Marlene Jennings

[Petitions, May 10th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 10,000 signatures on this petition, which reads as follows:

We, the undersigned residents of Canada, beg to draw the House's attention to the following:

Whereas the situation in Palestine and in the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon presents a real danger to the lives of those in these camps or returning to them;

Whereas Canada is a signatory to the convention relating to the status of refugees and thus has international obligations to protect refugee claimants;

Whereas numerous refugee claimants of Palestinian origin have applied for refugee status in Canada;

Whereas a number of refugee claimants turned down by the Immigration and Refugee Board will be returned to refugee camps in Lebanon or Palestine, barring a decision to the contrary by the authorities; and

Whereas three refugee claimants of Palestinian origin, namely Nabi Ayoub, Therese Boulos Haddad and Khalil Ayoub, are at present taking refuge in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce church in Montreal in order to avoid deportation;

Therefore, your petitioners call upon Parliament to intervene with the appropriate authorities to ensure that the three refugee claimants in question are awarded permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds, and that the removal orders for the other refugee claimants of Palestinian origin are suspended and their cases re-examined by the appropriate authorities.

As I said, this petition bears close to 10,000 signatures.

[Elizabeth Fry Week, May 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this week we are celebrating National Elizabeth Fry Week. All the Elizabeth Fry societies in the country will be organizing activities to raise public awareness about the situation of women in conflict with the law.

National Elizabeth Fry Week is held in the week preceding Mother's Day as most women in prison are mothers and most were their family's sole supporter before incarceration. When mothers are sentenced to prison, children are sentenced to separation.

By focusing on women's needs and alternatives to prison, Elizabeth Fry Societies encourage community responses to addressing criminal justice matters and build support for community based options for women.

Congratulations to all the Elizabeth Fry societies across the country for organizing this week.

[Mathieu Da Costa Day Act, May 5th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-524, an act to establish Mathieu Da Costa Day.

Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure in introducing this bill, which formally designates the first day of February as Mathieu Da Costa Day.

Mathieu Da Costa was a black navigator and interpreter, who in the late 1500s and early 1600s was instrumental in bridging the cultural and linguistic gap between our early French explorers and the Mi'kmaq people.

In a Canada that endeavours to celebrate its history and diversity with great fervour, I cannot think of a more fitting way to kick off Black History Month than with this commemorative day.

I would like to thank my colleague from Parkdale—High Park for seconding this motion. I hope all members of the House will support this bill when it comes forward for debate at second reading.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Refugees, May 4th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak once again about the three Palestinians who have taken sanctuary in the Notre-Dame-de-Grâce church in Montreal.

These three individuals, all in their 60s, have for almost 55 years lived in refugee camps, the last of which we know is under the control of internationally recognized terrorist groups. If we were to refuse them permanent status, we would be condemning them to a lifetime of risk and danger.

Thousands of Quebeckers have signed a petition on their behalf and many parliamentarians have indicated their support.

I ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to personally review the details of their applications for permanent residence on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. I hope she will use the authority which is granted to her by law to render the only decision which I believe is warranted. Yes, I hope she will authorize soon the ministerial permits which will allow these three Palestinians to remain safe and sound in Canada.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to rise in the House on the subject of the Criminal Code reforms introduced by the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Canada on March 29, 2004.

Specifically, these reforms to the Criminal Code affect people who are not criminally responsible or who have been deemed unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder.

These provisions are quite important. Anyone who has looked at the Criminal Code provisions that apply to people who are not criminally responsible or who have been deemed unfit to stand trial on account of mental disorder, would see that some of those provisions are really out of date. Some of those provisions have never in fact been enacted. I also think there were some court judgments on some of those provisions that have provided clarity, and the government's amendments deal with that.

