Brian Masse

[Patent Act, April 28th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-9 and specifically to some of the amendments in the first group.

I would like to tackle specifically one clause, a motion that we have submitted which I believe is important and will make the bill better. I am concerned it will not pass. I want to outline the reasons for moving that particular amendment.

First I want to thank my staff in Ottawa and in Windsor for the hard work they have done, in particular the Ottawa staff for the research that went into the bill. I thank the volunteers as well. I would also like to thank Stephen Lewis for his leadership on this initiative abroad. It simply makes another mark for Canada, that I hope will be successful.

The NDP is committed to ensuring that this very important humanitarian bill is passed as quickly as possible. A very important issue unfortunately has not been dealt with appropriately in the bill which could compromise its effectiveness.

As we all know, the bill was first introduced last November and after prorogation was reintroduced on resumption of Parliament in February of this year.

One of the chief points of contention with the bill was the issue of non-governmental organizations being able to contract directly with Canadian generics to purchase medicines for their programs in eligible developing countries.

During the weeks of testimony that the industry committee heard, a variety of NGOs, including Doctors Without Borders and Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, testified about the importance of NGOs being able to produce lower cost pharmaceutical products directly, among other issues. I would like to thank them for all the work they have been doing abroad and also on this bill. I look forward to their achievements in the future. There are fine, capable people in those organizations.

NGOs testified that although the government intended to include NGOs, the language in the first version of Bill C-9 which identified governments and “agents” of governments as being eligible importers, the NGOs did not feel that this language adequately assured them of access to lower cost pharmaceuticals. It was inappropriate language terminology that hurt them.

Upon reflection of the various issues that were raised during committee testimony, the government proposed substantial changes to Bill C-9. It proposed removing the first right of refusal removal and opening the list of eligible importing countries to include many more developing countries. Of importance to consideration of this amendment, it changed the language about how NGOs could be involved. I commend those achievements, but unfortunately, they are changing it back again.

In its proposed amendments during clause by clause, the government put forward language in section 21.04 to remove the restriction of government or “agent of government” and replace it with “person or entity to which the product is to be sold”. The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network issued a statement in support of that particular change saying it would allow NGOs to procure medicines from generic producers, assuming the NGO was legally entitled to import and distribute in the country where it was operating. This was a very progressive, important step by the government.

The difficulty with the issue is the following. No one was ever requesting that an NGO be allowed to contract directly with generic producers without the legal authority to do so in the eligible importing country. NGOs regularly receive their appropriate legal authority within whatever country they are operating to allow them to distribute medicines through their particular programs.

The more open language “a person or entity legally entitled to import and distribute”, however, was changed through a subamendment at the committee. I recognize that my colleague who presented the subamendment was attempting to clarify the language in the bill, but whether purposely or inadvertently, the language as it now stands would again prevent NGOs from participating. That is why I put forth the amendment at this stage to ensure that the language remained inclusive of NGOs.

The language in section 21.04(2)(f), lines 36 to 41 in particular, on page 6 of the bill reprinted as amended at committee, has been changed to “governmental person or entity or person or entity permitted by the government of the importing country”. This is problematic because it does not allow NGOs to contract directly. That is how they feel about the bill at this particular time. It is one of the challenges that we are going to see in the field.

The problem is that many countries, including Canada, do not necessarily provide the legal authority to procure and distribute pharmaceutical products through the government. In fact the best reference point is our own system. Here in Canada we have a commissioner of patents. Although created by an act of parliament and is part of the larger government structure, it is the commissioner of patents, not the government, who decides who is issued a compulsory licence to allow the sale and distribution of a particular pharmaceutical product. If a person obtains a compulsory licence under Canadian law from the commissioner of patents, there is nothing else the person needs in order to have the legal right to deal with that patented product in accordance with the terms and conditions of the actual licence.

It is the same in many countries around the world that also have positions of commissioners of patents. In other countries, such as South Africa, compulsory licences are issued through the courts and the legal system, not through the government.

Why is this language in its current form so problematic?

