Joy Smith

[Petitions, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to present to the House hundreds of names of petitioners across Canada who are calling on the government to keep up the good work and continue combating the trafficking of persons.

[Committees of the House, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Health. The committee has studied Bill S-220, An Act respecting a National Blood Donor Week, and has agreed to report it to the House without amendment.

[Public Safety, January 30th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, stories of children being victimized by pedophiles and online sexual predators are deeply troubling.

Great organizations like the Manitoba based Canadian Centre for Child Protection are targeting those who prey on the Internet. Yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety announced that it would receive one of the federal government's largest investments ever to a national charitable organization.

Could the minister tell the House how yesterday's announcement will reduce child victimization, increase the personal safety of children and reduce the risk of sexual exploitation?

[Petitions, January 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, constituents in my riding are continually bringing in petitions and continued to do that over the Christmas break to request that all members of the House of Commons support legislation to abolish the long gun registry. I would like to present those today.

[Unborn Victims of Crime Act, December 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to private member's bill, Bill C-484, which aims to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the injury or causing the death of an unborn child. I commend my colleague, the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park, who proposes the creation of new offences and penalties where an unborn child is injured or killed when an offence is committed against the mother.

I believe the majority of the members in the House agree with the intent of my colleague's bill.

On a personal note, his heartfelt passion to ensure that violence against women and children does not occur is very compelling. I have looked at all his notes and the bill very carefully I support 100% the intent of the bill.

Surely a criminal assault that seeks to involve or harm an expected child is deserving of a sanction. However, I am not yet convinced that the private member's bill in this form is the best way to proceed without a bit of further examination. I have some concerns that the bill may reduce rather than increase the actual penalty for causing harm or death to an unborn child, and I will tell members why.

Subsection 223(2) and section 238 of the Criminal Code currently provides some protection to the unborn child by stating that a person commits homicide by killing an unborn child in the act of birth, under certain conditions. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

The Criminal Code also contains comprehensive assault and homicide offences, which apply to violent acts against pregnant women. Under the accumulated common law, resulting harm to unborn children is considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes and the offender is punished severely.

Should the code permit two charges to be laid in such cases, as proposed by Bill C-484, it is likely that the two sentences would be served concurrently. Pregnancy, as an aggravating factor, could no longer be taken into account and, therefore, the end result ultimately could be a shorter sentence than is currently provided for in the law.

I do not believe this is the intent of this important bill, but we have to realize that it could be the result and we have to guard against that.

I would respectfully suggest that perhaps what is most needed is a Criminal Code amendment to allow for consecutive sentences for offences of this nature, as well as other serious personal injury offences.

During the last election campaign, our government proposed that sentences for multiple convictions be served consecutively. I have spoken with the justice minister and I am confident he will introduce legislation early in the new year to address this deficiency in the law.

The justice minister has been extremely busy over the course of the year. Our government's efforts and our aggressive law and order agenda, including Bill C-2, the tacking violent crime act, are very much appreciated by women all across the nation.

Bill C-2, which is currently before the Senate, merges most of the criminal laws from the last session of Parliament into one comprehensive bill, and we know what that bill includes. It includes mandatory minimum penalties for firearm offences, age of protection, dangerous offenders, impaired driving and reverse onus on bail for firearm offence.

The proposed reforms to deal with dangerous and repeat violent offenders are of particular importance to this dialogue today to address a concern that I believe needs to be looked at today in the context of this very important debate, which is violence against women and children in general.

The dangerous offender proposals are designed to address concerns with respect to the ability of police, crown prosecutors and the courts to sentence and manage the threat posed to the general public by individuals who are at very high risk to reoffend sexually and violently. The victims of sexual and violent assaults are all too often women.

Under Bill C-2, where offenders are convicted of a third sufficiently serious offence, the Crown must formally advise the court that it has considered whether to bring a dangerous offender application forward. The declaration requirement is intended to ensure more consistent use of the dangerous offender sentence by Crowns in all jurisdictions.

Where the Crown decides to bring such an application, an offender convicted of a third primary designated offence, a narrow and proportionate list of the 12 most serious and violent sexual offences that commonly trigger a dangerous offender designation, and often that is involved in this kind of a crime that we are speaking of today, will be presumed to be a dangerous offender unless he or she could prove otherwise.

Bill C-2 also proposes reforms to ensure that persons who are designated as dangerous offenders are appropriately sentenced.

I do not want to go over my time and I want to make sure that I get everything that I wanted to say said. The approach our government has taken has been a step in the right direction to bring law and order to our country. We are all familiar with Bill C-2.

Early last month the Minister of Canadian Heritage acknowledged woman abuse prevention month in Ontario. Members were talking about combating violence against women and women abuse, and these are common threads in legislation here in Parliament. In Winnipeg several projects were announced recently, one of which is to combat violence against women with intellectual disabilities.

I want to applaud our government for its efforts to recognize and prevent violence against women. I want to particularly applaud the member for bringing this bill forward. I reiterate my support for the intent of this private member's bill.

I do question its effectiveness in its present form in actually providing lengthier jail terms for the offence of injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an assault against the mother. This type of horrendous, abhorrent crime must be addressed. Having said that, all these issues should be taken into consideration so that this bill achieves its intended objective.

[Petitions, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions from Alberta. Albertans are very concerned about the human trafficking issue and these petition encourage the government to continue its work to stop the horrendous crime of human trafficking.

[Committees of the House, December 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Health, entitled “Prescription Drugs Part 1--Common Drug Review: An F/P/T Process”.

From April to June 2007, the committee heard from over 46 witnesses on this important subject. Committee members agree that the CDR is a good federal, provincial and territorial process but that further improvements are necessary.

