2003-11-07

The Royal Assent
The Speaker: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:

Rideau Hall
Ottawa
November 7, 2003
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 7th day of November, 2003, at 1:00 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills of law.
Yours sincerely,
Barbara Uteck,
Secretary to the Governor General

The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills: Bill C-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts and Bill C-50, an act to amend the statute law in respect of benefits for veterans and the children of deceased veterans.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent to move to presenting reports from committees so that I may present the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to proceed with presenting reports from committees at this time?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Routine Proceedings
Committees of the HouseGurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, as chair of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, concerning national parks regulations.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, your committee requests the government to table a comprehensive response to this report within 90 days.

Government Orders
Canada Elections ActHon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): 
moved that Bill

C-51, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act
be read a second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open the second reading debate on Bill C-51, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act.
As we all know, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its ruling in the Figueroa case last June, throwing into question some of the key aspects of the Canada Elections Act relating to the registration of political parties. The issue is an important one, as it goes to the heart of our parliamentary system.
Today, I would like to briefly review the impact of the Figueroa decision and to outline the government's legislative response to the ruling, as set out in Bill C-51.
The rule requiring parties to field 50 candidates in order to be registered was enacted in 1970, when, for the first time, the Canada Elections Act recognized the existence of political parties and allowed party identification on the ballot.
Before that, just the candidate's name was given, never the party. If I remember rightly, this led to abuses. A party would try to find an independent candidate with a name similar to the one most likely to win, in order to try to confuse voters. The situation was clarified by adding the political party beside the name on the ballot.
This was the first step toward a more comprehensive regulation of electoral finances that would occur a few years later, in 1974, as a result of the Barbeau and Chappell committees.
In that context, the 1970 Elections Act provided for the registration of parties that endorsed at least 50 candidates in a general election. The 50-candidate rule reflected the particular role that larger parties had come to play in our system of parliamentary democracy, based on the principle of responsible government.
There were then very few benefits attached to registration, other than ballot identification. Things have evolved considerably since that time, and registered parties are now entitled to a number of benefits, including financial benefits. This is when the challenges started.
At the same time, I should add, parties are subject to a number of significant obligations, in particular the requirement to submit annual and post-electoral reports. Registration carries both benefits and burdens. There are of course financial benefits, along with identification on the ballot and so forth. But these are counterbalanced by the requirement to file reports and the like.
In the Figueroa case, it was argued that the 50 candidate rule was unconstitutional because it operated to exclude smaller parties from certain benefits under the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act. Three benefits were at issue.
First, was the right to issue tax receipts for political contributions. That, obviously, has a financial advantage to the donor and similarly a financial advantage for the recipient party. If the donor has an advantage, it increases the chance that the donor is going to give. That is the whole object of having the rule in the first place.
Second, was the right of the party to receive a candidate's campaign surpluses. As members will know, when there is a surplus in a campaign, the candidate is not entitled to bring the amount home. It can be provided to the consolidated revenue fund or given to the constituency association of the political party or to the political party directly.
Third, was the right to have a candidate's party affiliation listed on the ballot, which is the original proposition that I raised a while ago.
The government took the position that the 50 candidate rule served as a reasonable and politically neutral benchmark level of electoral participation that parties had to meet in order to gain access to benefits under the act, in particular, the Income Tax Act. We thought this was a reasonable proposition. A party must run 50 candidates in order to have some of them elected, and of course, at least 12 must be elected to this place from that critical mass in order to be a recognized political party.
The Ontario Court of Appeal largely agreed with the government's position--at least it agreed with that part--except as a requirement for party identification on the ballot. In other words, to be entitled to the benefits, 50 candidates was okay and in the case of smaller parties, the name of the party would at least be on the ballot.
That is the way we acted at the time. We provided a bill in the House and corrected those measures. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and unanimously struck down the 50 candidate requirement. It is even more complicated than that and I will get to that in a minute.
The court concluded that the rule was inconsistent with the right to vote in section 3 of the charter. In the court's view, the rule's impact on small parties infringed the right to meaningful participation in the electoral process. The court also ruled that this restriction on section 3 rights could not be justified under section 1 of the charter.
[Intervention]
An hon. member: Absolutely.
Don Boudria: A colleague across the way says absolutely. Yet, it was his party that moved, after 1993, to further restrict those who could receive the contribution under what is commonly known as the McClelland amendment. It was produced by his then colleague from Alberta to tighten up some of those requirements because some fringe parties were receiving benefits from the surpluses of elections, namely the natural law party. It was his party that moved to tighten this. Today he is saying absolutely and agreeing that the requirements should be loosened; however, that is a different proposition than his party moved and that the House supported, by the way. I think the House unanimously supported that amendment.
Mr. James Rajotte: He is now a Tory MLA.
Don Boudria: I know he is a Tory MLA now, but notwithstanding that, we still liked him anyway.
While the court ruled the provisions in question unconstitutional, it suspended the judgment for a period of 12 months in order to allow Parliament time to amend the legislation. That is what we have before us today. Thus, if no legislative amendment is made by June 27, 2004, the 50 candidate rule will cease to have any effect, leaving a large void in the act.
It also means that it would be fairly easy for any group, if we do not do anything that is, to register as a political party and abuse the tax credits that are designed to assist true political parties. Of course, we do not want any group to fraudulently claim it is a political party only to get money from the taxpayers of Canada. That is why it is imperative that we act, and act quickly, to respond and ensure that the Canada Elections Act remains operational after June 27, 2004, to prevent any misuse of the system. The Supreme Court decision has left a gap and it is our duty to fill that gap while respecting the court's decision.
Before reviewing the key elements of the proposed legislation, let me take a moment to highlight the potential implications of the Figueroa decision, flowing from its impact on party registration.
Obviously, removing the candidate threshold in accordance with the ruling may well result in an increase in the number of registered parties. In theory, an increase in the number of parties could have an impact on the reimbursement of election expenses and other benefits.
However, parties must sustain a minimum level of voter support, that is to say 5% of the vote in the ridings in which they endorse a candidate, or 2% of the vote nationally, which is what we call the McCLelland amendment, in order to receive that allowance.
That particular provision is still valid because it provides us with some protection by not allowing a person to get money from taxpayers by simply creating a political party, running as a candidate and thereby drawing money from the tax system. Again, I give credit to the member who proposed that amendment at that time because it is very beneficial.
I would like to clarify that the Supreme Court did not rule on this issue, the McCLelland amendment or other issues like that, nor did it pronounce itself on any other requirements in the act. As a matter of fact, it specifically indicated that the decision did not mean that other thresholds in the act were unconstitutional. I believe that is quite clear.
The real risk is that there could be a number of groups calling themselves political parties and seeking registration simply for the sake of getting access to the tax credit system. They would only wish to get money from the taxpayers of Canada while not participating, save nominally if at all, in the democratic process.
The concern is that groups, including advocacy groups, could register as parties simply by fielding a paper candidate and complying with reporting requirements. These groups would then be able to issue tax receipts for contributions made to them, even though they have no intention of acting as a party nor even any intention of electing anyone. Not only is this objectionable as a matter of principle, it could well have considerable negative financial impacts. It is something we must address to ensure that the system is not misused.
Taking no action would leave our electoral system weaker and our fiscal regime vulnerable to abuse. Moreover, not legislating to comply with the court's decision could well mean that judicial intervention would be required after June 27, 2004, to either extend the suspension period--with no assurance of course that the court would grant it--or to provide guidance to the Chief Electoral Officer on the applicable rules from that day forward. We must be clear.
The absence of a timely legislative response would result in uncertainty as to the rules for party registration and may mean that at some point we would not have in place a fully operational electoral system, at least from the financial aspect.
