Mike Lake

[March 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to my hon. colleague, I wondered if he was at a different meeting this afternoon than I was because he portrayed a different picture of what I remember hearing from the witnesses who were before the committee today.

We had a good committee hearing today. We heard from three statistical experts who shared with us the work that is ongoing right now as Statistics Canada undertakes this national household survey. By all reports today, that work seems to be going well. Some good progress is being made in the north where the process has begun. We are hearing that there is a very strong response rate of 99% for the census and, I believe, 85% so far for the national household survey. That is a good start.

I would like to clarify some of the inaccuracies that we hear from time to time. There was some confusion in the committee today because one of the Liberal members did not realize that we still had a census. I think it is important to clarify that we do still have a census in this country. It is what most Canadians would equate to a census. It is the counting of all Canadians. It identifies their gender, where they live, their marital status and those types of important things for gathering information. As the member mentioned, that census is still mandatory.

In addition to the census, we have a national household survey that is not mandatory. We will no longer be threatening Canadians with fines and jail time because they do not want to tell the government, for example, what their religion is, or how many bedrooms they have in their house, or how much yard work they did last week. We think it is inappropriate and unacceptable to threaten Canadians with fines or jail time for not wanting to answer those questions.

It is fully understandable that we might have a situation where new Canadians may not want to tell the government their religion. Under the law previously, they would be threatened with up to a $500 fine or jail time. In fact, the Liberal member for St. Paul's has introduced a bill that would reinstate that threat of fines. Of course, if people do not pay their fine they are subject to jail time as well.

We think that is inappropriate and unacceptable in a modern democracy like Canada. We think that Canadians, when they receive their national household survey, will, for the most part, want to act responsibly and fill it out. I know I will. We heard from virtually everyone in the room today that if they get the national household survey they intend to fill it out and send it back.

We have some world-renowned experts in statistics who will be working on this and executing the new process to ensure we get the best information that we can possibly get. Perhaps the hon. member underestimates the skills that exist at Statistics Canada. We do not. We believe that we will get terrific, usable and useful information through this process, but we will do it without threatening Canadians.

[Patent Act, March 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP for his passion on this issue, for his interest in picking this bill up. I thank all hon. colleagues in the House, regardless of how they feel about this legislation, for voting unanimously to allow the member to pick up the bill so we could continue this important debate.

Bill C-393 is drafted to deal with the many challenges associated with access to medicines in the developing world.

Before I begin, I commend the Grandmothers to Grandmothers campaign for their continued perseverance to keep this issue at the top of public debate. Although we may not agree on the legislation, I share with the grandmothers a commitment to bringing real and meaningful improvements to the health issues plaguing the people of the developing world, especially those who are most vulnerable, children and mothers.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology recently completed an extensive review of Bill C-393. The committee heard that Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, in its current form, enabled Canada to deliver two shipments of approximately 15 million tablets of an HIV-AIDS drug to Rwanda in 2008 and 2009.

This makes Canada the only country to have successfully exported generic versions of patented drugs to a developing country using a system like Canada's access to Medicines Regime, a significant achievement to be sure.

The committee also heard testimony that made the following point very clear. African countries depend on medicines from countries such as India, not Canada as some have suggested. The rationale is basic economics: they cost less. They cost less to produce and ship and systems are already in place that see millions of generic copies of patented drugs shipped from countries like India to the developing world.

This is why our government's primary effort to combat the shortage of drugs in the developing world has been focused on direct support to NGOs in Africa or to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Supporting these worthwhile initiatives is the most effective means to help those in need.

However, that is not all that our government has done. In budget 2010 the government reaffirmed its commitment to double international assistance, bringing Canada's total international assistance to approximately $5 billion

. Working with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, our government is at the forefront of the effort to develop an HIV vaccine, possibly one of the greatest medical breakthroughs of our time.

The committee heard from Dr. Frank Plummer, a world-leading HIV-AIDS researcher and specialist in infectious diseases, who said that to address this issue “we need multiple mechanisms, and the Government of Canada is doing that”.

We will continue to do just that by focusing our efforts on worthwhile results-based initiatives worldwide. Our government's concerns with Bill C-393's proposal to water down Canadian patent laws are shared by members of the opposition, too.

To quote the Liberal member of Parliament for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, I would note the following. He says:

Patents are not an obstacle to accessing medicines in developing countries. In the words of Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni, the debate about changing patent rules for drugs is a "red herring.

The notion that patent laws stand in the way of shipping drugs to Africa is simply false.

At the conclusion of the review by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, committee members voted to substantially amend Bill C-393.

These amendments were considered necessary by some members of the committee to ensure that the bill would both respect Canada's international trade obligations and maintain the integrity of Canada's framework for encouraging innovation and access to medicines for Canadians.

