Paul Dewar

[Foreign Affairs, June 18th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, finally, the government has agreed to respect the rights of Mr. Abdelrazik, but there are lingering questions about why this Canadian citizen, who was cleared of any security problems by CSIS and the RCMP, has been denied his right to return to Canada for so long.

I would like to ask this question. Did either the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of International Trade in their previous portfolios receive requests from Ambassador Wilkins or the White House in 2006 to prevent Mr. Abdelrazik from returning to Canada?

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, June 18th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am looking at statistics about how this policy is applied in terms of early parole eligibility and for what crimes. The statistics go back a couple of decades. One thing that is important to look at is the regions.

I just want the member's take on how we should look at this policy when it comes to different regions, and if we should be looking at the causality, and if there are any determinants based on where people are coming from in society. When we allow people to leave the prison system under supervision, it is important that there are supports there.

Does the member think this policy that the government is proposing will actually help support people when they come out of prison? It is fine to say, “Do the time”, and so on, but what about what happens when people leave prison? What supports are there? Does he think there are problems and inequities when looking at the different regions of Canada?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 18th, 2009]

With respect to Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) over the past five fiscal years: (a) in the National Capital Region, what is the total amount of PILT paid per federally-owned property on a yearly basis and in total and which municipalities received the payment for every property; (b) which municipalities receive PILT, on a yearly basis and in total; (c) which of the federally-owned buildings are slated to be sold; and (d) which of the federally-owned buildings are under corporate asset review?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 18th, 2009]

With respect to temperature control in government buildings and facilities over the last five years: (a) what are the total government expenditures for heating on (i) an annual basis, (ii) on an annual basis for each federal building; and (b) what are the total government expenditures for air conditioning (i) on an annual basis, (ii) on an annual basis for each federal building?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 17th, 2009]

With regards to the Canada’s operations in Afghanistan: (a) what is the total amount of money spent on translation of documents from Dari and Pashto to English and French in the past five years on a yearly basis and in total; (b) what is the number of staff in the Afghanistan Task Force who can speak, read and write in Dari in Kabul, in Kandahar and in Ottawa in the past five years on a yearly basis and in total; (c) what is the number of staff in the Afghanistan Task Force who can speak, read and write in Pashto, in Kabul, in Kandahar and in Ottawa in the past five years on a yearly basis and in total; (d) what is the total budget of Afghanistan Task Force for translation in the past five years on a yearly basis and in total; (e) what is the total budget of Afghanistan Task Force for communications in the past five years on a yearly basis and in total; (f) what is the number of staff on the Afghanistan Task Force responsible for communications in the past five years on a yearly basis and in total; and (g) what form of protection is offered to local Afghans working for Canada’s operations in Afghanistan who are citizens of Afghanistan at the end of their service with the Canadian government?

[Foreign Credentials Recognition Act, June 17th, 2009]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-425, An Act respecting the recognition of foreign credentials.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from British Columbia for seconding this bill.

There is a problem in this country in that new Canadians and professionals who have arrived in Canada are not able to reach their full potential, not because they are not skilled, but because their foreign credentials are not recognized.

This bill would do three key things. It would require registration of all foreign credential practices throughout the country in order to coordinate what is going on in the provinces. All provinces would have to meet transparent objectives and partial assessments for foreign-trained professionals. It would establish a foreign credentials recognition fund to provide funding for provinces and municipalities to integrate foreign-trained professionals into the workplace. Finally, it would ensure accountability by asking the minister to report to Parliament on the progress of addressing this important challenge.

This is something we could do by opening up spaces right here in Ottawa in the public service to allow foreign-trained professionals to get that elusive Canadian experience they so desperately need to get further in their careers.

I want to thank the members of the immigrant community. This bill was written by them. It is from their input and it is why I am here today introducing the bill. I hope that the House will adopt this bill.

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

[Request for Emergency Debate, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House a request to you for an emergency debate regarding the situation in Iran.

As we know, massive protests are increasing in Iran. We heard reports just before question period that there are up to one million people in the streets of Tehran who are basically protesting the regime's response to the election.

On Friday an election was held in Iran. In fact, hundreds of people went to the embassy in Ottawa to vote. The concern is that the voices of those who voted in the election on Friday were not honoured.

This is a critical moment not only for the people in Iran but for the region. The Government of Canada has a role to play as an international player and a member of the United Nations. We can offer support and help to make sure the election that was carried out was one actually done in good stead, and that the people of Iran are going to be honoured with a valid counting of the votes.

Finally, there are calls for a new election or to assess the election that took place. Canada has a role to play in offering itself as an independent observer.

I am making this request for my colleagues to debate this issue tonight in the House of Commons.

[Patent Act, June 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for bringing this important piece of legislation to the House of Commons. This bill will improve another piece of legislation.

The bill will tweak and improve what was an honourable piece of legislation which, when it was put into practice, certain aspects were clearly deficient and needed to be improved. That is what this legislation is about.

