Peter Julian

[Auditor General Act, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise in support of the bill put forward by the hon. member for Repentigny. It is important that he brought the bill forward today because Bill C-277 really touches the heart of why we are here. We are in this place to manage the finances of our federal government effectively and to make sure that taxpayers across this country, all Canadians, are aware that their money is being managed effectively.

I also congratulate the member for Repentigny because Bill C-277 is similar to a motion that I brought forward in the House on November 1:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should appoint the Auditor General as the external auditor of foundations, with a few exceptions, and ensure that adequate mechanisms are in place for a broad scope audit of all delegated arrangements.

The motion that I brought forward in the House is similar to the bill that thankfully the member for Repentigny has brought forward today. It is extremely important. His bill goes beyond the scope of my motion and deals with crown corporations and foundations in an effective way.

We know very well that this is a fundamental issue. It is an issue because the Auditor General has flagged it, as we know. She said, “Substantial amounts of public money have been transferred to foundations”. In her press release in 2002, which I will come back to as part of her report a bit later on, the Auditor General mentioned that she was “concerned by the limits placed on Parliament's ability to scrutinize them”. She has raised this question of foundations.

She also mentioned in her 2002 report that her audit found: “significant gaps and weaknesses in the design of delegated arrangements”; that there were “limits on what the Auditor General can look at”, which prevents the Office of the Auditor General from giving Parliament proper assurance that the use of federal funds and authorities was appropriate; that the “parking of billions of dollars of the public's money in foundations, years before it is to flow to the intended recipients” was something that occurred systematically.

Her report also indicated that there was “little recourse” for the government when things went wrong and unfortunately also “limited opportunity for Parliament to scrutinize these delegated arrangements”.

Very clearly the Auditor General has flagged the issue of foundations and, in a broader sense, crown corporation moneys that are paid by Canadians across the country and are set aside and outside her scrutiny. We know with a great deal of assurance that Canadians support the Office of the Auditor General and the task she takes on with ardour and professionalism to make sure we know that the money being spent through the federal government is being spent effectively.

I was very happy to learn this week that the efforts of the opposition parties in three corners of the House to fight to eliminate the withholding of $11.5 million in funding for next year for the Office of the Auditor General has been successful. That is another sign that this four-cornered House with four parties working together can help to resolve issues. It is unfortunate that the government chose to withhold that funding. Fortunately, due to opposition pressure, that funding is now being allocated to the Office of the Auditor General. Fortunately now she is not forced to lay off 85 of her employees. It was unfortunate that the government did not confirm this earlier, but again, opposition pressure made a difference.

We have talked about financial mismanagement. There are a lot of examples. We could talk about the $9.1 billion that is dropped into unaccountable foundations. Very fortunately, Bill C-277 would help us to start address that important issue. There is also the $46 billion employment insurance surplus, which we have talked about and which literally was made on the backs of workers and communities across the country.

We also know that the Liberal government consistently underestimates the budget balance. That is a total of $86 billion. Also, other speakers have referred to the sponsorship scandal, which is in the order of $250 million.

On the one hand, we have seen the mismanagement of funds from hard-working Canadian taxpayers across the country, funds that are being paid to the federal government in order to ensure that we build a better quality of life for all of us. On the other hand, we are seeing a situation in my area, for example, where homelessness has tripled.

Child poverty is not being reduced but is actually increasing. It is shameful that this is happening at a time when there is a budget surplus. In my community St. Mary's Hospital was closed this year, a hospital that was important and badly needed. Due to federal government cutbacks and bad decisions by the provincial government, we have seen the closure of that hospital.

We talk about the EI surplus and at the same time there is unemployment. Families are having a hard time making things meet because the social safety net is no longer there. There is growing child poverty and yet we have a surplus and there are corporate tax cuts.

We see this dysfunction between resources that should be available to all Canadians and how those funds are allocated. That is why I welcome the measure by the member of Parliament for Repentigny, to start to address that so that we know what is happening with every dollar that Canadians pay to the federal government.

Earlier I made reference to the 2002 report. I would like to come back to that for a moment. It is the issue around the financial accountability of some of these foundations. The 2002 Report of the Auditor General made reference to a number of these foundations and made reference as well to whether or not there was the overseeing of these foundations through the House and the Office of the Auditor General.