Let us assume for example that Doctors Without Borders in South Africa wants to import an anti-retroviral drug used in HIV-AIDS treatment for their programs in that country. A generic version could mean thousands of dollars in savings per year per patient. Under the current language of Bill C-9, Doctors Without Borders would have to first apply to get a compulsory licence and then, because of our law, would have to get some kind of authorization from the South African government to buy the anti-retroviral drug to use for their patients.

There is no process for that authorization in the South African government at the moment because it has a commissioner of patents that issues compulsory licences and a person or entity is not required under South African law to get anything other than a compulsory licence. That is the obstacle.

The bill is intended to be humanitarian in nature. As the minister stated in her opening comments to the committee, it is important that we have a bill that ensures that the regime not be abused, but that it also provides for the actual intervention of the drugs on the actual streets of the nations that need those types of support and supplies.

If we maintain the language around who a generic producer is able to contract with, in order to contract, NGOs would be required not only to obtain the compulsory licence, but also to get some kind of governmental authority; some kind of governmental authority that NGOs are not required to get by the laws of the country in which they are operating. It creates a circle. This circle is what is causing the NGOs to have problems and why we have this amendment.

Whatever process the eligible importing country has identified for issuing compulsory licences, whether it be through a commissioner of patents, through the courts or some other agency mandated by the government, should be enough of a legal requirement to allow NGOs to contract with generic producers. This is similar to our system here.

Again, I am not proposing that NGOs should be able to contract directly where they are not legally entitled to according to the laws of the country in which they are operating. I am simply proposing that we ensure that the language of our bill does not create further steps and barriers in the process of getting these much needed drugs to the people who need them, through the government or other person or entity legally entitled to do so.

Countries already have legislation regulating what drug products are approved for sale and use in their country. A compulsory licence would only be issued in cases where a drug is patented in that country and approved for sale and use.

There may be occasions where a country wishes to import a drug that is patented here in Canada but is not patented there. In that case no compulsory licence would be necessary by NGOs or other persons or entities wishing to distribute that pharmaceutical product, but it would still have to be approved for use and distribution, again by the importing countries under their own rules and regulations.

It is like it is here in Canada. There is Health Canada's process of determining safety of drugs and Industry Canada's process of placing products on the patent register and determining whether compulsory licences can be used.

Again, this amendment seeks not to change any of that, but seeks instead to respect the rules that are already in place in whichever importing country tries to participate under the regime that Bill C-9 would create. The change in language would ensure that there is no confusion between patent holder, generic producer, importing country, or NGO about whether a person or entity is eligible. Confusion can lead to legal battles and I know members on all sides of the House, as well as stakeholders, want to avoid that possibility.

We as parliamentarians should be respecting the sovereign process of legally issuing compulsory licences to NGOs or other organizations or persons for using patented pharmaceutical products within their own borders. We as Canadian parliamentarians do not need to tell other parliamentarians and representatives of other countries how they should do their job. We as Canadian parliamentarians cannot undermine the potential for success of this bill by including language that simply is not necessary and creates more burdens for the NGOs attempting to provide much needed health care services and governments that are dealing with health emergencies.

My amendment is simple. It proposes to return the language from what was passed at committee on a subamendment to the language proposed by the government in its own amendments to its own bill. The NGOs welcomed the government's language, as did the NDP, but we have not welcomed the new language that was passed at committee. This amendment does not propose to do anything but keep the process within established legal grounds and ensure that no additional barriers are placed in the way of NGOs attempting to deliver their humanitarian programs.

It simply boils down to this at the end. We felt that the government did a good job of listening to the NGOs and also to the witnesses at committee to deal with this problem and deal with an appropriate change from the first to the second draft. That is very important because they did change a number of different things. I commend the government for that.

Unfortunately, the subamendment, we believe, will create problems for the bill. That is why we would like to see this amendment pass. It would open up a better process for NGOs and those countries to be able to make sure that the humanitarian efforts of this bill are realized. At the end of the day, that is what all of us in Parliament want.

We want a bold initiative that is going to actually create opportunities for people who are sick and suffering, where health standards and impoverishment prevent people from achieving their fullest potential and cause death. We want to provide assistance with cheaper drugs to treat those illnesses.

