Wayne Marston

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, November 29th, 2007]

With respect to funds at the discretion of Ministers of the Crown: (a) what programs or funds exist within their ministerial purview that do not require standard grants and contributions practices to be followed; (b) under what authority could a Minister distribute funds without using the grants and contribution process; (c) with respect to such discretionary funds, how much does each Minister in the current cabinet have at their disposal, how much has each minister spent on a monthly basis, and on what; (d) who were the recipients of such funds, by department or Minister; (e) with respect to the period from January 2001 to December 2006, (i) how much did each Minister had at their disposal, (ii) how much did each Minister spent on annual basis, and on what, (iii) who were the recipients of such funds, by department or minister, (iv) what was the date of each disbursement; (f) from which budget do such funds come from; (g) other than the Minister, who has the power to determine how such funds are disbursed; (h) how do such disbursement relate to Treasury Board guidelines; and (i) what kind of oversight exists on how such funds are disbursed?

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 29th, 2007]

With respect to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT): (a) will the government ratify the OPCAT; (b) does the government have a timeline to ratify the OPCAT and, if so, when; (c) since OPCAT was adopted at the United Nations in December 2002, why has the government delayed its ratification; (d) what are the government’s concerns with respect to ratifying the OPCAT; (e) has there been a change in the government’s position on ratification since January 26, 2006 and, if so, what; (f) does the government plan to bring the issue of ratifying the OPCAT before Parliament or any of its committees and, if so, when and to which committees and, if not, why; and (g) what studies and evaluations about the OPCAT have been undertaken, requested or commissioned by the government and (i) what individuals, what department, or what organization undertook these studies, (ii) what is the cost of these studies, (iii) what are their findings and recommendations?

[Food and Drugs Act, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-378, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Food and Drug Regulations (drug export restrictions).

Canadians are very aware of the quality of our health system as well as our free access to most of its features, and that is in very stark contrast to the market-driven system in the United States.

As we know, there has been a surge of interest from Americans, particularly seniors, who, because of their fixed incomes, find drug pricing in Canada particularly inviting. Bus loads of seniors come to Hamilton to visit and have prescriptions filled.

I am all for being good neighbours and helping our American cousins to the south as much as we can. In fact, in many ways, their needs are much higher than those of most Canadians, particularly when it comes to health care in general and prescription costs in particular.

On the population side, Hamilton, at approximately 500,000, is not huge, but we are friendly, so I want to stress this point. The purpose of the bill is not to shut the border to our American cousins. In fact, American tourists who pick up a prescription or two are not a drain on our druggist's ability to provide prescription services to our hometown clients.

Primarily because of pharmaceutical sales on the Internet and the visits by these bus loads of American tourists picking up prescriptions, combined with the warnings of an anticipated flu pandemic, Canadians are asking about our supply. Where would they stand if a significant part of our drug output was sent south and then there was a shortage in Canada?

We know that earlier this year the United States moved to introduce the pharmaceutical market access and drug safety act. It appears its motivation was the fact that the American government wanted even greater access to the importation of cheaper pharmaceuticals. As I have already related, that door has been open to bulk purchases, and the American act appears to be intended to codify the open door policy by making it official.

This means the door has now been opened further to allow Canadian firms, those that wish to do so, to increase their bulk drug sales to the U.S. On the surface, that may be wise. The increase in employment would be wise in most people's opinion, but is that really a good thing?

On the surface, it appears so, but consider for a moment the impact on Canadians if we were hit by a flu pandemic, by SARS, or another unexpected outbreak and all our stock had been sold to the United States. That goes to the heart of the intent of the bill.

The production of pharmaceuticals is a precise and painstaking process that requires time. It is not as simple as perhaps it might be for one of Hamilton's manufacturing plants to simply add a shift to meet new demand. Pharmaceutical products are often more than not made from scarce biological sources or it cannot be turned out for mass production on a scale to match the needs of 30 million Canadians and 300 million Americans.

One area I have yet to touch on is product safety and border inspections. It is my understanding that of the products crossing our borders now, our security folks are only able to check about 1%. In a time of counterfeit drugs, combined with a freer movement of goods being promoted by both sides of the border, that is a recipe for a very serious concern. We all see the results of ineffective monitoring of the toys imported from China on a near daily basis. Imagine the risks posed here with the transport of pharmaceuticals.