Doing nothing is certainly not an option. It is incumbent on us as members of this House to do everything possible to avoid that.
The bill responds in a way that strikes an appropriate balance between fairness to parties on one hand and the need to preserve the integrity of the electoral system on the other, while of course, respecting the Supreme Court decision, which is what this does.
The bill consists of two key pillars: party registration and accountability provisions, and anti-abuse measures
We cannot have candidate requirements any more, except one. Anything beyond that, the court has ruled that we cannot do that. We cannot do 12 nor 11; we cannot do 9. We can do one because of course, if we do not run a candidate or put a name on the ballot, we are not a political party. We may be many things, but we are not that.
The second element concerns the series of anti-abuse measures. I want to touch on those two things before ending.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that candidate thresholds were problematic, leaving little for manoeuvre.
As I said, Bill C-51 would replace the 50 candidate threshold with a single candidate requirement. In other words, someone would have to run, but 12 candidates would not have to run because the Supreme Court has ruled that is not proper. We may regret it and we may think many things, but it is done and it was a unanimous Supreme Court decision, not that it changes much. However, we must respect it.
At the same time, the bill would add further registration requirements and other measures to ensure that parties seeking to register have a genuine interest in electoral competition.
First, The bill would, for the first time, add a definition of a political party in the act. Pursuant to that definition, a party would be required to have as one of its fundamental purposes the participation in public affairs through running and supporting one or more of its members as candidates. We cannot say a quantity of candidates because quantifying candidates has been ruled to be unconstitutional.
Second, the minimum number of party members would be increased from 100 to 250. A signed statement would be required from those members stating that they are members of the party and support its registration. If a political party is anything, it is a group of people. So, 250 was the number that we put in as identifying that critical mass of people. Some would argue that is still not a high threshold, but it is a bit higher than what we had before. We had 100 multiplied by several ridings, but we cannot multiply by several ridings any more so we have 250 overall.
Parties would be required to have three officers, other than the party leader, who would provide their signed consent to the act. In other words, to be a political party, there must be a total of four officers at least with hopefully many more.
With the removal of the 50 candidate rule, parties would be able to register at byelections. With a single candidate requirement, there is no logical need to allow registration only during a general election. If a party were only to have one candidate in a general election, and if there were one, two, or three byelections, why could a new party not be registered then? If we are going to respect the court's decision, we must allow registration at byelections. If a party were to fail to run a single candidate in a general election, it would automatically be de-registered.
The bill would also reduce from 12 candidates to 1 the threshold for party identification on the ballot. The court did not rule on that, but the fact is that if a party needs only one candidate to be a political party, why would it need 12 to have its name on the ballot? That provision has to go for reasons of logic if nothing else.
Overall, the party registration requirements would ensure that registered parties are genuine participants in the process.
In the few minutes I have left, I want to touch briefly on the anti-abuse measures. That is what we are left with now to identify political parties and to ensure that they do not do anything false, while at the same time, not creating anti-abuse measures that are so intrusive that the institutions cannot be created at all. So again we strike a balance.
First, the bill would include a new false statement offence for knowingly making false statements in relation to the registration of a party. The leader of a party is required to provide a declaration in this regard. In addition to the individual penalties attached to making a false statement, the provision would allow parties to be refused registration or even de-registered for making false statements.
Second, there would be a ban on the solicitation or receipt of contributions by a political party simply for the purpose of redirecting those contributions to a third party. In other words, if a political party is falsely created only as a front to feed money elsewhere, that would ban the solicitation of funds for that purpose.
A third measure would increase the powers of the Commissioner of Elections Canada who is responsible for enforcement of compliance under the act. Where the commissioner has reasonable suspicion that the party is not legitimate, for all the reasons I said, he could require the party to provide information to satisfy him.
Should the party fail to do so, the commissioner could apply for judicial deregistration of a party. It is of little good to identify that something fraudulent has gone on and then have to go through a six month court process to rectify it after one taxation year has gone by and after the taxpayers of Canada have been defrauded of a large amount of money. Therefore, we must give the commissioner the authority to do things rather quickly.
Further, when an application for deregistration is pending, the right of a party to issue tax receipts would be suspended. Judicial deregistration would also be available as part of the criminal sentencing process. In addition to deregistration, the judge could order the liquidation of the party's assets if it did all these things wrong. In other words, if that money was obtained fraudulently and used to buy goods for the party, then surely, the assets could be liquidated, because those funds belong to the taxpayers of Canada.
Finally, individuals, including party officers, could be held civilly responsible if convicted of offences related to or leading to financial abuse and they could be ordered to make restitution to the public purse. If someone creates a false entity to defraud the taxpayers of Canada, the officers could be held responsible personally for doing harm to the Canadian taxpayers.
Hon. members will see that this is what I consider a measured and balanced response. It is what we are proposing.
For these reasons I encourage all members to pass this bill. We could refer it to committee for an in-depth study, but it ought, of course, to be passed fairly promptly in order to meet the Supreme Court deadline.
I thank all my parliamentary colleagues in advance for their contribution to this debate today.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the government House leader's speech and I hope he will stay with us for a long time. Yesterday, when he answered the Thursday question, we weighed his every word when he said something to the effect of, “My colleagues, the House leaders, who have given me their support for all these years”. It sounded a lot like a farewell speech.
But we are not there yet. My question is mainly on the Supreme Court ruling in the Figueroa case. If I understand correctly, the government had no choice but to accept this Supreme Court decision because requiring a minimum number of candidates for an election was deemed unconstitutional.
Consequently, one candidate could be enough. With the 50-candidate rule no longer applying, the government has to adjust its legislation. That is what the government is doing with Bill C-51.
Later, I will have an opportunity to speak to this bill, but I would like the government House leader to reply to this question first. Would it not have been a good idea to take advantage of the Figueroa decision, which in a way amends the Canada Elections Act, to respond to a repeated demand from the Bloc Quebecois—from myself, as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and also my colleagues from Verchères—Les-Patriotes and Laval Centre, who are associate members of that committee—to review the procedure for appointing returning officers?
The government House leader, insofar as I can read his lips, says that there is no connection. However, I am asking him if it would not have been a golden opportunity to clean up and modernize the way elections are run, to have returning officers chosen through an open, honest, transparent and public process. That is how it is done in Quebec.
I can see the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who was a minister in the Quebec National Assembly. He was a minister of some stature, if you consider his height. He had it over me, because I am only 5' 6" tall. Well, I am not going to flatter him too much.
I would simply like to suggest that the government House leader consult the people involved. I use the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry as an example, because he is right in front of me, but I could also mention the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, who also was a minister in the Quebec National Assembly, or the hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies who also sat in that legislature. We remember one evening in the National Assembly, when the hon. member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, after a few glasses of wine, decided to seize the mace and leave the chamber. The official record tells it all.
The government House leader could consult his colleague, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who also sat in the National Assembly, to find out—there are some on our side, too, for instance the hon. member for Champlain—that the process of holding a public competition to appoint returning officers in Quebec works well and is not a source of patronage as it is here, where we get the list of 308 nominations for federal returning officers for our hasty approval. They are known Liberals and it is a process known for patronage.
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the hon. member has raised three issues. I will respond to them in the order raised.
The first concerns my statement yesterday, in which I told the other leaders how much I had enjoyed working with them in the past, and how I hoped to continue working with them in the future.
I had indicated during a public interview yesterday that, if the House is prorogued in a few months' time—naturally, a new government would be elected—I would like to remain in this position. And if luck, the leader and God are smiling on me, perhaps I shall.
That takes care of the first point. However, I thank the hon. member for his interest.
Second, with regard to the candidate threshold, the hon. member is correct. Whether we like it or not, that is the way it is. From now on, a party must run at least one candidate because, if there is no candidate, there is no party. However, any threshold establishing a minimum number of candidates, except one, would be unconstitutional.