That will not only make Canada a stronger nation, it will also provide for peace and security in the world.

[Patent Act, April 28th, 2004]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-9, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 38 on page 6 with the following:

“(f) the name of the person or entity to”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-9, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 23 on page 7 with the following:

“at least fifteen days before filing the applica-”

[Petitions, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to present a petition entitled, “Give Me Representation”.

This petition is from residents of Ottawa Centre who are calling upon the federal government to immediately call an election for Ottawa Centre. Back on September 8, 2003, the former prime minister appointed that member to the Senate and they are without representation.

I might add that it is my privilege to introduce this petition because our candidate for Ottawa Centre is none other than Mr. Ed Broadbent, a very much respected member of our community.

[Border Crossings, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is again dragging its feet on the Windsor border negotiations. Both the province and the City of Windsor have already selected their representatives and are waiting, literally, at the table by themselves for the federal representative.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why the delay? We need action, not more obstacles. Why make other levels of government sit in frustration and the citizens sit without any type of solutions for their health at the expense of the Prime Minister being indecisive?

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to follow up on the previous comments I made and the remarks back from the hon. member.

I hesitate to suggest it, but the party system is very much influenced in many municipalities. I know there are affiliations in my municipality. In Toronto, from where the member comes, there are strong affiliations with the party system. That does not really take away the value of whether the specific three to five year term should be applied.

I have a specific question. Why is it good for one system of government but not good for another? I find that hard to reconcile. There could be other municipal reforms. The fact of the matter is that Toronto has party affiliations with many of its members. Despite that, it still does not answer the question of why a fixed election date is okay for two levels of government, being the school boards and municipalities to have fixed election dates, whereas the provincial and federal governments, which we could change, do not?

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the discussion about fixed election dates. In Ontario it is not a foreign concept to have a fixed date. I have sincere reservations about the government's intentions on this. We have four levels of government in Ontario and two of them already have fixed election dates: the first related to school boards and trustees; and the second related to municipalities.

Municipalities have fixed election dates and that has been in operation for a number of years. We have to be very clear about what we are asking. We are not talking about changing the representation in Parliament and rotating people. We are talking about a specific fixed election date for the federal institution. If it is not good for this body here, then should municipalities move to a wandering date of three to five years?

[Supply, April 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to ask a question about this very important subject. One of the things that concerns me about the anomaly of a wandering date, which is what we currently have, is the impact it has on doing business in this country.

I know that the not for profit sector is required by law to turn in annual reports. I know that businesses always have an annual date for reporting to ensure that they have accountability.

My concern is that the government rolls out a series of programs and services that often affect the finances of the nation and also our prosperity. The government also introduces potential items that might be affected if there is or is not an election because those things may or may not be carried out post-election day.

I would like to ask for the hon. member's opinion about the fact that there is no fixed date and how that affects the ability of businesses to perform and to be effective, especially given the anomaly of a wandering date as opposed to having a specific date, which is what I support.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to Bill C-30 and talk about some of the spending issues that are involved in the bill as well as the vision that it puts forth.

I have received a number of concerns, as a member of Parliament, from my constituency as well as from several hundred Canadians who have already e-mailed, phoned, faxed or provided some documentation to me about what has been pronounced by the government.

I want to first say that there are some good provisions for some things in Bill C-30. To get up and say that absolutely all of it is bad would not be right. One of the things that I do want to point out is the fact that there would finally be the elimination of environmental fines as tax deductions or business write-offs. That is one thing that we could not believe was happening. It was causing a national embarrassment.

I was getting correspondence from American elected officials about pollution coming from the Canadian side of Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River and other areas, that spilled out from Canadian factories and other sources. At the same time, companies were able to apply for a tax deduction on that, let alone the cleanup and the effect that it was having upon our American neighbours.

It is interesting to note that the government talks about improving relations with the United States. The first thing would be for our side to stop poisoning the water and to provide all kinds of progressive steps to clean the system up in partnership. The United States has actually been far more progressive in the Great Lakes by investing in their renewal in a couple of different fashions. It has been doing it, not only through its government, but through other means, for example, Robert Kennedy Jr. and his efforts have been through the legal system in order to provide some of the improvements that have been happening.