Members may recall the speed with which SARS moved into the Toronto hospital system and elsewhere. We were not only unprepared, but we were shocked by its rapid advance and ravaging effects. It is one thing to struggle against a new and unknown invader like SARS, but it is quite another to allow the much needed protection for Canadians to become a simple commodity to be traded away gratuitously.

In many ways, the pharmaceutical industry survives on its own ability to forecast and predict need. A good example is our yearly flu vaccine. Companies are able to meet the demand because the flu season is a predictable event. Companies for the most part though cannot stockpile medications due to the short life expectancy of many of the ingredients.

In short, we must find and maintain that balance between keeping Canadians protected and having the ability to still export to some degree.

I have spent a large part of my time tonight speaking about the American wants and needs, so I would like to speak briefly to Canadian needs. Just like our American neighbours, many low income or fixed income Canadians are living under a financial strain these days. We refer to the prosperity gap regularly in this House.

Across my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek we hear of far too many people who, when faced with a costly prescription not covered by a plan, simply turn and walk away when they are told the amount by the pharmacist. They just cannot handle it.

In fact, I was in the Rosedale pharmacy in my riding a couple of weeks ago, picking up a prescription of my own. I could not help but overhear a young man talking to the clerk as he dropped off his prescription. He was bent over in pain. He said he was having terrible pain, a problem with his back. It was so bad that he just did not know how to handle it. He had an ear infection as well.

He asked the young woman what the price of the prescribed drugs would be. When he was told it was $28 for the antibiotic and much more for the muscle relaxant and the sleep inducing drugs he needed so badly, even though he was in serious pain he said, “Fill the antibiotic only, that's all the money I got”. Like anybody in the House, I offered to help him that one time, but typical of a hard-working person of Hamilton, he said, “No thanks”, and he shuffled over and sat down while he waited for his antibiotic.

As legislators, it is not only time that we looked at such matters as prescription drug exports, but we must invest in a national universal drug plan to work hand in hand with our health care system to ensure that people like that young man in Hamilton receive the medications they so desperately need. No one should suffer needlessly when the rest of us, through the government, are ready and able to bear part of the load with them.

In closing, I would say that Bill C-378 moves us a long way to finding and maintaining that balance between supply on one side and demand on the other. I want to commend the member for putting forward this important bill. I believe that as responsible legislators we will do the right thing for Canada and will vote to protect the vital supply of pharmaceuticals.

[Poverty, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in my community of Hamilton, almost 100,000 people live in poverty. That is almost as many as the number of constituents in my riding of Hamilton East--Stoney Creek. That is shameful.

Successive Liberal and now Conservative governments have failed to make a dent in poverty and have failed to even define a marker for poverty, making it easier to push off the responsibility for tackling the root causes.

News this week has been full of reports calling Toronto the poverty capital of Canada and of our failure to eliminate child poverty right across Canada.

Poverty activists and agencies such as the United Way, as well as organizations like Campaign 2000 know what needs to be done. There are examples of strategies that focus on poverty reduction, like Hamilton's Roundtable on the Elimination of Poverty, and in the work of groups like Vibrant Communities that know what to do, and so does the NDP.

Fix employment insurance. Restore the minimum wage at $10 per hour. Set up national child care, home care and pharmacare programs. Confront homelessness. Make education affordable. Seek fairness for groups such as women and aboriginals who disproportionately face poverty.

It is time to fight poverty with real initiatives for real results.

[Committees of the House, November 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague not find it amazing, if not offensive, to hear members on the government side calling into question the veracity of the vote that took place last night?

The Parliamentary Secretary for Canadian Heritage was talking about violent crime and how the legislation was not moving ahead. In this place last night, everybody but one person voted in favour of the bill. I just find it obstructionist because we are sitting here today talking about the serious issue of the failure of the CRTC to control monopolies in this country and its failure to prevent the Americanization of our culture through our news media and other aspects.

Is it not ironic?

[Canada Evidence Act, November 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak to private member's Bill C-426, An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act (protection of journalistic sources and search warrants).

