House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 64% of the vote.
Canada Steamship Lines February 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the government cannot hide behind administrative errors and mistakes made. That is simply a slap in the face to Canadian taxpayers. This is an issue of trust.
The government said the gun registry would cost $2 million. It is a billion dollars and counting. The government said that there was $137,000 in contracts to the Prime Minister's companies. Now it is $160 million and counting.
How can Canadians trust anything the government says with respect to their tax dollars?
Canada Steamship Lines February 4th, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there are astronomical errors in the government's accounting for the Prime Minister's companies and the money they received from the Canadian taxpayer.
I would like to give the government House leader an opportunity to cut through the fog and explain how the final amount was so massively underestimated a year ago. How does the government explain the huge difference between the original figure of $137,000 of February 2003 and the apparently final figure, which now appears to be growing, of $161 million last week and counting?
Canada Steamship Lines February 3rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, they had every government department at their disposal and they still got the information wrong.
The fact is it was what is called a non-repayable contribution to one of the Prime Minister's companies, a subsidiary of CSL called Canarctic Shipping. This company received a non-repayable contribution which, to translate for everyone here, is a situation where “I found a suitcase and I do not have to return the money”.
Again I wish to ask the House leader this. We have waited a year and a half for a straight answer. We have still not received it. How much money has the Prime Minister's former companies received from the Government of Canada?
Canada Steamship Lines February 3rd, 2004
Mr. Speaker, moments ago in response to our leader, the Prime Minister said that the $161 million was the best answer the government was capable of giving. We have already uncovered an error with the government's $161 million response with respect to another of the Prime Minister's companies, Canarctic Shipping.
I would like to ask this of not the Prime Minister, who obviously does not know, but of the House leader who sent this document over. How many more errors are in this document and when will Canadians finally know the truth about how much government money was given to the Prime Minister's companies?
Patent Act November 7th, 2003
Madam Speaker, to respond to my colleague, I was informed by the member for Calgary East, who is a member of that committee, that the Alliance did agree with this specific recommendation. They dissented from the report for other reasons. I am not a member of that committee, but that is certainly what I have been informed of by my colleague.
I know the NDP has stated that the Alliance was not supportive of this initiative early on, so I think I should emphasize this, because in fact we did take the step of publicly addressing a letter to the Minister of Industry, the minister for whom I am a critic, and the Minister for International Trade, and we stated publicly:
We would like you to know that the Canadian Alliance supports efforts by the Canadian government to facilitate the delivery of drugs to help developing countries deal with public health emergencies, such as the HIV-AIDS crisis in Africa.
That is a pretty clear statement. I think it is a constructive statement made by the official opposition to the government indicating that we would be supportive of this type of initiative. That is why we are supportive of this legislation in general and supportive of it going forward to committee right after second reading. I think it is very clear that the Canadian Alliance has acted very responsibly in its support of this type of initiative.
We have recognized the size of the epidemic. I think Stephen Lewis should be commended for making this well known to us as Canadians. The Canadian Alliance was at the forefront of recognizing this and acting responsibly.
Patent Act November 7th, 2003
Madam Speaker, I will try to respond to all the points.
First, as a member of the industry committee, I would certainly be willing to meet when the House is not sitting. If the House is adjourned, I would certainly be willing to do that. The parliamentary secretary could certainly indicate that to the chair of our committee.
In terms of who would want to appear, I have been contacted by four organizations, but there could be others that want to appear. There are: the one the member mentioned, Doctors Without Borders; the Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network; the research based pharmaceutical companies, which yesterday in a statement indicated that they support the legislation; and the generic companies, which have indicated in the past that they support this type of initiative. Certainly those four groups should appear before the committee to advise us, but again, I think it should be open.
As well, at committee or perhaps beyond that we should look at the question of medical infrastructure. Perhaps Oxfam or other groups would want to advise us on how best to do that.
Frankly, we should also look at some of the ongoing initiatives, such as those my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, has been involved in. I also know that the member for Calgary East has taken a very strong interest in this issue. Let us look at what is working now and see whether in the interim we can build on that as well, even before this legislation is passed.
In terms of the committee meeting, I would certainly be willing to meet in November or December even if the House is not sitting.
Patent Act November 7th, 2003
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his answers to those questions.
I want to state at the outset that the Canadian Alliance does support this initiative. We support Bill C-56 and we certainly look forward to seeing the government acting on this.
I want to state a few points just to be clear and to be on the record. Some have suggested that the Canadian Alliance is a johnny-come-lately to this issue. That is not true. In fact, it goes against the public record itself.
As soon as the Ministers of Trade and Industry raised this issue in September following the agreement at the WTO in August--and I think we all should commend the World Trade Organization for taking that step in August--as soon as these two ministers publicly mused about doing this, my colleague, our critic for international trade, and I publicly wrote to the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Industry. I would like to quote directly from the letter. We stated:
We would like you to know that the Canadian Alliance supports efforts by the Canadian government to facilitate the delivery of drugs to help developing countries deal with public health emergencies such as the HIV-AIDS crisis in Africa.
October 2, 2003
We put ourselves as a party on the record as supporting this initiative at that time.
Further to that, I want to discuss the work of another colleague, the member for Calgary East, who has brought up this issue with me on numerous occasions and has been pressuring me to push the government to act. As we know, he was born in Africa. He has a very personal connection with that continent and this issue and he would like us to act. He stood up on a member's statement and he called for it, which was publicly recognized in the The Toronto Star by Carol Goar.
Third, I would like to point out the work of one of my colleagues who is a doctor. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has been on trips to Africa trying to actually facilitate the much needed delivery of drugs to people. This is something that my colleague himself will not talk about, but I can because I think it is a wonderful example of a member of Parliament dedicating his time and resources to try to address this issue.