Therefore, we can no longer control the threshold, and we have to respect that. As a result, other guidelines must be implemented to ensure the legitimacy of the process, but the number of candidates cannot be one of these guidelines.
With regard to the returning officers, this is completely outside the scope of this bill, and the hon. member made reference to this. I know that he is aware that this falls outside the answer provided in the Figueroa case.
That said, the commission on electoral reform tabled its report a number of years ago. The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform, or Lortie commission, make a specific recommendation to keep the system as it was and not implement the changes recommended by members.
Furthermore, this same system exists in at least seven other provinces. So it was not invented by the current leader of this government. This system exists, and it is working very well. In my opinion, it has ensured that we have returning officers who are extremely capable. In those instances where this is not the case, then corrective measures will be taken.
Finally, with respect to the alleged rushed appointment of returning officers, I disagree. I started the procedure to recruit candidates back in August; this is November 7, and we have appointed almost 290 of the 308 officers. The other appointments should be made within a week or two. The list will be complete.
I point out, however, that two-thirds of these were people who already held the job prior to the redistribution. They are the same people.
In my riding, the returning officer was appointed by the Progressive Conservative Party in 1988. My government has since reappointed her twice, last week and, previously, following the last redistribution. These appointments are not a source of patronage, contrary to what the hon. member said. That is clearly not the case.
In fact, I personally approached a number of members of this House to get the names of potential returning officers for their ridings. When I say a number of members, I am talking about members opposite. I approached at least a half dozen personally. Without naming them, I see some of them nodding. So, this is not a source of patronage. That is just not true. Respectfully, that is not the case.
I think I followed the procedure correctly. The Privy Council Office checks the candidates. Security clearances are required. All of this is done. Naturally, they then undergo training with Elections Canada. All this to say that the procedure is totally appropriate and legitimate. It works well and the Lortie Commission recommended keeping it.
The Speaker: This is really the end of the time allotted for questions and comments. There are only 30 seconds left.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know you recognized the member yonder, and that is your prerogative, but I wonder whether I could ask unanimous consent, as a member of the official opposition, to pose a question to the minister and to get a response.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-51, particularly on this Friday, possibly the last day of this session, to talk about enhancing and restoring democracy in Canada, which we must not take for granted.
Bill C-51 is an act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Income Tax Act. I believe members on this side of the House have many questions, and hopefully we will have further opportunity, but it would be nice if we could ask the government House leader questions.
We know why the bill is before us. The bill is designed to address the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in what is known as the Miguel Figueroa case. Miguel Figueroa is the leader of the Communist Party of Canada that was founded in 1921, and had been registered as a party under the Canada's Elections Act since registration first began in 1974.
In the 1993 federal election, however, that party lost its status as a registered party and all the benefits because it failed to nominate at least 50 candidates. As a consequence of deregistration, the party was forced to liquidate its assets, pay all its debts and remit the outstanding balance to the Chief Electoral Officer.
Mr. Figueroa commenced an action against the attorney general seeking a declaration that several provisions of the Canada Elections Act infringed various provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and were therefore of no force and effect.
The original decision in the case was rendered in March 1999 by the Ontario Court of Justice that described the requirement to field 50 candidates as draconian and held that it was in violation of section 3 of the charter, which guarantees the right to vote and to run as a candidate. However that decision was not what the Liberals wanted to hear so they appealed the judgment and won.
In August 2000 the Ontario Court of Appeal declared the 50 candidate requirement was within the bounds of reasonableness. Mr. Figueroa then took his case to the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled in his favour and struck down the 50 candidate threshold. According to the court, this requirement treated small parties unfairly by denying the benefits granted to registered parties. This unequal treatment was found to infringe on the rights of citizens to participate in a meaningful way in the electoral process as protected by section 3 of the charter.
The court has, however, suspended the application of the judgment until June 27, 2004, in order to allow Parliament time to bring forward the necessary changes to the Canada Elections Act.
It is interesting how when it comes to the Canada Elections Act the government keeps appealing court decisions that suggest Canadians' democratic rights are being violated but when same sex marriage is the issue, these same Liberals are quick to say that the courts have spoken, and immediately alter legislation.
For the sake of restoring and enhancing democracy, they keep on appealing decision after decision to the courts. It seems that taking away the constitutional right of Canadians to voice their opinions in federal elections is worth appealing to a higher court but destroying eons worth of common law governing holy matrimony is not worth the bother. Give me a break.
According to departmental documents, the primary objective of Bill C-51 is to strike an appropriate balance between fairness to parties and the need to preserve the integrity of the electoral system. We therefore find that while the bill drops the 50 candidate rule, it also proposes new requirements applicable to all parties. These new requirements are meant to exclude from registration entities that do not intend to participate in the electoral process.
The new registration requirements include the following: that the party have at least 250 members who have signed statements declaring that they are members of the party and support its registration; that one of the party's fundamental purposes be to participate in public affairs by endorsing one or more of its members as candidates and supporting their election, and that the party leader make a declaration to that effect; that the party actually endorse a candidate in an election. Parties that do not endorse at least one candidate during a general election will be automatically deregistered. The last requirement is that the party have at least three officers in addition to the leader.
The legal recognition and registration of political parties is a relatively recent development. Registration was introduced in the early 1970s as part of various changes to Canada's electoral legislation.
Registration does convey significant benefits and opportunities to a party. Benefits include: entitlement to issue tax receipts, reimbursement of election expenses, access to broadcasting time, access to copies of the voters' lists on an annual basis, and continue to have their candidates identified on the ballots.
In 1993 the government of the day responded to the report of the royal commission on electoral reform and party financing, known as the Lortie commission, with amendments to the Canada Elections Act. It was Bill C-114 that made it mandatory rather than discretionary for parties to be deregistered for failing to nominate at least 50 candidates in a general election. The bill also made life more difficult for smaller parties by raising a candidate's deposit from $200 to $1,000. This effectively became a $50,000 obstacle for parties wishing to participate in the democratic process.
The bill, which also put in place the limits on third party advertising, which were recently found unconstitutional, became commonly known as the “gag law”. The bill had been debated for only 15 minutes in the House and was cunningly passed at the end of the day, on a Friday, before a two week recess.
The Globe and Mail referred to the bill as “the worst violation of Canadians' rights of free expression in years” and suggested it was an attempt by federal politicians, particularly on that side of the House, “to perpetuate themselves in office”.
If the 50 candidate rule was meant to eliminate small parties and their dissenting voices, it was a resounding success in stomping on democracy.
More and more Canadians were becoming disaffected by government and the old line political parties. One result was the emergence of fringe or protest parties. They served, and for that matter continue to serve, although to a lesser degree, an important function. They allow for the expression of ideas important to some voters. They allow Canadians to be heard, giving them a voice that might be lost in the larger parties.
The protest vote is more substantial than most would think, even in this House. In the 1988 federal election precisely 584,521 Canadians voted for fringe parties or independent candidates. To put that in perspective, only 540,941 Canadians voted in the Manitoba election.
Eleven fringe parties ran candidates in the 1988 election, including such old parties as the Social Credit and the CCF, and one new party that would soon become an important player in federal politics, the Reform Party of Canada, which had made a significant contribution to the political arena.
With the stricter enforcement of the 50 candidate rule, the 2000 election results showed considerable change. Only six fringe parties ran candidates but they collected about 300,000 votes.
Every time there are amendments to the Canada Elections Act the government seems to make it more difficult for Canadians to organize new political parties. The Liberals have shaped the act to perpetuate the monopoly on power of the major parties. The result is that it has a prejudicial effect on small parties and independent candidates.
