Dan McTeague

[Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation, September 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's passion at a time of real and present crisis as a result of what happened last week. However I am also concerned that the hon. member has fixed his entire debate and his views on how this issue can be best solved on the words of a very narrow and yet ill-defined motion.

The hon. member may want to clarify for the House how he sees the United Kingdom's terrorist act and give his interpretation of whether or not it involves the suppression of the rule of law. The determination of terrorism in countries we are currently dealing with, Israel being a good example of where there have been allegations of people who have been deemed terrorists, would effectively cut off our relationship with those countries.

I understand the member's commitment and his passion but I fail to see the reasoning in the motion he has put forward today.

Yesterday was the 19th anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. The hon. member probably has other examples that he would like to touch upon as they relate to issues of terrorism but he talked about World War II. I am interested in what the resolve of parliament was in World War II.

This is a modern evil which requires some time, patience and restraint. Will the hon. member show that restraint by modifying this resolution in favour of what other parties on this side of the House have been talking about this morning?

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to have to stand today to ask a question of my colleague. I think it was an extremely good intervention. As we have seen, an extraordinary turn of events in the past week has also affected us as Canadians in so many ways. Perhaps none of us ever imagined that such a day would come, that on the first day back after a period of time off we would be deliberating on an issue that has affected our families, our friends, our neighbours and our brothers and sisters, not just here in Canada and around the world, and most important, there are the efforts of our brave firemen, policemen and those who have suffered as ignominious victims of this brutality in New York.

As chair for several years I have tried to bring to parliament a realization of the awareness of what Islam and the Muslim faith are all about. I am encouraged by the comments made by so many of my colleagues, including the Prime Minister and the leaders in the House, to ensure that no revenge is sought. I too have a letter from constituents, young Muslim girls who are worried about retaliation. Events this week throughout my region and throughout Toronto have suggested that there is a great deal of tension, perhaps much of it misguided.

The hon. member's comments with respect to ensuring that we do not respond or act in a vengeful way and that we guard what we are doing, that we wait to see the outcome of this, interest me. I too am interested in looking at that as a viable option because of the modernization of evil, conventional forces and all the thinking, the missile defences and all these wonderful ideas we have had in the past to combat this problem. The social problems that are behind it cannot be ignored.

I would like to ask in the spirit of goodwill, the spirit of ensuring that God does indeed have a presence in this world and that evil also has a presence in this world, if the hon. member could give us an illustration of what he would like to see, perhaps with respect to Bill C-11, the immigration act. Are there ways in which the hon. member would have a willingness to co-operate to ensure that Canada plays a role to ensure that terrorism is at once snuffed out, but at the same time that the war takes a different form and that we wage war against those who wage war against peace?

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want the record to show that I will vote in favour of this motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I saw the video and it was quite pathetic. I would like not to be recorded as voting on this particular motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there have been ways in which we can neuter the offensive section on automatic injunctions. We can repeal section 55.2(4) of the Patent Act to achieve that.

With regard to the member's question dealing with the AIDS epidemic in Africa, Canadian drug manufacturers, particularly generic drug manufacturers, could provide a solution in terms of the cocktail of drugs that might be made available. However there are very few of these manufacturers because they are dying, seemingly by the day. Some are doing very well but most are either being purchased or are not increasing their viability. I have met with Médecins Sans Frontières and Oxfam on this issue. They believe they can do it in concert with the minister responsible for CIDA as well as with the co-operation of the government. I believe we are heading in that direction.

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member turned the clock back four years, she would remember that it was only I who put forward a motion before the scrutiny of regulations committee to basically strip the Patent Act, or Bill C-91 as it was then known, of all of its offensive notice of compliance regulations.

This was not lost on some members on this side of the House. It was certainly not lost on the then leader of the opposition, the hon. Lucien Bouchard, who lambasted and insulted our government by saying that it was a humiliation to Quebec that the cost of drugs would be so high but that instead it would be able to get a few investments from various companies.