My father was a negotiator for GATT. He spent a lot of time in Brussels negotiating the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. My father was very proud of the work Canada did at the negotiating table. I will focus a lot of my comments on TRIPS. It is important to understand that with respect to GATT, the WTO and going back in time to negotiations that happened before Doha and others, Canada was a leader in providing innovative ways to come to an agreement.

We have always been a country that has put forward innovations to benefit people beyond our borders. That is really important to understand, because what we are hearing from some members in the House is that according to TRIPS, ne touche pas, we cannot go there. The reverse is the case, because time and time again in the history of this country, we have gone to the international table and provided ways that countries can open up and not close off opportunities to help. That is exactly what needs to happen when it comes to TRIPS.

Let us look at what happened with TRIPS in 2001. I will not provide the arguments on why the drugs are needed. We will assume everyone in this place wants to send more drugs to Africa to help. Let us assume that, but let us take a look at how that can be done.

The bill would open the range and would streamline the process so that licences would be more than just one-off every time. Those involved in the Rwanda experience tell us that they will never do it again. That is an indication of the need to improve the legislation. Some say we cannot do that because it would jeopardize investments in our drug industry because of the patent protection that was provided in legislation passed by a previous Conservative government.

I think that is wrong. Clear rules need to be set. We need to streamline how legislation is put forward and then go to the international table and ask what the problem is. Is the list too wide? Does it overlap on any agreements for patent protection?

The government and some of my friends in the Liberal Party seem to be saying that we cannot go there, let us not even try. I do not think that is the Canadian way. The Canadian way is to put ideas on the table and make sure everyone understands the intention, and look for a pathway forward. That is what needs to happen.

In 2001, Doha was about asking for opportunities for African countries to receive the help they need.

I want to give an example of how this is not working. We know the Canadian experience needs to be changed. When Bill Gates and Mr. Clinton formulated an opportunity to help those in Africa who needed the ARVs and other drugs to fight malaria, they went forward with an initiative. They bought the drugs, not from the United States, not from Canada, but from India. It is important to underline this.

Unlike Canada at the time, India resisted the patent protections the industries were trying to foist upon them. India told them, “We will set terms with you, but we will not have it done to us”. The drug companies said that if India did not abide by their terms, they would leave. The Indian government of the day left the table. What followed is very interesting. India actually made drugs on its own. It provided innovation on its own. It created one of the most successful examples of drug production. To this date, India is in the WTO.

What is the result? Bill Clinton and Bill Gates went to India to do their bulk buy. Why? Because it was affordable. Why? Because the Indians looked at innovation and tried a different model. They have provided cheaper drugs to this day. That is important to understand. If we do not try to innovate, then we leave people behind. That is not sufficient.

I my colleagues to talk to people who have looked at Doha. I ask them to look at TRIPS and the challenges there. When my father went to the table on behalf of Canada for the GATT agreements, he did not do so to pitch for industry, to pitch for one side or the other, he went to pitch for Canada.

That is what we want to do. We want our government to pitch for Canadians to help out people abroad, not pitch for an industry that says that it has such constraints and that it will never be able to invest in innovation if these kinds of opportunities are opened up.

I do not think that is what Canadians want. I know what the African population needs. It needs to have this legislation changed, so we can open up and flow drugs, not at the expense of our industry but to help others.

For those who have questions about this, they should look at Doha and look at the opportunities for us to open up the TRIPS to ensure it will be fair-minded and help people abroad. No one is asking for a free lunch. We ask that those people, who are suffering greatly in Africa right now, to have the same access to medicines and health care that we have here.

Does anyone really believe the existing legislation is working? If they do, then I ask them to talk to grandmothers who have been overseas helping out. I ask them to talk to Stephen Lewis who has dedicated his life to this. I ask them to talk to any of the ambassadors in this city from Africa. They will tell us that there needs to be a response from Canada, that there needs to be a change to this legislation.

At the AIDS conference In 2006, the government pledged that it would do a comprehensive review on the legislation. One was done, but it was not sufficient. This bill will provide what is needed, and that is a change to this regime so people in Africa can benefit, not at the cost of industry here but at the benefit of Africans abroad.

I urge all my colleagues to support the bill.

[Patent Act, June 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for this initiative. If Canada is able to do this and the bill goes through, what effect might that have on other countries, like Norway, that are looking at this? In other words, will the bill be a good example and an opportunity for other countries to join in to help in this initiative?

[Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, June 12th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will pose a couple of questions for the parliamentary secretary on this issue. We have some concerns about the evidence provided and the background and he might be able to help us with that.

With respect to the faint hope clause, could he tell us which jurisdictions have this clause and which ones do not?

Also, concerns have been raised by some in the prison guard community about how this would affect their workplace. Some people are concerned that the changes might have an effect on their safety as prison guards.

Could he address those question?