Marlene Jennings

[Yitzhak Rabin, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the late prime minister of Israel, Yitzhak Rabin. He spent his life defending his people. Rising from the rank of soldier of the Palmah in the second world war to that of Israel's chief of defence staff, he partook in all the battles that shaped the young Jewish state.

But it was as politician, prime minister, that he truly made his mark in the region.

A hawk turned dove, he had the courage to extend the hand of peace to his adversary, Yasser Arafat.

He made agonizing concessions and signed the Oslo accords that broke the paradigms of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He made peace with Jordan and infused the region with hope.

Ten years ago, a Jewish extremist tried to put an end to the democratic process of the people of Israel by assassinating the prime minister.

However, Rabin's legacy of peace perseveres, as does our memory of this great peacemaker.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the first thing a person with legal training learns in law school is that at a trial, one should never ask a question if one does not know the answer. There is no doubt that the member opposite will not be happy with my response.

I read the Gomery report in full, in English and in French. I would not dare comment on his report or quote excerpts without knowing that it is well presented or being sure that I was not distorting his statements or conclusions, contrary to Bloc members who unabashedly put conclusions and so-called facts in Justice Gomery's mouth. This is why I went out of my way not to add a single personal word. I have merely read out excerpts from the report. The only time I was forced to use my own words was when the name of the former Minister of Finance, who is the current Prime Minister, appeared in the quote I was reading aloud. I then had to use instead the name of his riding, LaSalle—Emard, and his current title, that of Prime Minister of Canada.

In the few minutes I had, I tried, not doubt successfully because the Bloc seems bothered by my remarks, to read some excerpts from the report, but I would have read the entire thing if I had had the time. The Bloc is certainly not going to inform and educate Quebeckers and Canadians about Justice Gomery's findings. As proof: the householder that at least 26 of them shamelessly mailed to their constituents and perhaps even to other ridings, in which they insinuate that some members of the Quebec Liberal caucus who are now or who were ministers should be condemned for having taken part in irregular and even illegal funding activities.

Justice Gomery himself heard from 172 witnesses, presided over 136 days of hearings and read thousands of pages of documentary evidence. The Bloc did not do this and did not even bother to wait for the report. It showed just how much it dislikes Quebeckers who do not share its vision of society, a vision that excludes anyone that does not share its opinion. The Bloc members sent their householder even before the Gomery report was released. No one who has taken part in this debate has had the courage to mention this point yet.

The Bloc members claim that their householder is based on the Gomery report, but the only way they could have done that is by having a spy, either at the printer's or even Justice Gomery's office, tell them what was in the report. They did not. So they acted before the report, thereby showing their disdain for a judge respected by Canadians from coast to coast and particularly by Quebeckers.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the debate so far about the motion brought forward by the member for Bourassa who, like me, is a member of the Liberal Party Quebec caucus.

I heard a lot of innuendo and a lot of conclusions. Some opposition members claim that their conclusions are the same as Justice Gomery's. In reality, they are making up their own summary of Justice Gomery's report.

I will quote only what Justice Gomery says in his report. I will start by reading the second paragraph on page xx of the preface:

One of the disadvantages of a public inquiry is that it may seem that justice has been done. This perception is misleading for the reason I have just given, and also for another reason: the dramatic revelations at public inquiries and the media attention given to them tend to distort reality and to make the misconduct that the inquiry uncovers appear to be more widespread than it really was. I fear that that has occurred in this case.

Because of the sensational nature of some of the evidence presented at the Commission’s hearings, the publicity given to it, and the political context in which the Inquiry took place, the impression may have been created that in Canada the administration of public affairs by the federal government is generally careless, incompetent, and motivated by improper considerations. People may also be persuaded that the persons involved in Canadian political life are inspired by improper motives, and unscrupulous.

Let me suggest that the Inquiry proves the contrary. Without diminishing the importance of the findings of impropriety and wrongdoing in the Report, the evidence presented reveals that, in general, the administration of government programs by the federal bureaucracy is competent and praiseworthy, a conclusion that has been emphasized by the Auditor General herself.

There is no reason for the public’s confidence in the integrity of our democratic institutions to be shaken....Canadians should not forget that the vast majority of our public officials and politicians do their work honestly, diligently and effectively, and emerge from this Inquiry free of any blame.

I will now quote the last two paragraphs on page 4 of the report itself:

Public hearings took place commencing in Ottawa on September 7, 2004, for approximately six months and continuing in Montreal until June 17, 2005. One hundred seventy-two witnesses were heard, some of them for several days and some on more than one occasion, over a total of 136 hearing days. A list of witnesses who testified is attached as Appendix D.

Ordinarily the deliberations of Cabinet are secret and privileged, but the government of Canada agreed to waive this privilege by two orders in council which permitted a full inquiry to be made of the question of how certain decisions were reached when the Sponsorship Program was first conceived.