When it comes to the hon. member's concern about my acting like a maverick, I can tell her that rather than simply talking about things, I have acted. These are perhaps some of the reasons why I quite willingly talk about issues when I see that consumers are being badly hurt.

Canada is not required to do anything more than what its international obligations are under the WTO. The battle between generic manufacturers and brand name manufacturers has divided members of parliament depending on whether they have brand name or generic companies in their riding. However, that battle is over. Incidentally, I have two brand name manufacturers in my riding so I am not speaking from the perspective of those who might think that it is because I favour generic manufacturers. People within my own party thought the reason I was concerned about this issue was that I had a generic manufacturer in my riding. I can assure the hon. member that is not the case.

I put a motion before the House of Commons with regard to the issue of automatic injunctions and I thank my colleague from Churchill for supporting me. Unfortunately, I could not convince members of other parties to join with me but I am still fighting as hard as I can. I have been alone before but I know I have a lot of company with thousands of Canadians who today cannot afford the decent medical care they deserve because the cost of drugs is so high.

With regard to the question of pharmacare, I believe if we cannot resolve this issue and we are not prepared to stand up to the multinational drug manufacturers in Canada, the Government of Canada will need to come down and put its money where its mouth is.

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I was remiss. I could not count the time yesterday, so I did not have an opportunity to finish what I had said in the House.

I was going to ask the indulgence of the House to at least consider modernizing our thoughts on what the bill really means. I think we all agree that the bill is about ensuring it would comply with the WTO, but there is an opportunity to make it more than that.

Since I had an opportunity to intervene on this yesterday, a significant landmark ruling occurred in the United States with respect to the automatic injunction provision for Canada and the United States. I point out to members, Conservative, Bloc, Alliance and of course Liberals and New Democrats, that the automatic injunction gives a de facto extension of patent protection beyond 20 years.

I see the hon. member from the Conservative Party shaking his head saying no. Let me summarize what his senators said in the Senate just two months ago as they looked at Bill S-17. It states as follows:

In general, it is the Committee's view that courts are fully capable of determining appropriate procedures, which should not differ substantially from one industry to another. Regulatory interference carries a risk that an unfair advantage may inadvertently be provided to one side or the other.

My concern therefore is well-founded, not only on the wisdom of the Senate of the other place, but also in the landmark ruling of the U.S. federal court yesterday on the question of patent infringement, bearing in mind there are only two countries that have it.

Patent infringement claims were made by AstraZeneca PLC, Europe's largest drug maker, with respect to a product known as Prilosac, the largest selling drug item in the United States of America and in Canada. In Canada the drug is known as Losec. The same issue occurred here where the same individuals tried to stall this very important product beyond the patent protection period. It is very clear, with sales of $340 million a month, why the drug industry wants to maintain its stranglehold even beyond the agreed 20 years.

Members, especially in the Conservative Party, I think fail to understand that what they are giving licence to here in regulation is well beyond anything that was intended by this parliament. They can go back and talk about what happened 10 or 15 years ago, but I think the people are asking us to address the current problem for which there is no obligation for Canada to go beyond the 20th year. The effect of this is not only a means of destroying due process, but it is disrespectful of the courts of this country. It confers a privilege that is available nowhere else in this country.

The reality is we have a situation that we must knock out. It is called the automatic injunction. My belief is, and I think the belief of those who have looked at this, that there was an opportunity to deal with this. Unfortunately, I would ask the hon. members to consider the millions of dollars that it is costing the provincial drug plans of their Conservative, Liberal and New Democratic governments across the country.

More importantly, there are a few issues that have come up as a result of the comments made by the member for New Brunswick Southwest. I will not answer all of them, but it is important for us to also consider the flawed and false methodologies of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board of Canada. To suggest that $900 million in research and development should justify these extended patents is simply wrong. More than half that money is nothing more than advertising. There is a push today to make sure that people get even more advertising from these drug companies to create the kind of chaos we see in the United States.

