to do telephone solicitation for specific purposes.

We will hear at committee about some of those purposes. Right now, for example, political parties are not on the call list, which creates a big complication for reaching out to voters and also reaching out to individuals for volunteerism, which often happens through the party systems we have right now. These are things that will have to be discussed to ensure that there will be the ability for people to make contact.

It will be good to hear from the charitable organizations about the do not call list. I know that a number have already called in to express their concerns about a few issues but also with some support if it is done appropriately.

There has also been an impact on businesses, which are very much concerned, and we like to hear their issues. One person wrote in from Beautyrock Inc.. The person was concerned about the do not call list and also the violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In fact, the submission actually stated, “I think Mr. Trudeau would jump out of his grave if he thought individuals and businesses would be shut out from tooting their own horn.” That is in terms of an expression related to that opinion on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I think it is important for us to hear from those businesses that are going to make claims about and will have some expertise in understanding what this legislation will do to them and their employees. At the same time, I think we have to go back to what is really important here at the end of the day and that is for persons to be able to control the environments they are paying for, that is, their homes. People do have and should have the control element in order to have privacy.

That is why we are in support of moving this to committee. We believe we can work out this file's smaller details to ensure that people can enjoy their privacy and that charitable organizations and groups can still enjoy the fruits of their success through campaigning.

[Telecommunications Act, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure speak today to Bill C-37, the creation of a suggested do not call list, something that we as New Democrats actually had in the election platform, as well as other initiatives for consumers, including the reduction and control over credit card interest rates and lowering the GST, as part of a package relating to consumer initiatives that we were putting forth.

[Windsor-Detroit Border, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, in mid-January the first independent report on what needs to be done to address the Windsor-Detroit border was released.

Traffic expert Sam Schwartz spent one year reviewing how to improve traffic flow at Canada's busiest border and get truck traffic off of Windsor's streets. Indeed, it is home to 42% of Canada's trade and is a monument to Liberal neglect for infrastructure, scandal and process.

The Prime Minister has said that he supports a made-in-Windsor solution. He committed to the people of my city that he absolutely guarantees that a solution will not be imposed. Most recently, however, the Prime Minister has been saying that funding is still “subject to negotiations” and there have been no announcements of timelines for decisions.

Existing delays are costing our economy at least $6 billion annually. Exactly how long will the Liberals wait to make a real commitment to the country's most important trade corridor and respect the citizens who live there?

[Income Tax Act, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to debate Bill C-265. I am pleased to say the New Democratic Party will be supporting the bill. I would like to commend the member for Essex for his diligent work on this file.

I would also like to extend my congratulations to him and his wife Sarah and the rest of his family on the birth of their son David. It is difficult to commute between Ottawa and Windsor. It is stressful on a young family. However, there is better representation in the House when there are members here are at different life stages. I am glad he is doing that with his family here.

I want to tackle another important element of this file. There have been some eloquent presentations about the history of the treaty and how it has changed over time. The bottom line is that after all is said and done, this is about justice for a group of citizens who at a time when they are most vulnerable have found that the rules have changed.

I cannot understand why the government cannot say it made a mistake. I cannot understand why it cannot admit it had a negotiation problem and failed Canadians. I cannot understand why it cannot change this. The government did that today with respect to the Canadian flag lapel pin being made in China. When the Liberals were answering questions the other day, they knew that was not the actual fact and they came back today and changed it. I give them credit for that.

We should judge our society by the way we treat our most vulnerable individuals and it is those individuals we are talking about today. We are talking about people who have saved for their retirement, have planned for their golden years, and have now had the rules changed out by a deal in Washington and by a government in Ottawa. It affects their ability to live and prosper and to be effective members of our community. This is unacceptable.

It has been pointed out that Canadians across the country are affected by this, which is true. I have heard from people in Winnipeg, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Quebec. I have heard the same story every time. These people were expecting something to be delivered in terms of their income but suddenly the rules changed and their lives changed dramatically. Some of these people lost their homes. Some of them lost their self-esteem. They lost their ability to contribute to such things as their grandchildren's education or to other family initiatives. They can no longer do this because their income has been lowered. This has affected them in many ways. It is insulting.

The government has said it had to do this because one individual was paying more than another. I have not had a single complaint from anyone anywhere suggesting that seniors are ripping off the tax system. I do not know where that notion came from. I do not know who thought it up. I do not know if members of the Liberal Party are just listening to the bureaucrats.