I turn now to page 9. In the second paragraph, the judge says:

Just as it is important to identify persons who failed to fulfill their responsibilities or who might have been guilty of misconduct, it is equally important in this report to identify persons who, on the basis of the evidence, are innocent of any misconduct or mismanagement. Such persons who, in the publicity surrounding the Commission or elsewhere, might have been accused or suspected of improprieties, are entitled to have any blemishes to their reputations explained or removed.

I will now go to page 47 where Justice Gomery reports on the implementation of the federal budget and the responsibilities of a finance minister and draws relevant conclusions. The last paragraph on this page states that:

The minister of Finance is responsible for preparing the federal budget. This is the minister's primary responsibility, although he or she is also charged with developing tax and tariff policy and legislation; managing federal borrowing on financial markets; administering major federal funding and transfers to provinces and territories; developing regulatory policy for the country's financial sector; and representing Canada at international financial institutions.

On page 48, it states:

With respect to the Budget, the Minister of Finance is responsible for establishing the fiscal framework within which overall government spending takes place. He or she is, by tradition, the Vice-President of the Treasury Board. However, by custom the Minister of Finance does not attend Treasury Board meetings except when the President of the Treasury Board is unable to attend or when a matter to be discussed by Treasury Board is of special concern to the Department of Finance.

Once the fiscal framework is set, departments are responsible for the management of the expenditures allocated to them, although Treasury Board has its general oversight role. The Department of Finance and its Minister do not play a role in the oversight of expenditures made by other departments.

This is from the part of Justice Gomery's report dealing with responsibilities. He is talking about other ministers' responsibilities:

On the evidence there is no basis for attributing blame or responsibility for the maladministration of the Sponsorship Program to any other Minister of the Chrétien Cabinet, since they, like all Members of Parliament, were not informed of the initiatives being authorized by Mr. Pelletier, and their funding from the Unity Reserve. [The Prime Minister], whose role as Finance Minister did not involve him in the supervision of spending by the PMO or PWGSC, is entitled, like other Ministers in the Quebec caucus, to be exonerated from any blame for carelessness or misconduct. Ministers are not responsible for what they do not know about the actions and decisions of the PMO or other Ministers, or about the administration of departments other than their own. Sponsored events that took place in a Member’s riding, or that may have been supported or advocated by the riding association, do not create a presumption that the MP in question was familiar with the Sponsorship Program as a whole.

As I have one minute left, I will quote from page 435, concerning the responsibility of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada:

The persons who accepted contributions in cash and other improper benefits from Mr. Corriveau and Mr. Brault on behalf of the LPCQ have brought dishonour upon themselves and the political party they were supposed to serve... They disregarded the relevant laws governing donations to political parties—

Moving now to the last paragraph:

According to evidence presented on behalf of the LPCQ, reforms to the party’s management and systems make it less likely that such irregularities will reoccur.

The key point to remember is that Justice Gomery started off his presentation by saying that his responsibility was to find the facts and, on the basis of these facts, to decide on the responsibility of each person alleged to have responsibility, as well as to exonerate from any blame those persons who might have been suspected of participating in or having committed wrongdoings, which are potentially criminal acts. In fact, some of these acts are, since one person has already pleaded guilty and been sentenced.

In closing, I would just ask that the members in this House who wish to take part in the debate on the motion stick to the Gomery report.

[Privilege, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was very impressed by the comments made by the member for Saint-Laurent, especially when he talked about the courage of the Prime Minister of Canada, who advocated transparency and probity. When the Bloc Québécois refers to the Liberal Party of Canada and to the Gomery report, it uses its own words, not those of Justice Gomery.

Mr. Gomery has heard 172 witnesses and read thousands of pages of documentary evidence, including documents on cabinet deliberations, which, according to tradition, had never been made public. However, the Prime Minister of Canada, a Liberal Prime Minister, made them public.

I would like to hear the comments of the member for Saint-Laurent regarding the first paragraph on page 436 of the Gomery report, which states:

According to evidence presented on behalf of the LPCQ, reforms to the Party's management and systems make it less likely that such irregularities will reoccur.

Given the conclusion of Justice Gomery based on all the evidence that he heard, what does the member think of the fact that the Bloc Québécois does not urge its provincial counterparts to do the same when there are alleged wrongdoings in the fundraising campaigns?

[Job Creation, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that Canadian businesses created more jobs in the month of October than in any single month over the last two years, lowering our unemployment rate to a 30 year low of 6.6%. We also see that our GDP growth is up 3.2%.

Can the Minister of Finance tell the House when he will give us the full picture of the impressive performance of the Canadian economy through his economic and fiscal update?