For example, on Genome Canada, the Auditor General mentioned in the 2002 report that there was no ministerial direction and action. There was no departmental audit and evaluation.

For the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, there was no reporting of expected performance to Parliament. There was no reporting of performance results to Parliament, no reporting of audited financial statements to Parliament, no reporting of evaluation results to Parliament, no strategic monitoring, and again, no ministerial direction and action and no departmental audit and evaluation.

For the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology there was no ministerial direction and action.

For the Green Municipal Investment Fund and the Green Municipal Enabling Fund, there was no reporting of expected performance to Parliament, no reporting of audited financial statements to Parliament, no reporting of evaluation results to Parliament, and no ministerial direction and action.

For Canada Health Infoway Inc. there was no reporting of expected performance to Parliament, no reporting of performance results to Parliament, no reporting of audited financial statements to Parliament, no strategic monitoring, no ministerial direction and action, and no departmental audit and evaluation.

These are issues that have been raised, thankfully by the Office of the Auditor General. Clearly, as one of the other members mentioned, accountability and good financial management are extremely important to all Canadians, to all taxpayers, and should be important to all parliamentarians. We welcome Bill C-277 because it effectively starts to address the issue of lack of oversight.

In conclusion, thanks to the hon. member for Repentigny, we have a bill that will begin to address all these problems that exist outside of government initiatives and that are currently being assessed by the Office of the Auditor General.

Indeed, in adopting this bill, we will increase the Parliament's scope for action as well as financial accountability, which is so important to Canadians.

I fully support this bill and I know we will have the opportunity to improve it at committee.

I salute the hon. member for Repentigny for this initiative and hope all the members of the House will support it.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation, I do not doubt the sincerity of the minister. However the government has not acted to the extent it must given the size and scope of the crisis.

I made reference in my speech to band-aids. Given what 100,000 farmers are living through and given the loss of jobs in the Canadian economy, the measures have not been to the extent they must be to match the size and scope of the crisis. We have a $9 billion surplus. We have a crisis in this industry. I believe the measures should be stronger.

Recognizing the time delays, I would be pleased to fill in the minister at another time.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As I mentioned before, it is not a scientific issue of whether Canadian beef is safe or not. It is a political issue, a question of negotiations.

We saw that in Japan, in the same situation, the Americans were able to negotiate some access for their products to the Japanese market. I think it is a question of firm negotiations. We export products in the energy sector, for example, that make up a large part of the American energy market.

Thus, when we talk about softwood lumber or mad cow, we are also talking about negotiations. Such firm negotiations will ensure that our products have access to the U.S. I do not think it is an issue of public health or pure science, determining whether or not Canadian beef is good. We know it is good and that it should be allowed into the American market.

It is a question of the political will to go and negotiate firmly instead of giving away all our trump cards as we have been doing. That is what happens in the energy sector; we give up. It is said that Canada is the biggest energy exporter. We will give you our energy and then, please, will you do something to sort out these softwood lumber and beef export issues?

In both cases all we need is the political will to say that we are going to negotiate based on our own cards, the Canadian cards, and arrange to put an end to this crisis which, in my opinion, is a purely political one that could be resolved with firm negotiations.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie for his excellent speech, as usual. I also would like to thank him for sharing his time with me.

I would also like to acknowledge the presence of the minister in this debate. I think it is important. I have no doubt about his sincerity. However, I think that the steps taken so far are clearly not enough in view of the present situation. This is why I commend the members of the Bloc Quebecois for moving this motion, which is extremely important.

The fact is that the mad cow crisis is having a devastating impact on whole areas of our country. I firmly believe that a majority of members in this House will support this motion when it comes to a vote

The motion raises a fundamental question which also deals with the principle on which a sound political policy is built.

Allow me to read the part of the motion which calls upon the government to:

--implement specific measures as soon as possible to help the cattle and cull cow producers who are suffering the impact of the mad cow crisis.

The House asks the government to deal with the urgency and scope of this crisis with political measures designed specifically to meet that urgency and scope. Instead of kowtowing to the Americans, the government should take specific and significant steps.

Members will recall how, in May 2003, a single case of mad cow disease turned the whole Canadian beef industry upside down.

The announcement of a single case of mad cow disease in May 2003, including the cow calf sector, sent cash receipts plunging to $5.2 billion, or 33% below the $8 billion in receipts for 2002. In a study on the repercussions of BSE on farm family incomes, Statistics Canada estimated that every $100 million in cattle sector exports would have added $80 million to Canada's GDP and created up to 3,000 jobs.

