James Rajotte

[Points of Order, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Industry during question period about a review that he has promised, that the previous industry minister promised, with Technology Partnerships Canada. He did indicate that the final report was not completed, but I believe he indicated that the results were completed. I would like him in the interests of openness, transparency and respect for taxpayer dollars that he table those results in the House for all parliamentarians and taxpayers to see.

Second, would he table the report that was mentioned in the article by Jack Aubry in the Ottawa Citizen today? According to sources, much of this document has been blacked out. Again in the interest of openness, transparency and respect for taxpayer dollars, I would ask the government to table that report as well, not blacked out, so all taxpayers and parliamentarians can see how their money is being spent.

[Technology Partnerships Canada, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, throwing taxpayer money away will do nothing to address the technology deficit in this country.

The fact is that everything the government has said about this program has proven to be false. It put forward absolutely bogus job creation figures which it later retracted. It said that this program would recover far more than the 100% that was given. In fact, it is recovering less than 5% after nine years. Three industry ministers in a row, including the present industry minister, promised a full review, which has not been delivered on.

When will the government deliver on the promise to review this program? When will it finally honour taxpayer money, as it should?

[Technology Partnerships Canada, January 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, there has been another revelation about the mother of all corporate welfare programs: Technology Partnerships Canada.

It was revealed today that the government has recovered less than one-fifth of its promised repayments and that after nine years has only recouped less than 5% of the $2 billion it has given to profitable, private sector companies.

Why has the government failed to recover the subsidies? When will the government stop wasting taxpayer dollars in this fashion?

[Patent Act, December 13th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, the member is quite correct in pointing out the need for food and proper nutrition. He identified the fact that it is often a problem of governance or of political leadership.

The member certainly characterized the situation in Zimbabwe very well. There are other situations, such as in Uganda. The political leadership there really took some courageous decisions and influenced the delivery of medicines and food in a much better way, so that a lot of the problems could be addressed. Certainly a key issue is getting the stable political leadership in place and then working with them.

The first question our party asked at committee on this whole issue was it was one thing to technically try to get cheaper medicines, but what is the Canadian government doing? What is CIDA doing? What is the Department of Health doing to ensure that we are partnering with nations and ensuring that medicines get to the people who need them?

At that time, I have to say, there was not a comprehensive plan in place. We hope that since then the government has put forward a plan and will come forward with a plan to ensure that the infrastructure is in place. Then the people who actually need these medicines will be able to get them and the medicines that they do take will end up actually helping them.

[Patent Act, December 13th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, there were a number of valid points raised by the member. He has personal experience. I have talked to the member about his personal experience in sub-Saharan Africa.

There is the issue of medical infrastructure. It is one thing to have cheaper medicines but the medical infrastructure needs to be in place to actually deliver medicines to the people who need them. People need to be informed, as we do in this country, as to how they should take the medicines. There needs to be proper nutrition, proper diet and a proper water source for people to ingest the medicines so that the medicines do the good that they should be doing. That is certainly a valid point in terms of this whole effort.

Also the member raised a valid point about nations. The bill specifically addresses the least developed nations. There is an appendix that identifies the specific nations, but obviously, nations that are developed or that are developing very quickly, such as China and Russia, need to address the HIV-AIDS epidemic as well.

The member has worked with many companies in this field on a personal basis. We should recognize that many companies have already made some real efforts. First and foremost, GlaxoSmithKline in Africa has done a lot of work. Its infectious diseases centre does a lot of work with all of these infectious diseases. As well there are companies like Merck Frosst in Botswana. Those companies try to do all of it, provide the cheap medicines, medical infrastructure, the advice. They work with groups like Médecins Sans Frontières, which should be commended as well.

[Patent Act, December 13th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-29, an act to amend the Patent Act.

This is a housekeeping bill, in our view, which addresses two separate patent related issues. The first issue it addresses deals with the Jean Chrétien pledge to Africa act, which does help to facilitate the flow of drugs to deal with HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis to least developed nations.

The bill called for the creation of a committee of experts to advise the government on what pharmaceutical products should be eligible for export under the licensing regime set up by the act. The first part of Bill C-29 amends the act to allow the Senate, not just the House of Commons, to assess and recommend potential candidates for the committee of experts.

We support this specific aspect of the bill, although we would ask for guidance from the Senate as to which committee or committees should actually deal with this issue.

The second part of the bill deals with patent fees and entity size. Fees are required at all stages of a patent's life: application, review and maintenance. Canada and the United States have separate fee structures, depending on whether a business applying for a patent is a small entity or a large entity. The separation based on size is quite common.