[Canada-Israel Friendship Group, November 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, on October 27, the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Friendship Group held its annual general meeting. It was a resounding success.

Never before did a friendship group have the substantive goals we have set for ourselves, nor the energy that everyone felt during the session. Already on Monday our members spearheaded an all party motion adopted by this House condemning the anti-Semitic remarks of the Iranian president.

The Canada-Israel Friendship Group plans on being very active. Just this week, in cooperation with the Canada-Israel committee, we hosted on the Hill a roundtable meeting to explore the anti-terrorism issue.

We are setting up an information service for all members to highlight Israel's scientific, cultural, social and educational achievements.

I take this opportunity to encourage anyone in this House or the other place who is interested to join the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Friendship Group.

I will be there--

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, if every American citizen went out and filled their prescription by the Canadian market that idea is not far-fetched. We would run out. Prescription drugs that are manufactured and sold in Canada are manufactured for the domestic market. They are based on forecasts of how many Canadians will require this particular drug over the coming year and the actual product is manufactured in numbers to meet that need. It is not manufactured in order for half of it to be sold to the United States.

However I also find it interesting that the member questioned the issue that the companies would simply increase the amount. No, the companies will not. Why will they not? Because the drugs in--

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I will certainly respond to that with the same passion.

Canada is a complex country and we have many different jurisdictions. One of the things about good governance is that we ensure that whatever legislation is developed does represent and respect the jurisdiction and our Constitution. The other thing is to attempt to have solid information, solid facts in which to move and consult. This government has taken the time to consult the stakeholders.

Who are the stakeholders? The primary stakeholders are the Canadian people themselves and they have been consulted. The health care providers, whether it be the pharmacists, the doctors, the nurses or the technicians, they also have to be consulted. However we also must consult with the provinces. The previous member said that an unintended consequence could be that physicians would not be able to prescribe medicine unless they met face to face with their patient.

Under provincial jurisdiction, it is the province that determines the medical acts. Therefore, before our government moves on legislation, we must be sure we have it right, that we are not trampling on provincial jurisdiction and that we have the health care community and Canadians on board. The government is acting. I am proud of this government and I expect the Minister of Health will listen to this debate and to my call, which echoes the call of many others, for banning bulk exports of Canadian prescription drugs.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member his information concerning legislation in Congress, whether at the House of Representatives or at the Senate. However, when I was talking about the issue of drug importation into the United States, I said that the practice was illegal at the federal level.

The federal government in the United States has not as yet made the practice legal. However, at the state level, states have already passed legislation allowing for bulk importation and for patients, residents of their states, to import prescription drugs produced in another country for another market into their country.

I would like to provide a bit of information. Let us look at the state importation status. Past importation legislation was thankfully vetoed by the governor of California. However, it was not vetoed in Texas, Nevada, Washington, Maryland, Vermont, Virginia and Rhode Island. All those states have passed importation legislation to make it legal for their residents to import prescription drugs made for another market into the United States even though it has not been approved by federal legislation.

Utah, Indiana, Arizona, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina and New York State have adopted web enabled mail order personal importation. When the member talks about it being illegal in the United States, yes, it is an illegal practice. However, the states already have moved to allow their residents to order and bring into the United States, through the Internet, primarily Canadian prescription drugs that were made and manufactured for Canadian patients.

[Cross-Border Drug Sales, November 1st, 2005]

Madam Chair, it is a pleasure and an honour for me to take part in the debate this evening, because I believe that this matter is extremely important to all Canadians.

I would like to begin by talking a little bit about the context of this debate on cross-border Internet drugs. Over a year ago, when he was in Boston, the Minister of Health stated that “Canada cannot be the drugstore for the United States”. He also stated that Canada could not “meet the prescription drug needs of approximately 280 million Americans without putting our own Canadian supply at risk”.

The government's June 29 announcement to conduct consultations signalled an important commitment to putting Canadians first when it comes to making available the necessary supply of prescription drugs. Canadians should be concerned about this, because allowing bulk exports is a model that is simply unsustainable here in Canada.

For example, Canada's research based pharmaceutical companies are mandated to supply Canadian patients with the necessary supply of products to meet their needs, and not, quite frankly, to oversupply the Canadian market so that a few what I would call profit-hungry players can engage in arbitrage and ship to the United States or to any other jurisdiction products that are price controlled in Canada and meant for Canadians.

Simply stated, Canadian medicines are for Canadian patients first. I believe that this must be the foundation of the discussion in the House this evening.

There is a concern surrounding this practice among members of Canada's health care community. For example, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Pharmacists Association and the Federation of Medical Regulatory Authorities of Canada, to name but a few, are part of the health care community that has expressed serious concerns about the growth of the Internet drug pharmacies in Canada, pharmacies that are shipping drugs outside of Canada, drugs that are made for the Canadian market and price controlled for the Canadian market, drugs made and price controlled for Canadians.