According to Statistics Canada, the result was a $2.5 billion drop in our exports, which, for the Canadian economy, meant, roughly, a $2 billion decrease in real domestic product, a $5.7 billion drop in total production, a $1 billion drop in salaries and, as we well know, a loss of some 75,000 jobs.

Those are the harsh and cruel facts.

It has been 18 months since the first and only mad cow was discovered in Canada. One has to ask what the government has done to match, in terms of solutions, the enormous problems posed by this crisis. I think it is fair to say that it has been largely to sit down and hope for the best, lobby a bunch of friends south of the border, throw in some band-aids to appease 100,000 farmers facing ruin and then hope for the gates to open.

In his recent book, A Short History of Progress , renowned historian and philosopher Ronald Wright remarks:

A telling feature of the real mad cow disaster is how long the British government did nothing except hope for the best.

This sort of hope is driving our cattle industry and our farmers literally crazy given the devastation in the communities.

With great fanfare, a temporary BSE recovery program was announced in June 2003. This program failed to help cattlemen and cattlewomen who were confronted with plummeting prices and was based on the idea that the borders would soon reopen. We know they have not.

The program encouraged farmers to slaughter their cows, which is what they did, which drove prices even further down. As prices went down, bankruptcies and suicides went up. The profits of the processors went up as well.

We then saw a series of changes to those programs trying to address the issue as it went. All of that was based on the premise that the borders would reopen soon. Since 40% of our cattle production depended on the borders, this has become a real mess.

In fact, many observers, including the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, believe that the packers, Tyson and Cargill in particular, indirectly received most of the government funding because of flaws in the program. The government program bought slaughter obligations with the funding, and the money went to the slaughter houses and the profits went to the packers.

For the larger part of 2003, the government tinkered with the program to avoid confrontation and threw in more, what I consider to be band-aids, in preparation for the 2004 election.

The government hoped for the best and largely avoided action, avoided confrontation with the U.S. federal agriculture minister, avoided concrete action for Canadian farmers to the measure of a catastrophe that the industry is facing and, of course, I believe avoided pressing the issue with George Bush during his visit to Ottawa, though he was confronted with an Alberta beef steak dinner.

The strong negotiations that are required have not been undertaken.

The appalling piecemeal approach to the Liberal agriculture policy has become crystal clear as we have seen this inaction around the BSE crisis to the measure of the catastrophe. Even though science has redeemed us again and again and indicated that our beef is safe, the American border is not fully opened to our beef products.

The federal government also chose not to pursue the NAFTA route, though the United States uses chapter 7 of NAFTA to shut down its borders. The Liberals justified this hope and wait approach in lieu of a chapter 20 challenge mainly because of the expected length of any such process, which could easily take up to seven months.

We are now 18 to 19 months after May 2003 and the border remains closed. Little progress has been made in negotiations. As we are now well past the expected seven month process of a chapter 20 challenge, does the original logic of forgoing a lengthy NAFTA challenge in favour of a negotiated settlement still stand? Of course not.

The BSE crisis, with its resultant loss of 75,000 jobs in Canada, and the impasse over softwood have clearly demonstrated our susceptibility to international trade disputes with the poor negotiation record of the government.

If the complex NAFTA trade mechanisms are unable to remedy this problem for Canadians, what can be done? What sort of precedent does this set for other bilateral and multilateral trade agreements?

If it takes another year to see some results from this government, there may be little left of our beef industry to save.

My colleagues of the Liberal Party will say that, recently, a few real decisions were made and that a few support programs were put in place. I would say that the credit should go to farmers and to the Canadian beef industry, which made their voices heard after many efforts. In practice, we have not yet seen anything that would really allow the industry to secure its future. After 15, 17 or 18 months, does the industry entertain false hope? I believe the industry to be extremely important. Concrete actions are needed.

On September 10 the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food announced a strategy to assist the livestock industry. The word “strategy” was finally being used. This strategy includes continuing efforts to reopen the U.S. border. However, because there has been no linkage to energy exports, for example, that strategy has not succeeded.

The strategy includes taking steps to increase the slaughter of older cows, with $66 million being injected, and measures to sustain the industry, as well as looking for expanding access to export markets for both livestock and beef products.