We have actually created some of those things on our side of the jurisdiction of the Detroit River with our river keeper announcement, from the public point of view, without the assistance of the government as an initiator of the project.

We saw the budget come out with basically an ideological attempt to reduce expenditures just for the sake of scoring political points.

The government did a set up here. It wanted to appear that it was shifting to the right to deal with the Conservative agenda but what it has done since then is to go out to the public to announce different projects in the multimillions after the actual budget was released.

It is a classic attempt to try to have it both ways. Quite frankly, it has been very good at getting it both ways until now because Canadians are starting to recognize that they each have different choices about things and they should be making those choices based upon principles as opposed to wishy-washy behaviour.

We are watching the privatization of health care. The New Democratic Party is really concerned about the fact that there were no new health care transfers.

The Prime Minister had plenty of time to address this as a former minister of finance and during the time of his leadership run-up. He talked about these issues a lot of times and said that it was very much a priority, but at the same time he did not actually have an action plan in his first official budget.

That is unfortunate because we believe that the Roy Romanow solutions that were proposed should have been specifically mentioned in the budget. There should have been advancement because Canadians are looking for accountability. They are looking for a single system of medicare that is not going to introduce a level of profit that will certainly mean a loss of service for people. It will make people who are vulnerable susceptible to longer lineups.

The lineup is important to note because I know of a community that is under serviced because the infrastructure has not been provided for the medical society to provide the actual services that are necessary on the ground floor. We are not getting the specialists and we have long waiting times.

That is important to note because specialists also relate to the quality of life and the productivity of the citizens we have in our community. If people are waiting for an exponential period of time to have their knees scoped or to have some type of minor operation, it certainly is a negative derivative when we look at the economy. We have more people who are off on sick leave. We have people who can further injure themselves and we also have family situations that become more complicated.

Whereas, if the investment were there, we would see the benefit of people returning to work earlier and have a healthier environment. I think that would be more productive for our economy and our country. We also have people who need those types of services in order to stay physically active in our society. The investment of that accountability and the investment in reducing waiting times would allow them to stay active and healthy.

I know of many seniors who have had to wait far too long to receive operations. It is unacceptable and unfair to them because their health deteriorates in the meantime. They have contributed a significant amount of money into the health care system over the years and they have certainly contributed to our economy. They have also been productive family members. To be in one's golden years and not have a required operation creates a lot of problems as it is stalled from month to month. That threatens their physical well-being as well as their mental well-being. The stress and the anguish that goes along with that is difficult as well.

I was out the other day talking with a constituent whose husband, a young worker, was waiting for a minor operation. He is now into his fourth week of waiting. He had to wait a series of days just to get an MRI done on his broken leg. If his leg is not treated properly, it could lead to a permanent injury. This is a result of long waiting lists.

A good investment for Canadians would be to have more money and accountability put back into our health care system in different ways such as those outlined by Roy Romanow. That would be a way of rebuilding this country.

I want to talk a bit about some of the things that could have been done in this budget and would have been influential in lowering the price of medications and eventually the costs associated with our health care system.

Last year, the industry committee spent a lot of time on notice of compliance, that is the evergreen that happens. Evergreening is when the 20 years in the pharmaceutical industry is extended by an automatic stay of injunction by the patent holder. This then delays the actual generic version of the drug being available on the market.

We saw delay after delay as these automatic injunctions compounded year after year. These injunctions prohibited generic companies from introducing a lower cost drug and which would have actually reduced the cost of medications in Canada. That money could then have been put back into health care and toward addressing other issues related to waiting times and services.

It has been quite amazing to see what has happened. A progressive Liberal, the member for Ajax--Pickering, sat on the committee. I give him credit for being so active on this case file. Some other sympathetic Liberals were also there. They were part of the Chrétien era, I suppose. After Chrétien resigned from his position, a new Prime Minister came in, and he has changed the committee. I am virtually the last member of that committee that is still talking about reducing the cost of medications, or at least trying to raise the issue.