However, I still have reservations with the amended Bill C-393, which is why I cannot support it. In particular, I am concerned that, unlike the existing Access to Medicines Regime, the amended Bill C-393 does not include sufficient safeguards to ensure that drugs authorized for export are used for humanitarian purposes only and cannot be sold on the black market.

As well, the amended Bill C-393 does not have the necessary components to respect Canada's international trade obligations.

I, and I am sure other hon. members as well, am committed to improving the poor health conditions of people living in the developing world. In my opinion, the most effective way to do this is to improve the basic health infrastructure in the developing world. Low-income countries lack the trained medical staff, access to clean water, accurate diagnostic equipment, and reliable power that are crucial to improving health outcomes.

Canada needs to help these countries by continuing to support funds that assist countries to procure essential medicines, by providing technical assistance to help those countries navigate the drug procurement process and by helping to train qualified health professionals. All of this is in an effort to ensure that the primary health care needs of the world's most vulnerable citizens are being met. We need to focus on what works.

We heard before the committee that in 2003, 400,000 Africans were being treated for HIV-AIDS. In 2010, that 400,000 will grow to 5.2 million people. We need to continue to focus on what makes a difference in the lives of those people.

The testimony provided to the committee was essential to getting to the heart of Bill C-393 and its well-intentioned but flawed reform of Canada's Access to Medicines Regime. Access to health care in developing countries is a multifaceted issue. Neither Canada's Access to Medicines Regime nor the changes proposed by the bill currently before us will provide the additional health care professionals, infrastructure and other tools necessary to effectively administer life-saving drugs in Africa.

As our colleague, the member of Parliament for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, so succinctly stated recently:

Changing [Canada’s Access to Medicines Regime] will have no effect on the ability of [Low Income Countries] to acquire medicines and medical supplies that are beyond their means to purchase or administer in the first place.

Bill C-393 is not the answer to solving the access to medicines issue. It is for this reason that I urge members to not support Bill C-393.

[Telecommunications Industry, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat confused right now after listening to that question because the member has asked two questions and has taken a different position on each one.

Of course with the Globalive decision, consistent with the decision we have just talked about, the government has acted in the interests of Canadian consumers and in the interests of more competition in the Canadian marketplace. We will always do that.

[Telecommunications Industry, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is completely untrue. Our government has expressed serious concerns about the CRTC decision and the wide-reaching implications it has for consumers, innovation and the competitiveness of small- and medium-size businesses. That is why the minister and the Prime Minister both expressed concern last week. That is why they decided to ask the CRTC to review that decision.

This government will always stand up for Canadian consumers, for innovation and for advancement in technology in this country.

[Economic Development, February 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question.

I will use this opportunity to talk about Statistics Canada's announcement today about the creation of nearly 70,000 net new jobs in January.

According to Statistics Canada's estimates, Canada has created over 460,000 jobs since July 2009, the strongest job growth in the G7. A budget will be coming up soon to continue that growth, continue that economic strength in Canada. We hope the NDP will join us in supporting that budget.

[Economic Development, February 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal plan to give FedNor regional development agency status is merely window dressing and will not bring better results for northern Ontarians. FedNor is already bringing results to northern Ontario with strategically targeted stimulus across the region to spur economic development.

What FedNor provides is widely supported by local governments for its focus on economic stimulation, which enhances the quality of life for all northern Ontarians.

[February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member obviously was not paying attention today during the hearings and the industry minister's press conference afterward. Both the Minister of Industry and the Prime Minister expressed serious concerns about the decision by the CRTC on Monday.

Today, there was a hearing at which we had the opportunity to hear from the head of the CRTC, Mr. Konrad von Finckenstein. I am not sure if the hon. member happened to tune in and watch the hearings. It will rerun on CPAC tonight. Maybe he will have a chance to tune in or get the transcript of it.

This government will always act in the best interests of consumers, increase competition and increase the uptake of technology on behalf of Canadians when it comes to the Internet.

[February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member missed a lot of things that were going on in committee during his afternoon nap.

The original question that was asked that led to this late show was actually about broadband Canada and rural broadband. Broadband Internet networks bring important economic social benefits, including Telehealth, business opportunities, distance learning and everything else the world has to offer to our Canadian communities. These networks encourage economic development, spur innovation and improve the quality of life in hundreds of communities from coast to coast to coast.

Broadband Internet is increasingly a must have and our government believes that Canadians should have access to broadband wherever in Canada they may be. Access to high-speed Internet service is just as important today in terms of bringing people and communities together as the railroads and highway systems were in the past.

As I mentioned before, broadband Canada was announced in the 2009 federal budget, Canada's economic action plan, and given $225 million in funding to help close the broadband gap in Canada. By far the biggest component of this strategy is “Broadband Canada: Connecting Rural Canadians”, which targets areas of the country that are currently not served or underserved by broadband networks.