There may be some progress but the decisions made by the government have not matched the size and scope of the crisis in our communities across the country.

Some of the legislative elements related to this package, which have not and should be concluded, are still up in the air, including agreements with the provinces. There are clearly big gaps in the strategy that must be addressed.

The big problem that the program is not fixing at all is that there are presently 500,000 cull cows in our country.These are dairy cows that are three years old or more, that are not capable of producing milk anymore, and that must be killed.

Before the border was closed, we were exporting some 40,000 cull cows every year to the United States. Not anymore, which explains why the price of hamburger meat, for example, is so low. That is the real problem.

I totally support the motion and I hope that all the members of the House will support it also.

[Supply, December 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speeches made by my colleagues from Richmond—Arthabaska and from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I know those two regions, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Estrie, very well.

Indeed, in those two regions, the dairy industry managed to survive and find stability through a supply management system.

My question for the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska is the following: would he be in favour of a supply management system for the cattle industry?

[Food and Drugs Act, December 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to comment on Bill C-282.

As I mentioned earlier in the House, I congratulate the hon. member for having raised the question of drug prices, even though I believe the bill he proposes does not address the real problems.

As I said, the real issue is Bill C-91, which was adopted by the Mulroney government some time ago, and which extended drug patent protection. This extension, unfortunately, has added immeasurably to the drug prices paid by ordinary Canadians and our governments.

It is unfortunate because we must now act to control this increase in prices. In fact, the most significant aspect of the health care system at present is the increase in the cost of drugs, which puts even more pressure on our health care system.

Companies do need to make profits, as was mentioned earlier. When we talk about Bill C-91 and attacking the real causes of why our pharmaceutical products cost Canadians more and more, it has to do with reasonable profit making.

We know that pharmaceutical companies regularly rank number one in Canada in profits as a percentage of the revenues, as a percentage of their assets and as a percentage of their equity. As they are ranked number one in the country, the profits made in the pharmaceutical industry are actually higher than in any other industry in the country.

There have been claims that the cost of research and development are enormous. In fact, according to one American industry study, it costs up to $1.3 billion to develop an average new medicine.

A 2001 study by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board states that of the 82 new patented drugs for human use developed at that time, total expenditures for all those 82 products were $1.06 billion. That averages out to about $13 million per new drug. We are talking about a factor of 1% compared to what is normally trotted out as a figure for actual research and development costs.

The question of drug prices is an important one. When we are talking about Canadians having to pay more for pharmaceutical products than they should, while at the same time we hear about record profits for the pharmaceutical industry, there obviously is a problem.

My colleague from Windsor West has actually proposed with his bill, Bill C-274, a way of resolving some of these problems. I will quote briefly a release put out by the member for Windsor West concerning Bill C-274. He mentions that brand name drug companies now list several patents on the same drug so that they can start the automatic injunction against competition again and again. This is ever greening. This keeps lower cost generic drugs that are not infringing patents off the market and forces Canadians to pay monopoly prices for their medicines longer than they should.

Canada's prescription drug costs are increasing by 15% each year, which is faster than any part of our health care system. Bill C-274 would help control prescription drug costs by making lower cost generic drugs available more quickly.

It is important to mention that from 1993 to 2003 the price of brand name drugs increased by 75% while generic drugs increased by 42% over that same period.

The Romanow commission and the Competition Bureau have called for a review of the drug patent legislation. The Supreme Court has described the regulations as a draconian regime. Obviously it is time to provide Canadians with clear rules to ensure access to prescription medicines is fair for everyone.

This brings me back to the issue of Bill C-282. Very clearly we have a problem. Canadians are paying far too much for pharmaceutical products, which is as a result of Conservative policies that were first opposed and then continued by the Liberal government.

Does Bill C-282 in any way address those serious problems? I believe that it does not. In a sense it would allow multinational drug companies, which are mostly American based, to then dictate, in a way, what conditions should be attached to our drug exports to the U.S. retail market.

It is clear that pharmaceutical companies would love to level the price playing field between Canada and the U.S., not by lowering prices to the Canadian level but by jacking them up to the U.S. level. I think this would be a mistake.