For real debate and democracy, we need parties representing a broad range of interests. Many Canadians abstain from voting because they feel alienated by the mainstream parties. Voter turnout has been falling steadily since the 1980 federal election from 75% turnout to just 61%, a new low in the 2000 federal election. What about the other 39% of potential voters? This is a serious concern.
If we are truly interested in voter participation the system should be fair. We should make it easier for small parties to get on the ballot, participate in the debate, get media coverage and receive public funding.
The Liberals are dismissive of small parties. It is part of their arrogance. They fail to realize that there is more to democracy than winning power. Democracy is also about sharing ideas, respecting and protecting the rights of others, particularly minorities or minority opinions. Members of small parties are not under some false illusion that they will win the next election. However just because they will not be forming the next government, just because they are unlikely to even win a seat, does not lessen their enthusiasm for participating in the democratic process.
Participating in elections allows smaller parties to demonstrate the popularity of their platforms. In that way they might gain more adherents or their ideas might be accepted as a policy of a major political party. These parties also provide an opportunity for those dissatisfied with the major parties to register protest votes, which can tip the scale in a closely contested election.
Democratic reform has been a core principle of my political party, the Reform Party of Canada and now the Canadian Alliance for the last 16 years. Unlike the party opposite, we did not develop a temporary itch for democratic reform when we were seeking approval of backbenchers, or in a leadership struggle, or when we go to the voters every three and a half years. It has been a constant theme of this party since 1987.
Democracy is something in which everyone should participate, including the small parties. The 50 candidate rule of the Canada Elections Act not only attacks small parties but seriously infringes and endangers the public's right to free political expression and association, both rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seeks to perpetuate the dominance of big political parties by hampering the establishment of small or new political parties.
The government's attempt to wiggle around the 50 candidate rule decision suggests that the Liberals are downright hostile to democracy; in fact, it seems like an elected dictatorship in Canada. We all know how the incoming leader of the Liberal Party staged a slow coup within his party. He and his cronies took over the control of the riding associations. They bullied their caucus, including the Prime Minister. They scared away the competing leadership candidates. Eventually the Prime Minister will be forced out prior to the end of his mandate.
The Liberals have been trying to make it as hard as possible for any political group to challenge them at the ballot box. Despite all this, still the incoming leader of the Liberal Party is doubting democratic reform. I do not know how he can say he stands for democratic reform.
The Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but he will have four and one-half minutes remaining when debate resumes after question period.

Statements By Members
100th Anniversary of AviationMr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 60 seconds are what we are given to make statements before question period. Some people may think this is too short a time to say or do anything significant. I offer the following as proof to the contrary.
On December 17, 1903 Orville Wright got into the motorized plane he had built with his brother Wilbur and flew for 12 seconds over a distance of 36.5 metres, or about 120 feet. The Wright brothers manned another three flights that morning, the longest one lasting 59 seconds. I dare say that those initial 12 seconds changed the world.
On the offchance that we may not be sitting beyond today and the certainty that we will not be sitting on December 17, I want to take this occasion to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' amazing achievement.
On the100th anniversary of aviation, I hope that the world will underline it as an achievement that has changed the course of human history.
Liberal Government PoliciesMr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's attempts to deceive Canadians have no limits. At every opportunity the Liberals pay lip service to Canadians by saying one thing but doing something quite the opposite.
In 1999 the government voted to support the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Within the past few months we have seen it not only reverse this position but to actively campaign against it.
Last week the Liberal government supported our motion unanimously to protect children against child pornography. Bill C-20 is the government's answer to protect children. The bill takes out the outrageous defence of “artistic merit” and replaces it with “the public good” which, given recent court rulings, could mean anything.
The government promised Canadians a sex offender registry but continues to avoid giving us an effective registry.
Is it any wonder that Canadians are losing confidence in government. Canadians deserve better.
Niagara MunicipalityMr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Debbie Zimmerman, the outgoing chair of the Regional Municipality of Niagara.
Debbie began her political career in 1978 when she was elected to the Grimsby town council where she served until 1989. Debbie then served on regional council and was elected chair of the Regional Municipality of Niagara in 1997 and again in the year 2000.
Debbie has been an active member of a diverse number of corporate committees with the Regional Municipality of Niagara, as well as external committees and panels at the provincial level.
Debbie served as a member of the Team Canada 2001 trade mission to China and led the 2002 Niagara business trade mission to Ireland.
Debbie has been rewarded countless times for her outstanding contribution to the Niagara region.
I want to thank Debbie for her 25 years of exceptional public service and extend my best wishes to her in her future endeavours.
SeniorsMs. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one of the Canadian government's greatest achievements has been its retirement income system for seniors. However, there are still areas of concern.
Seniors who live alone, particularly women, continue to experience higher rates of poverty than other older Canadians.
The current federal support for a senior with no dependants is a maximum of $13,176. However the current income level in Ontario that is used as a marker to measure poverty is $18,849. This is a shortfall of $5,673 annually.
I am asking the seniors in my riding of Hamilton Mountain to fill out a brief anonymous survey indicating the adequacy of their federal financial assistance.
I congratulate the Prime Minister for creating a caucus task force on seniors to assess the federal pensions and the provincial and municipal services to ensure that our seniors are not just getting by, but are living their lives with dignity.
SikhismMr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Sikh community in my riding and around the world is celebrating the 534th birthday of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, the first guru of the Sikh religion.
The teachings of Guru Nanak are a model to all people. Sikhs believe in non-violence, peace, human equality, justice and democracy. Guru Nanak taught the importance of selfless service, tolerance, compassion, love, equality and well-being for all people.
The goal of a Sikh is not only the spiritual growth of the individual but is also the advancement of every human being regardless of creed, colour or race.
International CooperationMr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition's senior critic for international cooperation, I would like to pledge the Canadian Alliance's support for yesterday's announcement of the federal government's introduction of legislative changes to implement the August 30 agreement on access to medicines for developing countries at the World Trade Organization.
This important step taken by Canada to make a sincere commitment to fight the ravages of the HIV-AIDS pandemic is a great feat in the never ending struggle to combat this horrendous disease.
By supporting this legislation, the Canadian Alliance joins the war against HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases. We owe it to future generations to ensure that diseases such as HIV-AIDS which have ravaged so many countries are brought under control.
Down SyndromeMs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, November 1 to 7 is Down Syndrome Awareness Week, an annual event sponsored by the Canadian Down Syndrome Society. At this time we take the opportunity to highlight the unique abilities, strengths and needs of fellow Canadians with Down syndrome.
Now is the time to demonstrate to each other and the rest of the world that Canada is a nation of people committed to ensuring that all individuals have opportunities to succeed and grow. About one person in every 800 is born with Down syndrome. Each one is a person first and a person with Down syndrome second.
Down syndrome presents challenges for a child or adult in all stages of development for the child's parents and family members and for professionals in the fields of health, education and social science. It is vital that these challenges be met to ensure that all people with Down syndrome have the opportunity to develop to their full potential.
As Canadians, we celebrate our similarities as well as our differences knowing we are richer as a result.
Angèle MalaisonMs. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, November 8, will be a very special day at the Résidence Georges-Hébert in Jonquière, where Angèle Malaison will celebrate her 100th birthday. This milestone will be matched by another, equally exceptional event, the 75th anniversary of her marriage to Eddie Lapierre.
Mr. and Mrs. Lapierre are remarkable people and, despite their advanced age, always have a twinkle in their eyes that leaves us in no doubt that they are just as alert and just as much in love as they were 75 years ago.
I want to wish a happy 100th birthday to Angèle Malaison and a happy 75th wedding anniversary to her and her husband. Your love is a shining example, and I wish you both many more years of happiness together.