I find myself in the position of following a number of other speakers on this bill, but I do believe it is important to reiterate some of the previous comments and points made and to add my own views to the debate.

I also want to be clear at the outset that I rise in support of Bill C-426 and its intent to protect journalistic freedom in Canada.

In this House when speaking to a number of bills previously, I have made the statement that I feel democracy, yes even our democracy, is a fragile thing that needs not only to be nurtured, but sometimes to be pushed a bit to match the expectations of Canadians.

I know Canadians from the Hamilton area in particular will be quick to say that they feel the role journalists play at times when leaks on government practices or other situations of mismanagement or misconduct are brought to light is essential to their knowing the issues and how they can expect the government to respond.

I would also suggest that the reason this issue would be of particular interest to the residents of Hamilton is the fact that they observed a reporter for the Hamilton Spectator, Mr. Ken Peters, face a contempt of court charge on this very issue.

Mr. Peters was called before Justice Crane on a case involving alleged abuse at a seniors residence in Hamilton. Mr. Peters had exposed this case based on, to a large part, evidence he had received from a confidential source.

We all know the type of interest that would happen in a community around such allegations. This particular residence is a very high profile one. Of course that creates quite a situation if there is any chance of the name of that private source coming out.

One has to ask, would the individual have offered the information had he or she known that his or her name would be part of a court record?

The judge in this case had not even ruled that knowing the name of the source was essential to the case before he threatened to penalize Mr. Peters and cause him to pay court costs to the sum of around $31,000 if he did not reveal that confidential source.

I have known Mr. Ken Peters for close to, if not more than, 20 years. One thing people in my community would agree on is that Mr. Peters conducted himself professionally and exhibited professionalism in his work at all times.

When Mr. Peters was ordered by Judge Crane to reveal his source, Mr. Peters declined, saying, “With all due respect, your honour, I cannot do that”.

I would ask the members present to think about this for a moment. We function in this place with the protection of the House of Commons surrounding us. How would we feel in the day to day cut and thrust of what happens in Parliament if that protection were removed and we faced endless prosecutions or court challenges as we brought forth the issues of the day?

I would like to quote Peter Desbarats who wrote in the Globe and Mail in 2004 on this particular point:

Judge Crane's ruling was extraordinary for its lack of knowledge and perspective on media practices and its narrowly legalistic approach. It represented a step backward in what has recently been some progress in Canadian courts toward treating secrecy of source with the respect it deserves.

Secret sources are vital. Without the ability to protect the identity of sources, journalists would be severely handicapped in performing one of their essential functions.

This becomes clearer if one considers all journalism as falling into two categories. The first is “official,” and most of the information carried by the media--from major political news to weather reports--belongs to this group. Almost all of this service information comes from official sources. And when it comes to political information, almost all is biased or incomplete.

The second category is “unofficial” journalism. Although it is much smaller by volume than official information, it is far more significant. It usually contains key facts that governments or corporations try to conceal for self-serving reasons. This information, by definition, can only come from unofficial or secret sources.

The media rightly place a high value on this kind of exclusive information, and they give it prominence. Journalists who earn a reputation for being adept in uncovering this type of information are the respected leaders in our field; they expose corruption in government and business and alter the course of affairs for the better.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the measure of an effective democracy is the amount of unofficial information carried by its media. And the growing trend toward enacting “whistleblower” legislation to protect the sources who provide this information is an indication of its importance.

Later on he said:

Why would journalists place themselves in such jeopardy? According to Judge Crane, they are pawns of media owners intent on selling “the news”. These owners “employ journalists to search out newsworthy information using as one means, the undertaking of confidentiality to sources.”

After hearing from a few journalists and media experts, Judge Crane concluded that “any journalist that has revealed a source will never again be employed in a newsroom.” He blames the “oppressive nature of the culture” for the predicament of Mr. Peters.

This is truly a bizarre distortion of what occurs in most newsrooms.

To begin with, the obvious need to use secret sources is apparent to all journalists, not something that employers force them to do. It's an essential element in obtaining the kind of unofficial information that enables journalists to produce their most meaningful work.

Far from insisting on the use of secret sources, publishers, editors and news directors try to ensure that their reporters don't lightly give undertakings of confidentiality. In fact, they won't allow a reporter to do this without the express consent of a senior editor to whom the reporter has confided the identity of his or her source. News organizations do this for their own protection, as the Spectator did in Mr. Peters' case.