I would like to repeat a quote from the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada when he tabled these amendments. He said:

We are committed to ensuring the law protects the rights of mentally disordered persons, while at the same time protecting public safety. For this purpose, I am proposing changes that will not only modernize the law but make it more fair and efficient, while preserving the overall framework that governs those found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder

These were the words of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

For those who are not familiar with criminal law or with the Criminal Code, there are provisions that state that one may be found not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder. When that happens it means that the accused is neither found guilty nor acquitted, and in fact is not even sentenced. Instead, a court or review board determines the appropriate disposition. It could be an absolute discharge, a discharge with conditions or an order that the individual be detained in hospital based on a series of criteria set out in the Criminal Code.

These amendments cover a broad base of issues dealing with those who have been found not criminally responsible following an actual trial or those who have been declared unfit to stand trial following evidence that has been brought before the judge at hand.

What are some of the amendments that the Minister of Justice has brought forward? On the one hand there are amendments that expand the powers of the provincial and territorial review boards. Why? They need to enhance their ability to fulfill their mandate. What is their mandate? These review boards of the provinces and territories have a legislated mandate which requires them to make decisions about detentions, the supervision or the release of someone who was found unfit to stand trial or not criminally responsible but who has been ordered to be detained for a period of time.

At various periods those review boards have to sit in judgment of individuals who have been ordered to be detained under these circumstances to determine whether they can be released and, if they can be released, under what conditions; whether they are a threat to society and, if they are, they evaluate the level of that risk. The amendments that the Minister of Justice has brought forward would enhance the ability of the review boards to make those decisions.

My colleague just finished speaking to another series of amendments. She made an entire speech on the issue of victim impact statements and did it very well. What she basically said, through everything she provided the House, was that it would allow for victim impact statements to be read by the victim at a review board hearing and would allow the review boards similar powers to that of the courts to protect the identity of the victims. As she herself stated, this is a major advance.

Up until now the Criminal Code provisions that allowed for victim impact statements did not deal with review boards that had to determine what to do with someone who had been found not criminally responsible but needed to be detained or someone who had been found unfit to stand trial because of his or her mental condition. Because the victims were not able to give victim impact statements in those cases, the review boards were not able to take into account the impact that the crime had on the victim. That is important.

These amendments would also permit the court to hold an inquiry and order a judicial stay of proceedings for an unfit accused who is not likely to ever become fit to stand trial and who poses no threat to public safety. This is important because to date the Criminal Code provisions did not allow for any mechanism. Even when we knew that the individual who was found unfit to stand trial posed no threat to public safety, there was no way for the courts to stay the proceedings or order an inquiry. Those individuals had to go through the trial. They would no longer have to do that.

Another amendment is to streamline transfer provisions. We already have provisions for individuals who have been found guilty of a crime and who have been sentenced to serve part or all of their sentence in detention, either in a provincial facility or in a federal facility, depending on whether they have been sentenced to two years less a day or to two years and more, to be transferred from one province to another or from a territory to a province or vice versa. In some cases they may wish to be transferred because there are certain educational possibilities that are available in another province's detention centres or penitentiaries that we do not have in the province where they are detained. In other cases it may be because they would be closer to friends and family.

If a person committed a crime, say in Quebec, but the person was actually from Alberta, which is where his family, his network is, if he were transferred to his own province he could receive the support of his family and friends which may contribute to his rehabilitation. Under the Criminal Code provisions as they now stand, for those who have been found not criminally responsible following a trial or for those who have been found unfit to stand trial, given their mental disorders that have been proven, the transfer provisions were quite wieldy and not very effective or efficient.

One of the amendments the Minister of Justice has made to the legislation would actually streamline those transfer provisions. It would allow a person found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder to be relocated from one province to another when it is in the best interests of rehabilitation.

I wish to underline that these reforms that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General has brought before the House are outlined in the Government of Canada's November 2002 response to the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights review of the mental disorder provisions of the Criminal Code. The proposed amendments also reflect current case law, as I mentioned at the beginning of my comments.

I would ask that all members of the House support these amendments. Let us get them adopted and through the House so they can actually be proclaimed and come into effect.