Remembrance DayMr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next week on November 11, Canadians will be taking time out to remember the men and women in uniform who for well over a century now have steadfastly stood on guard for their nation and the world in times of peace and in times of war. They will also remember the over 100,000 Canadians who paid the ultimate price.
The call to remembrance was made just that much sharper in recent weeks with the tragic loss of two of our finest in Afghanistan. Their sacrifice was a stark reminder of the risks faced by our brave young men and women in uniform.
Even though the business of maintaining peace and security can be perilous, our Canadian Forces personnel are superb ambassadors for Canada and carry out their duties with courage, dignity and the utmost in professionalism. All Canadians remain so very grateful and proud of the service and sacrifice of the members of the Canadian Forces.
Rail CrossingsMr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in nearly every small town in Canada many streets are intersected by level rail crossings. Most such lines are used for freight transportation, and from the viewpoint of town residents, they represent a danger and inconvenience with no offsetting benefits.
One particular danger is the inconsistent markings of these crossings. In my hometown of Carleton Place, there are 10 crossings which are marked in three different ways. A motorist entering and leaving the town by different routes will encounter different rail warning markers. This goes a long way toward explaining why small town Canada continues to experience car-train collisions.
However, federal regulators have offloaded much of the cost of changing such markings to the cash-strapped towns and away from the railroads which are the sole beneficiaries of these lines. This amounts to accepting a high level of risk to motorists as an integral component of federal rail policy.
The Minister of Transport has announced a large financial package in aid of Canadian rail. Why not divert some of that money toward consistent marking of rail crossings in order to protect the safety of Canadians?
The EconomyMr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again Canadians are seeing the results of the government's wise fiscal management. The unemployment rate fell again to 7.6% and the Canadian economy created over 65,000 jobs last month. This is five times as many jobs as economists were predicting. Most of these jobs are full time jobs.
In particular, we see considerable growth in employment in British Columbia and Quebec. In British Columbia, the unemployment rate dropped from 9.1% to 7.8% in just one month. In Quebec, 26,000 jobs were created last month.
Ten years ago, when the Liberal government came to power, we promised to get Canadians working. Since then, three million jobs have been created. This is three million more Canadians who are working today since the government first took office.
I am sure my colleagues in the House will join me in celebrating the continuing success of the government and the benefits that 10 years of good government have provided for Canadians.
Remembrance DayMr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, next week we will remember those who fought and served us in the great world wars. All of them were heroes.
One of the great heroes was a young Newfoundlander, Tommy Ricketts, who lied about his age and at 15 joined the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.
In 1916, in Belgium, they came under heavy fire. He and his commander outflanked the German gun. They ran out of ammunition. He circled back, found ammunition, came back to his platoon and they drove back the enemy. He was the youngest soldier ever to be awarded the Victoria Cross.
We owe a debt of gratitude to people like Tommy Ricketts and all those who served. On November 11, let us remember them all for what they have done for us. Let us never forget that great sacrifice they paid for this country.
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseMr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, November 19 is World Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Day. According to the Canadian Lung Association, this family of diseases, often known as COPD, affects about 8% of Canadians, or some 2 million people, half a million of them Quebeckers.
In recent years, one of my constituents, Claude Lanthier, who suffers from pulmonary dysfunction himself, has moved heaven and earth to get the government, particularly Revenue Canada, to recognize the disability caused by COPD.
My statement today is intended not only to demonstrate our solidarity with our fellow citizens who suffer from these terrible diseases, but also to pay tribute to those who, like Mr. Lanthier, spare no effort to improve the well-being of others.
I invite all members of this House to find out more about the devastating effects of these diseases and to support current and future medical research initiatives.
Employment InsuranceMs. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a big day for the Liberal Party and this government's administration.
Finally the truth comes out. The Superior Court of Quebec made it clear to Bloc Quebecois MPs that they are exaggerating when they accuse the Liberal government of mismanaging the employment insurance fund.
I will quote from the ruling:

—in light of the evidence presented, the court is unable to conclude that the federal government used or appropriated the surplus accumulated pursuant to the legislation illegally. This surplus is still posted to the employment insurance account.

What a victory.
Will the members of the Bloc Quebecois finally understand that the people of Quebec are not stupid and that one day they will be unmasked? This only shows that truth always triumphs.
Westray MineMs. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today Bill C-45 will gain royal assent.
The Westray bill is a victory for working people across Canada and culminates 11 years of work by New Democrats in solidarity with families of mine disaster victims, Westray survivors, steelworkers and other trade union partners.
This brings us one step closer to ensuring that corporations are held liable for irresponsible working conditions that end up costing workers their lives.
Justice Peter Richard, who presided over the Westray public inquiry, described Westray, as, “a story of incompetence, mismanagement, bureaucratic bungling, deceit, ruthlessness, cover-up, apathy, expedience and cynical indifference”.
Bill C-45 will ensure in future that corporate managers and employers are held criminally responsible for endangering the lives of workers. Let there not be another Westray.
Arts and CultureMr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, soon Canadians will have the great pleasure of seeing and enjoying 13 late18th century watercolours of exceptional scenes from Quebec City, Montreal and other parts of eastern Canada.
These water-colours by Benjamin Fisher, a British painter and officer of the Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers, had been forgotten for 150 years in the basement of an English university.
Through the collaboration of both the National Archives of Canada and the Musée national des beaux-arts du Québec, and with financial assistance from the Department of Canadian Heritage, these rare and magnificent works will be returned to Canada.
Camp BordenMr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in 1917 the Royal Flying Corps constructed a string of 17 purpose-built military aircraft hangars at Camp Borden, north of Toronto.
By the end of the first world war, 1,184 pilots had trained there. Again, during the second world war, this base was used to train not only Canadian pilots, but airmen from allied countries around the world.
Since that time these historic aircraft hangars have been so neglected they have fallen into a complete state of disrepair. Sadly, only eight hangars remain standing today.
Considered the birthplace of the Royal Canadian Air Force, these hangars were designated a national historic site in 1989. Yet the government has done virtually nothing to preserve this national treasure. Unbelievably, the Minister of National Defence has now authorized the destruction of three more hangars.
As usual his timing is impeccable. Despite Remembrance Day next Tuesday, he continues to support the destruction of these irreplaceable military heritage buildings.

Oral Question Period
International AidMr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, countries on the African continent need help fighting HIV-AIDS. They need medication and they need it now. Cabinet ministers put on a big flashy show yesterday when Bill C-56 was introduced. Now we want action to back up those flashy words.
Will the government commit to passing the bill today at all stages?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, several questions were asked on the floor of the House yesterday. This issue has been raised by a number of groups, NGOs, pharmaceutical companies, and a number of them have asked to testify before the parliamentary committee, which would be prepared to grant such a request.
A number of members on all sides of the House and I have had discussions today, and we certainly are prepared to have second reading go through today and to allow witnesses who want to appear before committee to be heard.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the minister just about wrenched his shoulder yesterday patting himself on the back with regard to the bill, and the government would have us now believe it is still committed to the bill.
When countries are facing a crisis situation, why is the government now dragging its feet on this issue?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. Yesterday we took an enormously important step on a matter of humanitarian importance. We introduced legislation as the first developed country to implement this international agreement to make drugs available on an affordable basis to the developing world.
We are committed to that. We are the ones behind it. We want to get it through second reading today and in front of committee to ensure that every group, the NGOs and the drug companies, have their chance to speak to the bill. If it can be improved, it will be improved.
Let there be no doubt about our commitment to this humanitarian bill.
John Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, such outrage.
Led by the Leader of the Opposition and all parties on this side of the House, we have agreed to immediately pass the bill. The minister has not done his homework. The industry wants to have regulations before committee. It wants the bill passed.