Where are the throngs of Canadians who are saying our seniors are ripping off the Canadian tax system and that those seniors had better be brought into line? Through all the discourse on this issue, from all the correspondence I have received, and all the new stories about this, I have never heard that. It makes absolutely no sense and it is insulting.

There is a history in the House of Commons of waffling on this issue. This has not come just from the Conservatives, the Bloc, the NDP, or the Liberals. Some of the Liberals have flirted with the idea of fixing this, but for whatever reason they have not found the political courage to tell the civil servants to fix this, that they laid the boots to these people. The Liberals should tell them to stop doing this and fix it.

The member for Windsor--St. Clair, who was speaking in the House of Commons on February 23, 2001, said:

Mr. Speaker, both the finance minister and the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge the problem yet have chosen to do nothing about it. When will the government take action to address the gross injustice faced by the Canadians asking for social security fairness?

The secretary of state responded:

Mr. Speaker, I assure members this is an issue we have under consideration and we are pressing for changes.

The Liberals were pressing for changes back in 2001. What happened to that political courage? What dissipated at that moment in time that we did not see something fixed by 2005?

The government could do that now. It could fix it now. The Liberals have control over that. They would only be congratulated by members of the opposition who are unified in this. We will drag the government there kicking and screaming. One way or another we are going to fight for this. We are going to make it really painful if the government does not restore the fairness and justice for our seniors.

Back in history it was some of the Liberals' own members who said, “We are pressing for changes”. Where are those members now?

The hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair followed it up with another question in the House of Commons:

Mr. Speaker, when this session of parliament began I called upon the Deputy Prime Minister to explain his government's inaction in addressing the concerns of thousands of Canadians faced with crippling taxes on their U.S. social security benefits. The Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions have all promised that they would take some action. Yet five months later nothing has been done. When will they move on this issue? When can we expect a response from them?

Answering this question was my predecessor, the member for Windsor West, the right hon. Herb Gray:

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in a letter to my hon. friend, I believe in February--

That is correct. He had the date correct:

--I have raised this matter with the Minister of Finance. He assures me that he and his officials are looking into it.

They were looking into it. They could have changed it then. It got lost again. I do not know why. It does not make any sense, especially when his colleague at the time said, “We are pressing for changes”.

Where was the direction to the department to say that changes were necessary? We saw that today when the Minister of Public Works went back and said, “Those lapel pins should be made in Canada”. We shut down a Canadian business. It was wrong. He went back and told them because he had the courage to do so. He came to the House of Commons and said, “We were wrong”. Why can that not be done for our seniors as well?

Once again the side by side analysis is insulting because I do not know of any seniors in Canada who are clamouring for support to make sure unfair taxation happens to their neighbours.

I would like to refer to another question, again by the member for Windsor--St. Clair. He said:

Mr. Speaker, the former Deputy Prime Minister and the former Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions assured the House on a number of occasions that action would be taken....There is still no action. When will it be addressed?

The hon. Prime Minister, who was the minister of finance at the time, said:

The fact is that this is part of a treaty with the United States and we are bound by the provisions of that treaty. Canada negotiated that treaty under this government and improved it substantially.

That is wrong. We knew that answer was wrong. There I think we saw the drift of things. We know that there was testimony at the Senate committee. This is a quote from the Senate committee:

It would be possible to provide further exemptions...if that were thought to be appropriate. It would not be necessary to seek agreement with the United States on that.

We know that the testimony contradicts that.

In summary, I would like to once again say to the member for Essex that I am glad he has brought forward Bill C-265. I think the government has a lot of accounting to do for itself with regard to its treatment of seniors, but this is an opportunity for it to correct things.

Once again, how is the government going to be able to validate its argument? Others believe this is unfair to them. What we do know is that it affected a lot of people and everybody wants this corrected. The people who are affected, their neighbours, their friends, their families, none of them object to that, and none of them will object to this bill.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, No. 2, February 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question as a former municipal councillor. I know he is very proud of the Prime Minister's moving money from the GST file and the cities do not have to pay it any more, which is really what it is. First of all, why were they paying it in the first place? Why does the government not refund the money it stole from them over the years to begin with? What about school boards and other public institutions that currently have to pay GST? Why are they not worthy of having that burden removed?