The American drug insurance system does not cover 60 million American citizens. If we look at the course of any one year, 40 million Americans at any particular point in the year are uninsured. As the hon. member for Hochelaga mentioned earlier, 2 million of those 40 million to 60 million Americans in any one year are trying to escape the fact that they do not have access to medical insurance by purchasing through Canada.

When we talk about health care costs, 14% or more of GDP in the United States is devoted to health care, even though those 40 million to 60 million Americans are not covered by medical insurance.

The United States has outrageously high drug prices because its drug pharmaceutical companies resort to massive and very costly advertising for their products and the cost of advertising is built into the price of their products. This, as we know, is banned in Canada.

We now have a situation where American pharmaceutical companies would like us to cut off access to Americans who are uninsured and Americans who are paying too much for their pharmaceutical products.

I believe we should be seeking some sort of legislation that would provide relief and would address the issue of an importing country, such as the United States, using its laws to evoke either public policy safety or health safety technical standards with the primary goal of frustrating or eliminating Canadian exports. We certainly have seen that with softwood lumber and with BSE where laws were put into place as basically fences for Canadian exports.

We need to ensure that our exports from legitimate industries in Canada are protected but at the same time we need to ensure that Americans, who are desperate because of the lack of full medical coverage, have access to our medical products when it does not affect the Canadian national interest.

We know that a number of speakers in the United States have cast doubt on our pharmaceutical products by questioning our safety standards, but we all know that is ridiculous. Canadian safety standards are some of the strongest in the world.

We do need to deal with this issue but we need to deal with it in the Canadian context. I will come back to my initial comments that the real issue is the question of pharmaceutical costs and how much Canadians are paying now because of extended patent protection. We should be looking at a regime that provides for recouping research and development costs but which does not cost an arm and a leg for the Canadian taxpayer just to fuel industry profits in the pharmaceutical sector that are without parallel elsewhere in the country.

[Food and Drugs Act, December 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I was happy to hear the member for Mississauga—Streetsville mention that he would welcome any suggestions and comments of how to resolve the situation of escalating drug costs in Canada.

I would refer the member to Bill C-91 which was adopted, as the member knows, by the Mulroney Conservatives and which has led to a catastrophic rise in drug prices in Canada. Some drug prices have gone up over 100%.

What Bill C-91 did is it allowed pharmaceutical companies, and as we know pharmaceutical companies are the most profitable in North America, to extend their patent protection. As a result, Canadian taxpayers and Canadians in general have picked up the tab for Bill C-91.

The Liberals, when they were in opposition, opposed Bill C-91. Since they have come into power, the Liberal government has supported Bill C-91 and the extended patent protection. As a result, Canadians are paying much more than they should be paying.

Number one, does the member not feel that the escalating drug costs should be tackled by looking at perhaps balancing the interests of the huge profits the pharmaceutical companies are making with the interests of Canadians and bringing drug prices into control subsequently?

Number two, why did the member not use the issue of Bill C-91 as the major issue when he raised the issue of drug prices and the drug supply in Canada?

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby—Douglas raises a very key point. Heathrow actually has less land available than Mirabel would, even though the volume of traffic is immensely larger. It is an important point to underline.

When we come to financial management, the member raises a key point. There is a study that has been done of the last 20 years, from 1981 to 2001, and compares all the major parties and the number of times that those parties have run governments in deficit. These are real terms, not budget, but real terms. Liberals have been in deficit 85% of the time; Conservatives, 66% of the time; and the best record for financial management across the country is the NDP.

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, no I have not. I have just seen backpedalling and face-saving. The Liberals refuse to admit that a mistake was made and they compound it by pushing back on this very legitimate motion.

The transport committee has adopted a similar motion. I think what is happening is the weight of three-quarters of this minority Parliament is being brought to bear to address something that should have been addressed years ago. Hopefully, we can move on from this to other issues where we can push the government to take action.

I think of the growth in the number of homeless and the growth in child poverty. That is absolutely shameful. We will also work cooperatively with the three-quarters of the House to force a resolution to those questions as well.

[Supply, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In my view, the Liberal government wants to save face and that is the root of the problem. The Liberal government wants to keep all those farm lands so that local people cannot access them, simply to save face. They say that they have a project and that it will work. They only act this way because they want to save face. They mismanaged this file from the get-go. They did not do what they should have to make the airport profitable. They squandered taxpayers' money.

Today, they refuse to pass this motion, which all three other parties in the House support, because they want to save face. There is no other reason.