[Bill C-250, April 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to applaud the work of Canada's Parliament in passing Bill C-250 this week. Bill C-250 will amend the Criminal Code by adding sexual orientation to the list of groups protected by the hate crimes provisions of the Criminal Code.

The bill is a significant step toward protecting Canadians from hate based attacks. Bill C-250 will not infringe on the freedom of speech, nor will it limit the rights of individuals to disagree on lifestyle issues, nor will it criminalize religious text. What Bill C-250 does is to ensure equal protection under the Criminal Code regardless of sexual orientation.

I would like to applaud the good work of the members of the House who helped pass the bill. My thanks to all who helped pass the bill.

[Patent Act, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, once again I have the opportunity to congratulate all the members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. It was a great experience to see all the members of this committee working together in the interest of poor and developing countries. It was a sight to see and I would like to congratulate everyone.

Regarding the motions in Group No. 2, I was there when the member for Windsor West tabled a series of amendments to the bill in order to include other drugs on the list or in the government's program with respect to this bill, or to add other forms of drugs. For instance, a drug may have already been on the list, but only in tablet form and not as a soluble or other type. I supported almost all the motions.

The motions tabled mainly by the member for Windsor West regarding the drugs that should be included in the program and that I did not support, were Motions Nos. 14 and 15. Motion No. 14 is to add clarithromycin and Motion No. 18 is to add moxifloxacin hydrochloride.

To me, the principle is quite simple: not to authorize the use or the export of drugs in developing countries for treatment that we would not use here, if it is not authorized in Canada.

The two drugs listed in Motions Nos. 14 and 18, which the member for Windsor West wants on the list so they can be used for this kind of illness or that kind of illness, are not authorized here in Canada. Is the idea that we are going to experiment? Are we going to use people of the developing world and the least developed countries as guinea pigs for treatments that we have not as yet authorized here?

No. I think the government's position is clear. The drugs have to be authorized by our experts here in Canada for a specific use. Then the licences, if licences are to be given out, would be based on Health Canada, not on nothing, because that is basically what it would be.

I seriously think we are finding a certain attitude here. Let me go back to Motion No. 2, which would actually overturn a subamendment adopted after full and fulsome debate in committee. An overwhelming majority of the members voted in favour of the subamendment, yet the member for Windsor West wishes to overturn that democratic decision taken in committee in order to allow persons or entities to contract for these cheaper drugs here in Canada and go into countries without having any link whatsoever with the government in place.

The subamendment that the committee in its wisdom adopted was based on the fact that we cannot do that and we should not do that. We are not living in a colonialist world. We are no longer living in a Eurocentric world. We are living in a world where we recognize sovereign state to sovereign state, government to government. That is what WTO is all about.

When we come to the list of medications that should be on the schedule, I say let the expert advisory committee determine whether or not they are drugs that could be used for treatments here in Canada. If the advisory committee, in its wisdom and with its expertise, says yes, then the drug would be added to the schedule. We do not add medication to the schedule which has not been approved for that kind of use or has not been approved in Canada for the specific use that the member or organizations intend to use it for in other countries. We do not use people as guinea pigs.

[Patent Act, April 28th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-9 at report stage.

As my colleagues from the opposition and the government have already mentioned repeatedly, this bill stems from a historic act. In fact, it is becoming a model for the rest of the world, should they be interested in adopting similar legislation.

I am very proud of the work done by all the members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology during the hearings that allowed us to hear evidence from all interested parties, including experts and NGOs that work in developing countries.

We heard a large range of views, but everyone agreed that, first, we need this legislation and, second, the act should be strengthened to ensure that all interested parties that have a work expertise and a desire to work in developing countries can do so and have access to affordable drugs.

Although I am chair of the committee, I was unable to participate actively during many of its hearings because at the same time I am vice-chair of the public accounts committee. As everyone knows, the public accounts committee has been sitting three to four times more than a committee normally sits per week. We were sitting on this whole sponsorship issue, scandal, whatever one wants to call it, when the House was adjourned.