This common practice engages the news organization intimately in all risks involved in promising confidentiality to a source. Far from being an example of an “oppressive culture” in the newsroom, it illustrates, in our best media, a co-operative effort to produce truly significant information.

Virtually all journalists are aware of the dangers involved in promising confidentiality; they use this method only as a last resort.

He went at some length beyond that.

In democracies around the world, the right to protect one's confidential sources is seen as critical to the very core beliefs of the democracies. Canada has a long-standing reputation around the world as a defender of citizens' rights as well as human rights, but in the case of the journalist's rights, it is just words and is not codified in law.

I commend my Bloc colleague who brought this bill before the House to ensure that Canada lives up to those words.

It is ironic that as we debate this bill, the protective shadow of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms fails to cover such a basic protection as that needed by journalists. I would add that the irony of the fact that the current federal government, which espouses accountability and honesty and thus has nothing to fear from such a bill, did not bring forth proper legislation during the early months of its tenure.

Earlier in this debate, the member for Hamilton Centre referred to a Hamilton Spectator editorial on Mr. Peters' case and the response from the then Liberal minister. The editorial stated:

The minister admitted he hadn't had time to consider the matter much further since then, being distracted by the troubles inherent in a minority government and all. But he did say that he believed in the importance and necessary role a free press played in supporting democracy and that he felt a “shield law or something” like it should be examined.

The editorial ended with:

We'll take you at your word on that Mr. Minister and look forward to any proposals you may bring forward.

We are not aware of any proposals from that minister or the current one.

I would say that in the life of any politician, we may well disagree with the direction in which a journalist may choose to exercise his or her freedom of choice to report, but it is our democratic responsibility to legislate to protect that very freedom.

I have asked how long would the sponsorship scandal have festered if it had been ignored by the media out of fear. Today we see nightly reports on the Mulroney-Schreiber case. What would have happened if the media had not been working on those cases?

In closing, I would say it is essential for all parties to send a clear message to journalists that they need no longer live in fear as they respond to their obligation to report to our nation on the controversial issues brought forward by confidential sources.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the last minute or so of speaking time I have, let me say very clearly that this reaction on the part of the government is a very limited way to try to deal with a very serious situation that the Supreme Court of this country has struck down.

Many legal experts across this country are saying that this piece of legislation is flawed and will also be struck down. To be very clear, the government did not get the job done.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very difficult situation but it comes back to a very fundamental thing, which is the right of democracies worldwide to say that one has the right to face one's accuser and the right as a person to know the evidence against oneself.

I do not think Canadians want to be part of a country that picks people off the street, throws them in handcuffs and puts them in the back of a van so that then they are gone. There is the word “rendition”, which is what happens in the United States. It is always very interesting to watch for and listen to the buzzwords of the day. Members should consider what rendition means. It is a code word for torture.

Very clearly, in a fragile democracy, and every democracy is fragile, when we start allowing people to decide who has more rights than others, then we are putting ourselves and our country at risk. The reality is very simple. We have a Criminal Code. The Criminal Code has the statutes. It is time for us to use those statutes.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what the previous speaker has said. It is the erosion of fundamental rights that has taken place as a result of 9/11. Given the horrific nature of that incident, which we all saw on television as many Canadians died in those buildings, I am sure in my mind that the hearts of the people in this place ached as much at those events as those of people anywhere in the world. We could not turn away from those events.

On the other hand, literally hundreds of years of the evolution of law and the evolution of the Criminal Code were set aside in almost a casual way in the sense that it was so quick. I am very careful about the motivation in the hearts of the people at the time, but that does not make this setting aside right. This is the place where we have to defend the fundamental rights of Canadians. There is no other place to go to in this country.

When we have the Supreme Court striking down a piece of legislation, this place must consider it in more depth than this obviously has before this place moves forward on legislation of this nature.

[Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is the fact that the advocate does not have the access to information to the degree that is necessary. Whatever access to information the advocate does receive is not in the public purvey. Clearly the certificates err in the fact that we do not have due process as contained in our Criminal Code where a person can publicly face the evidence against them and publicly react to it.