It is unfortunate because a lot of time and taxpayers' dollars has been spent in having witnesses come forward and research done. A lot of time has been spent trying to get the Minister of Industry to respond. We have seen nothing yet. We are watching these studies become basically outdated. The studies that have been done are sitting on a shelf like so many other studies, even though the Romanow Commission noted that Canada should be doing something right away to lower the cost of prescription drugs.

It is also important to tie that in to the fact that we would like to see Bill C-9 passed. That bill would allow developing countries access to patent drugs, or generic versions of them, so they could address some of their horrible conditions of malaria, tuberculosis and HIV-AIDS. It would also assist those developing countries in dealing with their poverty issues.

One of the things that was outright shocking in the budget that I was very disappointed about, coming from an auto town, was the fact that it did not contain an auto policy or at least some indication of what was going to happen. There was no indication in the Speech from the Throne either. I immediately asked questions about that as did my colleague from Windsor as to why the auto industry was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. There are one in 7.5 Canadian jobs affected by the auto industry and one in 6 in Ontario. That was left out of the Speech from the Throne which was very shocking.

Mayors of municipalities have formed a committee to talk about this. The Province of Ontario, even though it is drowning in debt and complaining about its costs, has had to come up with $500 million for an auto investment strategy because there has been no national auto policy. I want to acknowledge the fact that the government had to admit that it still has one-quarter of the border funds available.

A community like mine is waiting for announcements, waiting for those improvements like the truck ferry service, for example, that can take trucks off the city streets and move them across the border to help our economy and our trade. We want to have the grid-lock taken care of, something that can happen in a matter of months. The Liberals do not have any resources or support for that; only the projects for their friends and the lobbying that has been happening.

With that, I want to say thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne, subsequently the budget and Bill C-30. I look forward to seeing better progress. This was disappointing to building Canada which needs to happen now as opposed to giving it away.

[Automobile Industry, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Province of Ontario had to borrow a half a billion dollars for the auto industry because this federal government has no national auto policy aside from a trade agreement that allows other countries to steal Canadian jobs.

My question is for the Minister of Finance. Premier Dalton McGuinty wants him to “pony up”. When will this government actually take action on the auto industry? When will it actually get off its high horse and do something? Municipalities have done it. The provinces have done it.

The government created the trade policy problems. It should have the solution. When will this government come to the table?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2004, April 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it was incredible to hear some of the comments from the hon. member for Etobicoke North with regard to municipalities. He painted the picture that the government is making a lot of investment, that this will solve the problems and that there is a new deal. It really is more like a raw deal because what we are seeing is that another layer of bureaucracy will be added before the municipalities will get the cash and the actual infrastructure improvements they deserve.

I should know because the Windsor-Detroit border is in the area which I represent, formerly as a city councillor and now as a member of Parliament. The first thing I hear Americans say when they come here as tourists or to visit family members is, “Why has your government not invested the proper money to fix the border? Why have we been sitting here in traffic for two hours? We are not coming back. We do not want to go through this again because of the lack of facilities on the Canadian side and the traffic congestion”.

It brings up an important point that is really being missed. I think the member mentioned “earth shattering” practices about the government's plan to roll out money from the GST or the gasoline tax for roads and infrastructure. That has been going on for a decade. Municipalities, through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, AMO, and other groups across the country, have been submitting petitions. Councils have been passing resolutions appealing on hands and knees for funds because not just the Conservative government of Ontario but the federal Liberal government of the last 10 years have cut back the grants.

I want to ask a specific question about the GST rebate. The very insulting thing about this is the context in which it is being put. Municipalities derive income from property taxes, so they tax people. They tax people to get their revenue. From that, they were paying another tax on a tax. The municipalities do not have to pay the GST for the first time this year, but they should never have had to pay it in the first place. I want the hon. member to explain why municipalities were paying the GST in the first place, because it was a tax on a tax.

Also, why did the government not give back the 10 years of funding that it stole from the municipalities in the first place and put it into roads and infrastructure to build this country?