I was trying to intervene the member for New Brunswick Southwest on the fundamental question he raised with respect to the price difference between Canada and the United States. It is very clear to me that the only difference between Canadian new drugs and drugs being brought in from the United States is the 40% exchange rate. We do not even have a brand name manufacturer giving us the courtesy of establishing a head office here in Canada to give us the kind of benefits we normally see. Instead, we see ourselves in a situation where we are paying the highest prices in the world without the privilege of having anything more than a few warehouses on the island in Montreal and in Mississauga.

I would like to point out to the hon. members, certainly in the Conservative Party, but others who lost the opportunity and did not see it, there is a chance to change this.

Finally, let us deal with the issue of AIDS in South Africa. There is an opportunity here for us to return to compulsory licensing. I ask the indulgence of members of parliament to consider that. There is a pandemic occurring in the world and it is very clear that the brand name manufacturers have egg on their faces because they are more willing to be concerned about what goes in their pockets as opposed to helping the people who are dying and suffering and where an entire civilization is breaking down.

Hon. members wake up on this one. I urge and implore all members to get together and protect the health care system in the country. We have three months to get it together.

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2001]

Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. There is a 40% difference between Canada and the United States.

[Patent Act, June 7th, 2001]

There is a 40% exchange rate.

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer the member for New Brunswick Southwest a bit of variety in terms of how he might want to rephrase his questions because it is obvious that he keeps asking the same questions. Let me provide him with a very simple answer.

His party had an opportunity in committee to examine a motion that would have dealt with an issue de facto that is increasing and extending patent protection beyond 20 years. No member of parliament in the House voted for it, but it was written in the regulations and is a mockery of our legal system.

The hon. member talks about the Patent Act as it relates to the ability of the drug manufacturing industry exclusively to claim an automatic infringement without even a shred of evidence. It has been built into the legislation. The hon. member's party had an opportunity to look at that point, open it up, and perhaps question in committee about it, but instead it defeated it.

I want to deal with what is at issue. Bill S-17 is about respecting our WTO commitments. There is no doubt the government and the minister have bravely moved ahead to ensure that the timetable is met. I compliment them for that and I believe we all agree that it should be met.

We have an obligation to look at the 1997 committee report of parliament which said in Recommendations Nos. 4 and 5 that we had to deal with regulations which were created after parliament had an opportunity to look at them. As members of parliament we are accountable to all people of Canada. Yet we have regulations which clearly and demonstrably have been shown to be more excessive than what parliament intended.

Health Canada's witnesses before the committee made very clear that the minimum extension of infringement as a result of this ridiculous automatic injunction, which exists nowhere in law and puts the reverse onus on the person applying for a new patent, creates a situation where at least 14 months is the guaranteed extension.

What is the effect on the Canadian public and the health care system? Obviously these are issues the Conservative Party and that member choose to ignore. We on this side of the House recognize the international obligations but at the same time want to make sure we have laws and regulations consistent with public expectation.

In an earlier speech the same hon. member commented on the west island of Montreal and other places across Canada that are doing very well. If the hon. member really cared about understanding where we are relative to fantasyland, he would have asked a question that was raised in committee: Why is it that Canada is now recording a $4 billion trade deficit when it comes to pharmaceuticals when it was only at $1 billion in 1993? Is this his vaunted research and development?

Let us talk about research and development. We now find that a good deal of the $900 million is nothing more than advertising. Does the hon. member not find a problem with trying to tell Canadians on the one hand that they are getting lots of research and development when it is advertising to continue the opportunity of these companies to make a bit more money at the same time?

We have the highest prices for drugs in the world. The hon. member did not want to talk the question of relativity to other countries. It strikes me that we have a drug regime in which Canadians are paying among the highest prices in the world. Seventy per cent of the people in my province do not have adequate drug protection. They are people from my age all the way up to age 64. If these issues could be raised perhaps there would be some impetus to create an opportunity for us to deal with our health care system.

I hope hon. members on the other side are listening. The government and this party are. I wish they would.