In May and July of this year, two rounds of conditionally approved projects were announced under the broadband Canada program. These 77 projects represent a Government of Canada investment of up to $110 million and will bring broadband connectivity to 220,000 households across the country.

On November 6, 2010, the Minister of Industry announced the latest round of projects conditionally approved under the program. This third round consists of 21 projects in four provinces and one territory and represents another $29.1 million federal investment to bring connectivity to an additional 30,000 households.

Through the broadband Canada program, the government has committed a total of $139 million to expansion of broadband infrastructure. This investment will provide broadband Internet access to over 250,000 households. This means that once broadband Canada and similar provincial programs are completed, fewer than 2% of all Canadian households will be without access to broadband Internet services. In a country the size of ours, that is truly an incredible achievement.

We define broadband access as a minimum download speed of 1.5 megabytes per second. With this level of service, a consumer can use multiple applications at the same time, make a voice call over the Internet, download audio files and experience video quality streaming and video conferencing.

This past summer, Industry Canada spearheaded consultations aimed at developing Canada's first ever digital economy strategy. This will be a blueprint for propelling our country forward and ensuring we are ready for the opportunities and the jobs of the future.

[January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that is clearly and demonstrably untrue, as I pointed out in what I read earlier.

Speaking of tolerating dissent, let us talk about the Liberal position. For a new Canadian, for example, who tells an enumerator that he or she does not want to share what his or her religion is, for whatever reason that might be, the Liberal position, which we can read in the total refusal form that the enumerator has to fill out, states:

The information provided in the following sections may be used to support legal prosecution.

If a Canadian does not want to share what his or her religion is for whatever reason, this is what the enumerator has to fill out: “Description of the person who refused (e.g. age, gender, height, weight, other physical details such as facial hair, tattoos, glasses, birthmarks, distinctive clothing, etc.)”. I would say that seems like a somewhat heavy-handed approach to take for dissenters who simply do not want to tell the government what their religion is. That is the Liberal approach, not our approach.

[January 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member has asked if the government will do the right thing and the answer is absolutely yes. The government will do the right thing. The government will make changes so Canadians are not subject to fines and jail time because they do not want to tell the government how many bedrooms they have in their house or how much yard work they did last week. We think that is wrong. We made changes in instituting the new national household survey that changed this. I agree with the hon. member. The government will do the right thing and make those changes.

There is a lot to disagree with in terms of the hon. member's statement. The hon. member talked about one complaint from Richmond Hill. That is interesting. I have a letter from the member of Parliament for Richmond Hill who talks about receiving a few letters of complaint from constituents.

He says:

They are primarily concerned with the great detail of personal information they are required to fill out and therefore a potential invasion of privacy.

The hon. member talked about one person who complained. The member of Parliament for Richmond Hill, that member's Liberal colleague, goes on to say “I share this constituent's concern”.

Maybe that one complaint that the member is talking about is her own colleague's complaint. It looks like there are more in his riding. That is why he wrote the letter, but she may want to take that up with the hon. Liberal member for Richmond Hill who is concerned about the great detail of personal information his constituents are required to fill out.

In regard to the committee hearings, I may be wrong but I do not believe the hon. member is a part of the committee. I do not remember seeing her there. She has her facts wrong as well. Almost half of the witnesses who were before committee were in favour of the move the government was making. They may not have received as much coverage. Certainly Liberal members of committee did not listen too closely to what they had to say. They were not concerned with that. They moved a private member's bill to reinstitute a system of fines for people who did not want to share information regarding their religion or how many bedrooms they had in their house.

We did hear from witnesses who thought the government's move was the right move. We heard from Darrell Bricker, who is a statistician. He said that he was confident a voluntary system could gather the same quality of information.

Speaking to what the Liberals have proposed, the Liberal member for St. Paul's has proposed a system that would institute a fine of up to $500 for any Canadian who does not want to tell the government what his or her religion is.

The Conservative position, with a new national household survey, is to treat Canadians like adults. We still have the census where we require Canadians to fill out information on where they live, how many people live in the household, their gender, their marital status, those kinds of things, basic demographic information that most Canadians would acquaint with a census. We still have that mandatory census.

What was the long form, we are calling the national household survey. It asks questions like how many bedrooms in the house, how much housework someone did, how much yard work he or she did last week, how much time was spent with his or her kids, his or her religion. We are not going to threaten Canadians who do not want to answer these questions with fines and jail time.

Our positions are clearly different. The Liberal Party talks about the fact that most of the people who are unlikely to answer the survey come from vulnerable groups. We on this side of the House think it would be inappropriate for us to threaten vulnerable Canadians, such as a single mother living near the poverty line. We do not think we should tell her that if she does not answer a question—