So I want to state publicly that the Canadian Alliance has been very publicly supportive of this initiative. We have some concerns on how it is going to be implemented, but we do very much support the initiative.
I have to say that I was quite pleasantly surprised with the bill that was introduced yesterday and with the briefing. I know that on this side of the House often we are critical of those in the bureaucracy, but quite frankly, I thought the bureaucrats from Industry Canada and Health Canada had done their homework. I thought the briefing was very good and I think that in general this is a very good piece of legislation.
Obviously I want to touch upon why we need to do this, why we in the House need to act. The fact is that because we are facing epidemics, as human beings we have to address the issue. The developing countries have simply been ravaged by HIV-AIDS, by tuberculosis and by malaria.
In Botswana and Zimbabwe alone, it is estimated that 30 million Africans have HIV-AIDS, which is equal to the entire population of Canada. Just to think of the staggering numbers is simply astounding.
The plague has already killed 15 million Africans. Women and girls are particularly vulnerable. Sixty per cent of infected Africans are female. Less than 200,000 Africans are receiving HIV-AIDS anti-retroviral drugs with the appropriate medical follow-up.
In August 2003, the World Trade Organization agreed on legal changes that would make it easier for poorer countries to import the cheaper generic drugs made under compulsory licensing if they are unable to manufacture the medicines themselves.
In September, the WHO made a proposal known as “3 by 5”: to get HIV-AIDS drugs to three million people by 2005. Only 300,000 people in poorer countries now receive the drugs with appropriate medical follow-up.
There are a number of problems associated with AIDS, which the United Nations is trying to overcome. For instance, HIV-AIDS and TB often occur together. In addition, malaria thrives on bodies whose immune systems have been weakened by AIDS. We have to look at these diseases in concert and try to address them all.
While there is presently no cure for AIDS, anti-retroviral drugs, ARVs such as AZT, can prolong the life of an infected person by up to 20 years and reduce the chance of an infected pregnant woman passing on the virus to her unborn child. ARVs curb the reproduction of the virus itself.
We have to address the issue of poverty. Currently, companies like GlaxoSmithKline provide HIV-AIDS drugs for as little as 19¢ a day. In August 2003, GSK licensed a generic manufacturer in South Africa.
However, these low costs, as low as they are at 19¢ a day, are still too expensive for most patients. In addition, people who cannot afford the correct diet or clean water may have an adverse reaction to a medication. This is why we encourage the government, not in this bill specifically but as part of this initiative, to look at the medical infrastructure and the medical follow-up and take a holistic approach to this problem: not just getting the drugs at a low cost to the people who need them but ensuring that the medical infrastructure is in place and that there is medical follow-up.
In terms of distribution, even the president of South Africa, who was here recently, has said that while he wants cheap drugs to be delivered “tomorrow”, the effort would be wasted without putting in place an adequate infrastructure to ensure the medicines were stored properly.
We in the Canadian Alliance hope the government recognizes that drugs are only one component of improving care in African countries and other developing nations that have been ravaged by HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Poverty, distribution problems and a lack of medical care continue to compound the problem of public health crises in these countries. While we support the provision of cheaper drugs, we must look at it, as I have said, in a very holistic manner.
In terms of the timeline, the Minister of Industry announced in September that Canada would export cheap generic versions of AIDS drugs to developing nations. Obviously we know that generic drugs are copies of the brand names. In Canada, generic drugs can be produced only after the 20 year patent expires for the initial brand name.
We recognize that there are some concerns with the legislation, but we also believe that because of the good faith surrounding these issues we can address these concerns quickly.
I have talked to as many interested parties as I could, certainly this morning and last night: the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Doctors Without Borders, the generic drug companies' representative association, and representatives of research based pharmaceutical companies. Certainly these interested parties should have an opportunity to present at committee and to try to make what they see as improvements in the legislation, but the issue of timing is of concern to us.
As I mentioned in my questions, I think the new Liberal leader should state exactly where he stands. If he supports this, that is great. Then he should be encouraged to bring this legislation back as soon as possible, because if this is the last sitting day then unfortunately the committee would not be able to get to this before the new year, which I think is unfortunate.
Again, just for the record, the Canadian Alliance supports the government's initiative in proposing that the bill pass second reading unanimously and go straight to committee. We support this initiative to provide lower cost drugs to developing nations to address HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and possibly other diseases. We certainly look forward to working with any and all interested parties on the issue.
Patent Act November 7th, 2003
Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague and friend a couple of questions.
One of our concerns is obviously the short time period. It is expected that this will be the last day the House sits this year. We do not know what will happen with the new prime minister in the new year. I have some simple basic questions that I have received from people who are interested in the bill.
Why did the government not introduce this legislation in October and send it to committee at that time? Why did it wait so long to introduce this legislation? What will happen to this legislation if, as I think will happen, unanimous consent is granted to send it to committee right away and the House adjourns? Will the committee sit in November and December? If the House prorogues, we know then that committees cannot sit. What is the government's intent? Has the new Liberal leader promised to reintroduce this legislation in February or March, whenever the House resumes?
Why did the government introduce the bill with great fanfare yesterday but now it seems to believe that it is flawed? On this side of the House we certainly support this initiative, but why did the government introduce a piece of legislation that it believes is flawed?
Canada Elections Act November 7th, 2003
He is now a Tory MLA.
International Aid November 6th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, this is a good initiative, but the Canadian Alliance publicly expressed our support over a month ago to the government in writing. This is a crisis situation that requires action on our part.
Will the government commit to passing this legislation immediately, so that Canada can take the lead in helping developing nations deal with their public health emergencies?