Why did the government not do its homework and get the bill here so we could pass it immediately and help the people in Africa who need help now?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, he has the facts wrong. We have done our homework for the last two months. After the August 30th agreement, we prepared the bill. We were careful with the way we prepared it. We believe it is the right way to go. We are very proud of it.
The bill was introduced in the Prime Minister's name, and reflects his commitment to Africa and humanitarian causes. We are anxious to see it become law. We want it at second reading today so it can get to committee and ensure that the bill will do the job.
Let there be no doubt about the government's commitment. The bill is ready. Is the member ready to work with us in committee to ensure that it is ideal?
Softwood LumberMr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, Premiers Hamm and Lord were in Washington last week fighting to protect the interests of Atlantic Canada's softwood lumber industry. The main issue of discussion was the reinstatement of Atlantic Canada's longstanding exemption from countervail.
What has the government done to support Atlantic Canada's interests at the bargaining table in Washington?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister for International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. It has been the government's point of view that remanufacturers should have always been out of this contestation and the challenge by the Americans.
Atlantic Canada's exemption has lasted for 25 years. We have been promoting the exemption of the Atlantic provinces from any measures. As far as I know, we have been very successful at exempting Atlantic Canada from the 18% duties that are imposed on the rest of the country. The government should be congratulated for that.
Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, I am sure remanufacturers will appreciate the comments, but that was not the question. The question was on Atlantic Canada's exemption.
Last May 21 the government promised that Atlantic Canada's softwood lumber exemption would be protected. The very next day it bargained it away to the Americans. Finally, on October 29, the United States responded to our May proposal and offered 30.5% of market share with the removal of Atlantic Canada's exemption.
What is the minister doing to reinstate Atlantic Canada's longstanding exemption since the early 1980s against countervail?
Pierre Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, I find it very regrettable that the Tories do not care about the remanufacturers, because I can say that remanufacturers are very important and should have been out of the present punitive measures by the United States.
As for the Atlantic Maritimes, what are we doing to reinstate this? There is no need to reinstate the Atlantic exemption because it is a fact: Atlantic provinces have been exempted from the punitive measures of the United States. We do not need to reinstate it. They are out and we want to keep them out.
Foreign AffairsMs. Caroline St-Hilaire (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with regard to its investigation on Maher Arar, the RCMP conducted several searches in the Ottawa area in January 2002. No one knows what the RCMP seized because the search warrants are classified. The only thing we know is that, during the course of an interrogation, Maher Arar's lease was shoved in his face by U.S. authorities.
Do those two factors alone not justify a public inquiry into the Canadian government's actions in the Arar case?
Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, as the Solicitor General has already stated many times in the House, we cannot comment on the RCMP's activities, particularly when it is a matter of national security.
With regard to the lease, the RCMP complaints commission is currently reviewing the matter. It is now before the commissioner.
Caroline St-Hilaire: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary has said, the Solicitor General has acknowledged that the intelligence services did exchange information and, at the same time, he exonerated the RCMP. He has made an unfounded conclusion that Maher Arar's lease was stolen by foreign spies.
The facts speak for themselves. The RCMP conducted several searches, and Maher Arar's lease ended up in the hands of U.S. authorities, who deported Mr. Arar without the Canadian consul taking the threat seriously.
Is a public inquiry not fully justified, given Canada's role in this sequence of events?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the entire House knows that there are media reports and then there are facts. The facts are that the Solicitor General does not and cannot comment on RCMP activities involving national security.
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and U.S. Ambassador Paul Celluci have acknowledged that Canada provided them with intelligence on Canadian citizen Maher Arar.
Do these revelations alone not justify a public inquiry?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.
It gives me an opportunity to again inform the House, as the Solicitor General has done on a number of occasions. The RCMP complaints commission is already involved in an investigation. The commissioner will review the investigation report and determine what further action is to be taken. This complaints commission was created by Parliament itself; it is impartial and independent. So, I would ask that the process be allowed to take its course.
Francine Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, let us be serious here. The number of disturbing occurrences is increasing. First we had the death of Zahra Kazemi, then Bill Sampson's two and one-half years of torture and imprisonment, and now ten months of torture and imprisonment in the case of Maher Arar. Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs agree that it is now imperative for the government to undertake a thorough review of its policy on protecting the rights of all Canadian citizens when they are out of the country?
Hon. Bill Graham (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I agree, along with every member here, I am sure, that these are highly disturbing cases. We have a great deal of sympathy for Canadians in trouble in other countries, and have worked very hard on their behalf. There are 3,000 Canadians imprisoned in other countries for a variety of reasons. I can assure you that we are working hard to protect them.
In light of these tragic events, we will be reviewing procedures within our department in order to see how we can improve them. We will continue to act in the best interests of Canadians who are in other countries, whether in prison or not.
TransportMr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, here is what Liberals pass off as sound government policy. The airport at Charlevoix, Quebec receives $5.3 million in federal grants while the airport in Red Deer gets only a used snowplow. Charlevoix has 1,500 flights per year and Red Deer has 40,000.
There is another difference. The major user at the Charlevoix airport is none other than the Desmarais family, the family that is related to the current Prime Minister and helped set up the shipping empire for the future prime minister. Is that why there is so much money for Charlevoix, Quebec, but so little money for Red Deer, Alberta?
Hon. Stephen Owen (Secretary of State (Western Economic Diversification) (Indian Affairs and Northern Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us speak about airports in western Canada. I made an announcement last month that the airport in Prince George would receive from the WD fund $1.85 million for an expansion. We are in negotiations now, as the member for Kootenay—Columbia knows, with the airport in Cranbrook to look at expansion opportunities.
The fact is that under the Canada infrastructure program, priority was not given by the City of Red Deer to the airport expansion. It used up the allocated funds for other priorities. If it wants to apply--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley.
Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, let us do the math for the minister. The airport in Charlevoix, Quebec gets $5.3 million in federal grants. The airport in Red Deer gets a used snowplow. That works out to $3,500 for each of the 1,500 flights into Charlevoix and two handfuls of rusty bolts for every flight into Red Deer.
How can the Liberal minister stand in his place and claim he is being fair and impartial when clearly this is another case where the friends of the current and future prime ministers are the ones who get the federal help?
Stephen Owen: Mr. Speaker, hearing the hon. member repeat his question and his accusation, I will try to do more than just repeat the explanation I gave to him.
It is extremely important when we have infrastructure programs that we look to local municipalities to identify their priorities. This has been done in the City of Red Deer. I am sure that perhaps with the future municipal-rural infrastructure program the City of Red Deer will want to give priority to the expansion of its airport. We as a federal partner with the province and the local governments will want to pay great attention and give emphasis to its priorities.
International AidMs. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, unlike the johnny-come-latelies in the Canadian Alliance, from day one the NDP has been pressing for drug legislation that will provide relief to millions in Africa suffering from AIDS. We now have a bill before us that is seriously flawed and in fact is a big giveaway to big pharma.
Could the minister explain why it has taken so long to develop this bill, how these serious flaws were missed and the incompetence that has taken place? How does he explain this to people in the developing countries who are waiting for these drugs to save their lives?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the international community on August 30 agreed that countries could provide for generic manufacture for export to Africa and other places where the need exists.
Yesterday, 68 days after that agreement, we tabled this legislation. That is a result of a deep commitment on the part of the Prime Minister and this government to make sure that we make affordable drugs available in Africa and elsewhere where they are needed.
Groups such as the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network are asking that we go through second reading and get this bill to committee right away so we can look at it carefully. That is what we want to do. If the member has constructive suggestions to make about improving the bill, I hope she will make those points at committee.
Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, let us get the commitment right here and now from the government that it will amend this bill and deal with those serious flaws. It could go to committee on Monday. There is nothing preventing the committee from meeting on Monday. The bill can come back to the House after the week.