Until recently, a company that filed for a patent under the small business fees structure and then became a large business, or vice versa, was granted flexibility in its patent fees. The company could pay a top-up or could reduce its fees due if the enterprise size changed. The top-up scheme has caused considerable administrative trouble for patent agents and it is my understanding that they would like this matter remedied as quickly as possible.

A court case has clarified that there should never have been such a top-up scheme. The courts ruled that the entity's status is determined when a patent regime is first engaged. Thus if the company files as a small business at day one, it is considered a small business for the life of the 20 year patent.

This set of amendments is required to prevent possible lawsuits for an estimated 7,000 patent holders and patent applicants on the grounds that their fees have not fully been paid and thus their patents could be declared invalid. This was the Dutch industry's case.

We support these amendments as well in a sense that they will certainly reduce a lot of the legislation or the litigiousness that could result from this. We think that the size of the company when it gets a patent should determine its size for the life of the patent.

In conclusion, we also support the amendments to the interpretation of schedules because we would like Canada to have a clear intellectual property framework.

We look forward to dealing with the bill at committee. We hope the legislation will pass as quickly as possible.

[Patent Act, December 13th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for my colleague.

The member talked about the Jean Chrétien Pledge to Africa Act in terms of a technical amendment, which we do support on the Conservative side. He also accurately mentioned in his speech that the purpose of this was to facilitate the delivery of cheaper medicines into Africa and other developing nations. As he mentioned, it was to deal with HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

I wonder if the member could provide the House with, if not today perhaps at a later date, if he does not have the numbers at his fingers, first, the number of medicines that have been transported as a result of the passage of the legislation; second, which countries have been assisted with the passage of the legislation; and third, the number of people who have actually received medicines at a lower cost.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is an obvious yes. Principally, any time we can get tariffs down on a global scale, it has been proven time and time again that Canadian industries, Canadian workers, and Canadian companies succeed and thrive. That is the ultimate goal. I want to thank the member for reminding us of that, because he is right.

This is an interim measure to correct something in terms of our own public policy at the domestic level, but the long term goal must be to reduce these tariffs on a global scale. In the meeting with me, that is what the industry certainly emphasized and I should point that out. The industry said to me that as long as it could compete fairly on a global level, it does not need any government intervention or protection, and that is the ultimate goal.

Going back to NAFTA, the free trade agreement, a lot of people predicted that this industry would not survive. In fact, it has survived, but there are some government policies in place that if we were to amend, it would thrive and succeed even more.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 100,000 employees across Canada in this industry and they have been waiting for a response from the government for months. The committee tabled its report in April.

The fact is that combined with the least developed countries initiative that has been implemented in a wrong manner, frankly, the industry has told us that it will be severely harmed by this. If the government does not act on this, we could very well see the loss of a major part of this industry and the loss of a large number of jobs. That is why the government must act immediately to implement this.

[Committees of the House, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the motion and I thank the member for bringing it forward. As his colleague just said, it is very timely.

The member who just spoke said that it was very timely but that we had to look at all aspects. However I fail to understand why the government has not acted on the three recommendations which, as I understand it, were unanimous. Government members supported it and it was reported by the member who is now the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Public Safety who did an incredible job. I do not understand why the government is not implementing it.

I want to state that we do support the implementation of these recommendations and, just for the record, I will read them into the record for the benefit of people who are following this debate.

The first recommendation reads:

That the federal government immediately extend, for a further seven years, the duty—remission orders covering the apparel sector that are set to expire on 31 December 2004.

That obviously makes one understand the necessity of acting upon this recommendation right now.

The second recommendation reads:

That the federal government immediately end tariffs on inputs which are not produced domestically. Textile producers seeking continued tariff protection should be required to establish that they sell their products to Canadian apparel manufacturers.

Again, that recommendation was supported by the Conservative Party.

The third recommendation, which is more of a broad recommendation, reads:

That the federal government immediately undertake a study of temporary adaptation measures to enhance competitiveness, as well as the benefits and costs of eliminating tariffs on imports of fabric for use in the Canadian apparel sector, the types and quantities of products produced by the Canadian textile industry and the practice of tariff differentiation on fabrics based on their end-use. The results of this study should be tabled in Parliament no later than 31 January 2005.

That indicates why the immediacy and why the timeliness of this specific motion. It is because of the importance of this industry and the fact that this industry does need these issues addressed very quickly. This report was tabled in the House in April, 2004 and it still has not been acted upon. The Minister of Finance says that he is meeting with the sector, which is a good thing, but the government should be acting on a report that its own members supported. The reason that it should act is because of the importance of the industry.

The apparel industry is the 10th largest manufacturing sector in Canada. It has more than 93,000 employees working in over 3,900 establishments that account for 2% of Canada's total manufacturing gross domestic product, 4% of the manufacturing investment and 4.4% of total manufacturing employment.