I can assure everyone in the House, and every Canadian, that each night I received the blues, the transcripts of everything that the committee heard. I went through them so I was very aware of what the committee members who were at the sessions were hearing.

I read the briefs that were tabled before the committee by all the different groups. I received a lot of correspondence from ordinary Canadians, pharmaceutical companies, the innovative Rx companies and generic companies. Members can name it, and I heard from them and I took notice of what they had to say.

I want to speak specifically to Motion No. 2 which was presented at report stage by my colleague from Windsor West who is with the NDP. The aim of the motion is to overturn a decision of the committee on a subamendment that I had brought to committee. What was the subamendment? I would like to read out the entire proposed paragraph and then show what Motion No. 2 would do, and explain why I do not support Motion No. 2. Proposed paragraph 21.04(2)(f) currently reads:

the name of the governmental person or entity, or the person or entity permitted by the government of the importing country, to which the product is to be sold, and prescribed information, if any, concerning that person or entity; and

It then goes on to other proposed paragraphs.

With Motion No. 2 that the member from Windsor West would hope that the House adopt, and which I hope the House does not adopt, it would remove all the section that says, “permitted by the government of the importing country”. To remove that would mean that the persons or entities could contract with generic companies in Canada who would receive licences in order to buy medication and bring it into a developing country, or a least developed country, without the knowledge of that government.

I think that the Canadian government, with the active assistance of all members on that committee, and all parties, worked hard to ensure that NGOs would have a strong role to play in ensuring that this legislation is effective when it rolls out and begins to work, and that it will actually assist the work that NGOs do in the developing world, and in the least developed countries.

I think that the legislation is fantastic. It is historic and it does not require Motion No. 2 because at its core, and I am sure that if the member had thought about it, if one were to remove that link between the government of the importing country, it would basically become Eurocentric.

It would mean that the government did not know what was best. The government of the importing country is not responsible for having policies or an infrastructure in place for public health or at least a policy to ensure that public health and infrastructure are in place.

We must work with the NGO community, governmental agencies of other countries, and multilateral agencies that we have put in place. When I say we, I mean the world. However, to remove that link, in my view, is to say that the governments of the importing countries do not have a role to play in elaborating and implementing their own public health policies and their own public health infrastructure, and that we in the developed world and industrialized world know what is best for them. We would therefore not need to treat directly with them; we could simply bypass them. I cannot agree with that and I am sure the member for Windsor West, if he thought about it, would rethink his motion.

I wish to conclude by saying that this is a wonderful bill, notwithstanding Motion No. 2, and Motions Nos. 14 and 18, which the parliamentary secretary addressed most ably by explaining that there were technical problems with those two.

Each member of the industry committee and all of the support staff from the House of Commons who assisted this committee in doing its work deserve a real applause from all Canadians because it was Parliament, the House of Commons, at its best. We were at our best during the work of that committee. I hope that when we vote on these motions and when we vote on the bill at report stage that we will again show our best to Canadians and the world.

[Day of Mourning, April 28th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, as is our tradition, we will observe one minute of silence to honour the memory of persons killed or injured in the workplace.

Each year, 900 Canadians die in workplace accidents. One worker in 15 is injured every year.

Government efforts to focus on prevention and workplace safety are starting to show positive results, but we must continue the battle.

[RAI International, April 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reaffirm my support for Canadians of Italian heritage who are calling for access to Italian digital television. RAI International is already available in 238 countries.

In September 2003, I wrote the CRTC on this. Since then, the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, myself and several of our Liberal colleagues have expressed our support in this House for RAI International's application to the CRTC. We are totally justified in this and I hope, for the sake of Canadians of Italian origin throughout Canada, that the CRTC will give a favourable response to them and to RAI International, whose application is supported by a petition containing more than 106,000 signatures as well as over 330 letters.