Let us get the political agenda out of the way. Will the government commit to getting the bill to committee and bringing it back to the House so it can be approved and we can deal with the flaws that it has created in this bill?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that the bill is flawed. I think the bill reflects exactly the intention we have on a humanitarian basis to make these affordable drugs available where they are needed.
I encourage the member to appear at committee when this bill gets there, to make her points and to take part with all parties in making this the best bill it can be. If there are improvements that can be made, so much the better.
We believe this is the right approach, but if members around the House have suggestions to make at committee, let them do so. Let us get on with this legislation. Let us get on with providing affordable drugs in Africa and elsewhere where they are needed.
Marine AtlanticLoyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, the former pension plan of Marine Atlantic dockyard workers ended on November 30, 1996, with a substantial surplus. The surplus was to be shared among the individuals who contributed to the plan, many of whom would get upwards of $15,000 to $20,000.
On January 2, 2002, I wrote to the Minister of Transport on this matter and his response stated, “Implementation of this agreement will take place in early 2003”.
Now that 2003 is almost over, how can the Minister of Transport justify the long delay and will he inform the House of when Atlantic dockyard workers can expect to receive their pensions?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that I will have to check on with Marine Atlantic. It has not come to my attention lately that there is a continuing problem. I accept the fact that the hon. member has some grave concerns about this. I will try to get the answers for him.
Human Resources DevelopmentLoyola Hearn: Mr. Speaker, let me try the minister responsible for HRDC. Several seniors in my district have notified me, and I am sure it is true for others across the country, that they will not receive their old age security and Canada pension plan cheques next month until December 22.
With Christmas approaching, December is a unique month, especially for people on fixed incomes. Will the minister this year be Santa and not Scrooge and make sure that these senior citizens and others get their cheques on time to prepare for Christmas?
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the department does its utmost to ensure that cheques get to people. I am sure that, once again this year, we will do our utmost to ensure that they receive them prior to the holiday season.
Foreign AffairsMr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker, current and former U.S. intelligence agents maintain that Syria is acting as a subcontractor and doing the dirty work for the U.S. when it comes to torture. The Maher Arar affair is raising troubling questions about Canada's possible complicity in this kind of deal.
In light of these unsettling revelations, does the government not realize that, in the name of fundamental freedoms, it is important to make sure that Canada is in no way associated with the U.S. approach and that only a public inquiry can give us this assurance?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General and this government want to assure this House that the intelligence services abide fully by the law.
I urge anyone who believes or has information to the effect that the intelligence services have violated the law to file a complaint with the independent commission which has the power to investigate these services.
Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, after William Sampson, after Maher Arar, we have proof that, as we feared, the government sacrificed freedom for so-called security. Canada put its geopolitical interests and those of its neighbours ahead of the security of its own nationals.
Does that not in itself justify a public inquiry?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member opposite, from the Bloc Quebecois, has information to the effect that one of this government's agencies violated Canadian law, I encourage and even urge him to file a complaint with the agency that has the power to investigate all intelligence service activities.
TaxationGurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, last year the CRTC collected $92 million in broadcast licensing fees, but in return provided only $10 million in services with the rest going into government coffers.
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, fees without services become taxes, and Parliament must approve all taxes. Therefore, this government is illegally taxing Canadian broadcasters to the tune of $82 million a year.
When will the government stop illegally taxing Canada's broadcasters?
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is alleging that expenses are being incurred by a government agency or authority, with an organization that has a quasi-judiciary function, and that the services provided are either unsatisfactory or non-existent.
I think that if he obtained more information from the Treasury Board, then we could take a closer look at the issue he is bringing to our attention.
Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, when HRDC blunders and overpays an EI recipient, the government demands repayment. When the government makes a mistake and gives an excessive equalization payment to a province, it later insists on a refund.
When will the Minister of Finance return the millions of dollars he has wrongly stolen from Canada's broadcasters?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Surrey Central knows he cannot suggest that members have stolen money from anyone by taxation and he would not want to persist in such questioning. I know he will not do it the next time.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's question because in fact we had a fulsome discussion of this yesterday at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in response to the report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
Obviously the part V fees are being reviewed. I believe the committee on statutory instruments and regulations is looking at the whole issue of fees more generally.
The member can be assured of the great support of all members in rectifying this situation.
Palestinian RefugeesMs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker, some 100 Palestinians whose requests for asylum have been turned down will soon be deported to refugee camps in Lebanon.
The fact that Canada does not recognize the validity of the claims made by these people who have lived for many years in refugee camps is an insult to logic.
Since there is no country they can consider their own and since their return to refugee camps may well, it appears, put their lives in danger, can the minister tell the House if he intends to intervene in this matter by immediately suspending the deportation process that has already begun?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the minister is fully aware of the situation. Naturally, he will act in a humanitarian fashion. He is always prepared to act according to Canadian legal principles.
Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Speaker, Ahmad Abdel-Majeed, a Palestinian refugee who was held in Laval for several days, was deported yesterday and is now imprisoned in the United States. It is high time something was done.
It is urgent that this government suspend the many deportation orders and put into place a fair and equitable procedure for the Palestinian refugees. When will something be done?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon. member and the House. The minister will act, as always, in a fair and equitable way, not only according to Canadian law but also according to humanitarian principles.
JusticeMr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, hundreds of boys were sexually abused and thousands of assaults inside and outside of Kingsclear Training School in New Brunswick.
Victims have named 14 assaulters yet only Karl Toft was charged criminally. Millions were paid in hush money, including to RCMP Staff Sergeant Clifford McCann's victims. Victims who have come forward have been told by the RCMP not to make complaints.
Will the Solicitor General seize the pre- and post-Kingsclear files, conduct an independent review and report back to Parliament?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I do not have information about this file. Therefore, I will bring it to the attention of the Solicitor General for him to review and to provide a clear answer to the member opposite.
Peter Goldring: Mr. Speaker, Kingsclear boys were taken with the knowledge of New Brunswick Corrections and the RCMP into the back seat of RCMP patrol cars, and to the house of senior RCMP officer Clifford McCann.
If the Solicitor General cannot act on this, will the Prime Minister of Canada have the Kingsclear and post-Kingsclear files seized and conduct an independent review of the entire investigation?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, as I stated, I do not have any particular information on this issue. I will seize the Solicitor General of the concerns of the member opposite and have the Solicitor General respond to him in full when he is in the House.
The EconomyMr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we know the Canadian economy has experienced some unique challenges during 2003.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development provide the House with an update on the latest job numbers published today by Statistics Canada?
Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent question and especially for referring to the good news we announced this morning.
Despite the problems we have had this year, our market performance has been very good. In October, 65,000 jobs were created and the unemployment rate dropped from 8% to 7.6%. A total of 164,000 jobs have been created in Canada since January and nearly 3 million since 1993.
InfrastructureMr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Speaker, one of the busiest trade corridors in the country is the trade corridor between the State of Maine and the province of New Brunswick.
There is presently an application to address two of those border crossings: one, in Woodstock, New Brunswick, to upgrade the highway leading to the border; and the other is the construction of a third bridge in St. Stephen, New Brunswick.
Could the minister give us an indication of where those applications are and how the negotiations are proceeding with the Province of New Brunswick on those two projects?
Allan Rock: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members from New Brunswick have brought to my attention the need for border infrastructure improvements at both Woodstock and St. Stephen. I know it is a matter in which the member has an interest as well.
We have been in discussion with our partners in the Government of New Brunswick. We believe we are close to agreement with them, with respect to investments there. We want to upgrade both those crossing. We recognize their importance to the economy and to the local population.
I am working with my colleagues in the New Brunswick caucus, and we hope to announce real progress very soon.