The industry critic for our party has gone across the country and has met with different manufacturing councils and the Manufacturing Council of Edmonton. What these people have said, over and over again, is that the federal government simply has to recognize the challenges facing their industries and their manufacturing industry in particular. As we went around the table in the room in Edmonton, on average these companies had been in existence in the Edmonton region for about 45 to 47 years. That means they have put roots down in the community and are investing in their businesses in the communities. They have a real stake in how the country is run, both economically and in government. We need to recognize that and ensure there is a climate surrounding these industries that enables them to grow and to thrive.

I do want to use the opportunity of the motion to raise some other challenges facing the apparel industry. The industry raised a lot of concerns with us prior to the election. In response to those concerns, we wrote the then minister of industry on May 21, 2004 but we did not get a response, which one can understand with the election. However we hope the department will respond to this issue.

What the letter addressed were some of the other issues facing the industry beyond the duty remission orders. One of the specific issues the industry raised had to do with the government's program for the import of garments from least developed nations. I wanted to identify this for the record because the industry supports this initiative. This initiative is for the federal government to provide duty free and quota free entry for imports of textiles and clothing from 48 least developed countries.

The industry supports the intent and the goal of that program and it thinks the initiative is sound, but it feels that the manner in which the government has implemented the program is unfair and has caused serious harm to its industry. The program has not just helped the truly poorest of nations, which the industry supports, but has in fact provided a comparative advantage to nations that have a large manufacturing sector.

I should at this time, Mr. Speaker, inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

On the LDC issue, under the rules of origin, up to 75% of the X factory price of garments made in the least developed country can be of non-LDC materials from general preferential tariff countries. The problem is that these countries include China, Korea and India. As we well know, those countries are turning into economic powerhouses and will become our main competitors.

When I was in Beijing in November 2002, I noticed more cranes than one could imagine, at least 20 cranes on either side of the street. Beijing has a very dynamic and growing economy and it is competitive, and in our party's view it should not be in the same category as the least developed nations.

We believe it is unfair for countries like China, Korea and India, which have huge and sophisticated textile and clothing industries, to be receiving assistance from Canada against our own industries.

The rules of origin deprive the LDCs of any incentive for foreign investors to establish textile manufacturing facilities in our country, investment that would lead to long term employment and advancement opportunities for the people who need it the most. This does not actually accomplish the program's goal, which was to establish some manufacturing facilities in the poorest nations so they could then raise themselves out of poverty.

The rules also relegate the LDCs to clothing assembly, and only as long as they remain the cheapest source of labour in the world by paying the lowest wages in the world, and that is unfair. This is not the objective of the program either. What happens is that an assembly will be set up there with the lowest wages but once the wages get a bit higher it can then be transferred to a nation that has lower wages. The lowest common denominator is obviously not the objective of the program.

We asked the minister in May 2004 to amend the LDCs rules of origin to require that products made in LDC countries would be eligible for benefits under the program only if they were made from LDC or Canadian inputs. In addition, we recommended that an appropriate and effective least developed country specific safeguard mechanism be instituted to deal with import surges.

We asked the government to respond to that in May but it has not yet responded. The biggest concern raised by member of the NDP was the fact that the industry needed a response and that the unanimous report with three solid recommendations should be implemented now.

The third recommendation hinted at some broader issues facing the textile industry. One dealt with least developed countries. However there are a couple of other issues that we think the government can act upon, for instance, dealing with the U.S. government and insisting that all NAFTA partners not be excluded from trade deals that are being negotiated with third countries. I think that is a fair and reasonable request by this industry, and fair under the rubric of the NAFTA agreement. I hope the Prime Minister raises that today with the president in stressing the importance of this industry.

Another recommendation was the implementation of an outward processing program for Canadian textile companies to actively try to export and support this industry and to take a sensible approach to textile tariff policy that does not damage the industry, which is what the committee recommended.

I hope the government will act upon this committee report.

I will digress a bit from this topic. It strikes me as odd, in this minority government, that the government does not act upon committee reports that have been fully supported. This example of the report dealing with the textile industry was supported in April 2004 and the Government of Canada can and should act upon it.

However there are other issues. The industry committee prepared a report well over two years ago on foreign investment restrictions for telecommunications companies and cable companies. It was supported by the Liberals at the time and by the two legacy parties of the Conservative Party. There are 135 Liberals and 99 Conservatives in this place, which is more than enough to pass any motion.

I encourage the government, in the spirit of a minority government and in a spirit of this dynamic Parliament, to work with other parties on as many reasonable issues like this as it can. I strongly encourage the government to act immediately. This industry needs action and it needs answers now, not after December 31 when these tariffs run out. I encourage the Minister of Finance to act on the recommendations proposed by the finance committee.