I ask members to please allow me at this time to recognize the hard work and dedication of all members of the health committee involved in this study in the previous session. They are: the former chair of the committee and member for Yellowhead; the member for St. Paul's; the member for Palliser; the member for Brampton West; the member for Oakville; the member for Barrie; the member for Sarnia—Lambton; the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia; the member for Québec; the member for Edmonton—Strathcona; the member for Thornhill; the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes; and the member for Surrey North.

We wish to thank them for making this report possible and for the resulting recommendations that will further strengthen the CDR. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, your committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Food and Drugs Act, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the member for Selkirk—Interlake, pointed out, hopefully by now several U.S. drug importation bills have come and gone. Bills on drug importation do not have a great life expectancy.

We have been hearing about bulk importation of drugs from our neighbour south of the border for more than five years now. During that period, many such bills have been introduced, one after another, and none came close to being adopted. In fact, they all died. They died because they were poisoned by members of Congress. They died because they became unpopular. They died because they were not workable. Why? Because importing drugs manufactured for other markets is simply not the solution.

Again today we see concerned U.S. health care providers commenting in the media. They raise their voices because the harsh reality of pricey prescription drugs in the U.S. is the major reason why people do not take their medication as prescribed, even forcing some people to choose between their medicines and other necessities.

The solution they propose is to control and reduce drug prices by involving Congress and federal agencies. They are not proposing to import drugs from foreign markets. In fact, they are openly and bluntly opposing such action.

Some hon. members present here today remain of the position that the U.S. will imminently open its border to cheaper drugs from other markets. Frankly, I do not understand how they are arriving at such a conclusion.

There is no doubt that Canadians must continue to have access to the prescription drugs they require. The government is committed to the health and safety of Canadians, including protecting an adequate supply of prescription drugs. However, I fail to see how spending taxpayer money to create unneeded laws to address purely hypothetical scenarios would serve that end. Should the time when the government would need to take action, we would want a measured and balanced approach to protecting our drug supply.

Bill C-378 is underdeveloped. Its non-measured, broad-brush approach raises fundamental objections. These are substantive in terms of trade law obligations and procedural in terms of regulation-making processes.

By contrast, the leading U.S. bill to legalize drug imports appears to assiduously cover the waterfront, in terms of administrative details.

I know hon. members are aware that it is most unusual to seek to directly amend regulations in Parliament, as Bill C-378 would do. Such an approach would bypass the Canada Gazette, related consultations and other review processes for regulations.

However, more important, Bill C-378 would not provide any tools for implementation and, worse, would not provide any ministerial discretion to ensure that any government response would be proportionate to the risk.

The member for St. Paul's has been talking about the Tamiflu situation of 2005, when Internet pharmacies were promoting and selling this drug to patients outside of Canada. I am deeply confused as to why this past situation is being offered as one example for moving forward with Bill C-378. I am confused because C-378 would still allow Internet pharmacies to sell drugs to the U.S. It would allow for truckloads of drugs to cross the border, even should shortages occur in Canada.

In short, the bill would prohibit exports and then would exempt most of the exports it purports to prohibit.

It is clear that Bill C-378 would not meet its stated goal. We would find ourselves having to come back in the House to discuss yet another bill, one that would be measured, one that would be consistent, one that would be effective at protecting our drug supply, one that would be carefully crafted knowing the final form of a U.S. bill, not one based on uncertain and ever changing U.S. House and Senate proposals about drug importation.

Canadians have said that they were concerned about cross-border drug sales, but they would be even more concerned with having Bill C-378 as the government's response.

Supporting the bill is not about standing up for Canadians.

Again, I want to reiterate and underscore that the government is committed to effectively monitoring and assessing potential risks to our drug supply associated with cross-border drug sales.

However, it is important not to overstate those risks and it is premature to introduce or pursue new legislation to restrict drug exports when there is no existing threat to the Canadian drug supply.

Real obstacles to the adoption of an effective U.S. drug importation bill remain, particularly the known objections of President Bush and many republican legislators. However, even if the U.S. were to adopt the current leading drug importation bill, its provisions would not allow bulk imports to start until one year had passed, providing the necessary window for this government to develop a measured and relevant approach to protecting our drug supply.

The U.S. bill also contains an extensive oversight regime, including inspections of exporting facilities that would be expected to limit and/or slow the uptake of its enabling provisions. Cost recovery from exporters and importers would also have an impact on the potential cost savings to consumers.

However, what is important to understand is that the drug importation proposal is not at the forefront of discussions in the U.S. It is being used solely as a lever to bring U.S. drug manufacturers to the negotiation table to lower U.S. drug prices.

The real leading proposal is to allow the U.S. medicare program to negotiate drug prices directly with manufacturers, which it is currently prohibited from doing. We know and the U.S. Congress knows that the issue the U.S. health care system is facing is high drug prices.

In summation, we have been hearing for years about drug import proposals in the U.S., but none survived. What we see and what we hear today is a continuing debate about high drug prices in the U.S. and this is a situation that the U.S. will need to resolve within its borders.

Candidly, there is no reason for spending more of the valuable time of hon. members to discuss a risk that does not exist and, worse, to discuss a bill that would not even protect our drug supply, even if there were a risk.

The interest of the member for St. Paul's on this issue is very much appreciated and noted, but for the reasons outlined, the government cannot support Bill C-378.

[Petitions, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present two petitions calling on the government to continue its work to stop human trafficking here in Canada.

This is a growing crime on our shores. We have heard several accounts this past couple of weeks of human trafficking rings being taken down in Halifax and in Alberta. I applaud those people for continuing their good work.

[Committees of the House, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Health.

I am pleased to report that the committee has considered the supplementary estimates (A) under Health for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008, and reports the same.