Let us look at just one other jurisdiction, that of the U.S. Let us look at the environment there and what impact it could have on Canada. While there are varying estimates of the volume of prescription drugs that has been diverted over the last several years, the Minister of Health himself estimated the volume of these cross-border sales of prescription drugs at approximately $1.5 billion per year. Earlier estimates were much lower. This demonstrates that the shipments continue to grow.

It is also noteworthy that, while these sales are occurring, the practice in the United States is illegal. However, there continues to be a growing political pressure at the state level and the municipal level in the United States to do two things.

The first is to expand programs that allow Americans to buy Canadian, even though under federal law in the United States the practice remains illegal. The second is to pass resolutions or laws that call on Washington to legalize these imports.

The population of American state jurisdictions with “buy Canada” programs in place already exceeds that of Canada. This makes the threat of large scale importation into the United States or exportation out of Canada a reality.

Legislation in the United States to legalize imports from Canada has been introduced. The passage of just one of these laws would be expected to dramatically increase the flow of drugs to the south of our border.

Let me give members an example. At last count, some 25 states, representing 145 million Americans, are at some stage of implementing a drug import program. Ten American states already have legislation for a drug import program in place. That puts our drug supply for Canadians at serious risk.

Furthermore, the possibility of U.S. legalization of bulk imports poses an unacceptable risk to our continuing supply of safe, affordable prescription drugs for Canadians. In my view, a proactive, responsive stance on the part of the Canadian government is a matter of responsible, good governance.

I would like to come back to the environment in the United States. A study was conducted by Dr. Marv Shepherd, who is the director of the Center for Pharmacoeconomic Studies at the University of Texas. He will be participating in a newsmaker breakfast this week at the Press Club in Ottawa on this very subject. His study found that if all United States residents were to buy their drugs from Canada, the Canadian supply would dry up in approximately 38 days.

The Canadian pharmaceutical industry develops, manufactures and distributes medicines predicated on meeting the needs of Canadian patients and the Canadian market. Forecasting is done to take into account the size of the population to be served and the prevalence of the disease or condition to be treated. Given that one country importing supply from another country reduces the inventory available for that country to meet its own forecasted domestic patient needs, aside from cross-border trade of prescription drugs being detrimental from a public policy perspective, it is virtually impossible to do.

Let us take the Tamiflu example. Just last week, when Roche Canada took the unprecedented step of suspending sales of Tamiflu to the Canadian market, there were reports that Internet pharmacies in Canada were busy filling foreign prescriptions at a significant profit. One B.C. pharmacy alone was reportedly filling 400 orders a day for the United States. That is a significant number, when according to the Canadian Pharmacists Association only 4,000 Canadians received the drug in September. Another Internet pharmacy in Montreal, where I live, issued news releases promoting to U.S. customers its Tamiflu stocks.

The Canadian Pharmacists Association reacted to the Tamiflu incident by saying that the government should have acted to protect the country's supply of drugs. Again, when supply gets siphoned off to the United States then it is Canadians who come up short. The situation of Tamiflu is a perfect example of the types of scenarios Canadian patients will face if our government continues to allow drugs to be diverted to the United States.

What is the Canadian opinion on this issue? A public opinion poll commissioned by the Ontario Pharmacists' Association found that some 83% of those surveyed agreed or somewhat agreed that the federal government should take immediate action prior to the implementation of U.S. importation laws in order to protect Canada's drug supply. The same survey found that 76% said that it was unacceptable or somewhat unacceptable for Congress to plan for mass importations of Canadian medicines without consulting the Canadian government.

What are the policy options? The Minister of Health has put forth some important public policy solutions to address the issue of cross-border trade, and in my view, this is noteworthy progress. However, we have to keep in mind that while the government considers its options, the United States continues its movement toward permitting the bulk importation of Canadian products. Once allowed, wholesalers looking to profit from larger, more lucrative markets to the south will act rapidly to divert the product.

While I herald the decision of the Canadian government and our Minister of Health, with the three-prong process of measures that he has put into place, I believe that we have to act even more firmly. I believe that our government should make all exports of pharmaceuticals subject to a permit requirement by adding them to a list of products prohibited for export.

I also believe that wholesalers should not be granted permits to export in bulk a product that was produced for the Canadian market, based on the forecast of the needs of Canadian patients and was meant for Canadian patients. I believe that would prevent wholesalers from exploiting the arbitrage opportunities created by our price control system.

I also believe that legitimate exports of pharmaceuticals by innovative and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and exports by and to Canadians living abroad would continue as permitted.

I support innovation in Canada. I support job creation in Canada, but I do not support job creation that is based on putting the health of Canadian patients in danger.