Foreign AffairsGreg Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I guess we would call that all-party agreement. I appreciate the minister's response. I want to move on to the Minister of External Affairs.
Yesterday, as we all know, the minister denied any need for a public inquiry into the William Sampson case, indicating that he would be meeting with William Sampson.
Has that meeting taken place and has the minister reviewed the testimony that William Sampson gave yesterday before the committee, indicating complete displeasure at how the Government of Canada conducted itself during his incarceration? Has the minister changed his mind or has he in fact met with William Sampson today?
Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member, and other hon. members in the House, we take this case extremely seriously.
I have not had the opportunity, unfortunately, to meet Mr. Sampson. I have an appointment with him this afternoon and I will be meeting with him then
I want to assure the hon. member that I, and I have already asked my department to do this, will looking at everything we do in our department in light of not only this case, but other cases which have come to our attention.
Our object is to secure the security of Canadians abroad in often very difficult circumstances.
I come back to the fact that extraordinary efforts were made on behalf of Mr. Sampson, and I will be discussing that with him. We are certainly more than willing to learn from him how we could do better.
Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, the government insists that the presumption of innocence remains firm under the Liberal's watch. The horrifying ordeals of Maher Arar and William Sampson indicate otherwise.
The government hides behind the RCMP review, while other Canadians languish in jail, such as Almalki, in Syria, Maati, in Egypt and who knows how many next door, in the U.S.
Why will the government not launch the comprehensive public inquiry that is needed and that Canadians want now?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, this Parliament created an independent agency called the Public Complaints Commission Against the RCMP. That commission, which is impartial and has authority over the RCMP, is conducting a review as we speak. I would urge the member to let the commission do its work.
If the member has information about other cases where she is alleging, or others are alleging, wrongdoing on the part of the RCMP, she should bring those allegations to the commission. If the member has allegations against SIRC, she should bring it to the SIRC--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
HealthMr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the NDP fully supports the creation of the National Health Council as an integral aspect of health care reform. However, as Roy Romanow has now pointed out, the province of Alberta is blocking its creation.
It seems Premier Klein was happy to take the extra cash last February, but he has reneged on the rest of the deal to establish this critically important institution.
What concrete steps is the Minister of Health taking in her home province to get Premier Klein on board and what is she doing to ensure the National Health Council gets up and running without any further delay?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously we expect all premiers to live up to the commitment that they made in the health accord of February 2003.
My officials continue to work very closely with the officials in all provinces and territories. We are in the process of determining who will chair this new body. We are in the process of determining our own federal government representatives on this body, and a number of the provinces are working to determine their representatives.
Within the next few weeks I obviously would like to see the health council up and running.
Organized CrimeMrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, yesterday Calgary police apprehended criminals who were smuggling Asian women and girls into Canada to sell them as sex slaves. Calgary police should be applauded for this small victory against Canada's sex slave trade.
However, city police forces cannot do this alone. This is an international crime against humanity and they need help from the federal level. RCMP and Calgary police spokesmen said that this reprehensible crime is actually on the rise in Canada.
When will this Liberal government give police the resources they need to eliminate the sex slave trade in Canada?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, it allows this government, through me, to again talk about the initiatives that we have taken to strengthen our law enforcement to provide new financial resources to the RCMP to create integrated investigative teams.
The sex trade is abominable and our law enforcement, the RCMP, and provincial and municipal police forces will work together and are working together to see that it is eradicated in Canada.
Betty Hinton: Mr. Speaker, they should speed up the process. Canada should be leading the world in the fight to protect women and children. Instead, this year's trafficking in persons report states that Canada has made “uneven efforts to prosecute traffickers” and “no specific efforts to work with and rehabilitate trafficking victims”.
Traffickers need to know that Canada will not tolerate this despicable activity, but convictions are rare.
Why are victims and witnesses so often deported before justice can be served?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to such a crime, which is indeed an awful crime, I would like to draw the attention of the hon. member to what we are doing as a country at the international level.
For example, lately we had a meeting in Paris among G-8 colleagues and talked about the question of child pornography and protection of our children, not only in Canada but anywhere in the world.
We have Bill C-20 as well, which is before the House. At the international level we know that people are using more technology and we need more international cooperation. It works well and--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.
Cartagena ProtocolMr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Cartagena protocol on biosafety came into effect without Canada's involvement. This proves how important it is to the federal government to control GMOs. The first meeting of the protocol signatories on the implementation of the Cartagena protocol will be held in Kuala Lumpur in February.
Does the government plan to attend this important meeting?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, consultations with respect to the Cartagena protocol, which I have talked about many times in this House, have not concluded; they are ongoing. I thank the hon. member for his question as to whether or not we will be going to Kuala Lumpur; we will.
Bernard Bigras: Mr. Speaker, the minister and his government seem to forget that the public is worried and wants its representatives to show that we too are concerned about GMOs. The minister has until November 25 to ratify the protocol if he intends to participate in this important meeting.
What is he waiting for to ratify the protocol?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for consultations to wrap up, as I have said many times in this House. I assure the hon. member that the answer is yes, because this is very important.
I remind the House that it was in Montreal, here in Canada, that the Cartagena protocol was truly finalized. It was not in South America, but here in Canada, and that is very important to us.
Child PornographyMr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, in 1999 police began investigating a child pornography website in Texas that they then shut down and obtained its huge international subscriber list. Of more than 2,000 subscribers in Canada, only 10% have been investigated. In Germany, police have identified 530 suspects and seized 745 computers.
In Canada, movement has been shamefully slow. Is the failure of the Liberal government to effectively prosecute these child predators due to a lack of resources, a lack of strong legislation, or simply a lack of political will? Which is it?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that the government is strongly committed to charging those people. We will get rid of those people who are involved in child pornography, which is an awful crime that has no place in Canada or anywhere else in the world.
We have lately created the new offence of Internet luring, which has been used to charge people across Canada. We have also created, with the Government of Manitoba, the website cybertip.ca which has been working very effectively as well.
Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I think he is saying there is a bit of a weak will there. There is no legislation and there are inadequate resources.
The Americans have also diligently investigated this extensive child pornography ring and taken effective steps to prosecute those within their jurisdiction. In Canada, the Liberal government is asleep at the switch.
Canadian police have told us frequently that they lack the resources to deal with child pornography. Would the government commit to giving the police the adequate resources to eliminate this evil of child pornography?
Martin Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows very well what the government has been doing over the past few years.
In light of the Sharpe decision of the Supreme Court, we have decided to proceed with Bill C-20 in order to increase the protection of our children in Canada. We have been working hard in order to pass that bill.
He knows that we did not really have the full cooperation of his party and he should be ashamed. Working together, we would have been able to pass Bill C-20.
National DefenceDavid Pratt: Mr. Speaker, about a year ago the Minister of National Defence announced the cancellation of the supply chain project. The decision at the time was to go with an in-house solution called the materiel acquisition and support optimization project.
Could the Minister of National Defence give the House an update on this important project.
Hon. John McCallum (Minister of National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. It illustrates the non-ideological approach of the government to finding savings for the benefit of the taxpayer. If contracting out works best, we will contract out, but if, as in this case, an internal solution which will save the government $43 million a year is best, we will adopt it.
I wish to congratulate the large numbers of civilian and military employees who have been working diligently on this. I am very pleased to report that they will be ahead of their target for savings this current year.
JusticeMr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Speaker, on February 16, 1995, the justice minister promised the House that “Registration will assist us to deal with the scourge of domestic violence”.
This week, Statistics Canada reports that family homicides have increased by 28% in the last three years, and domestic homicides with registered guns have almost doubled in the last year.
How many lives would have been saved if the government had spent $1 billion addressing the root causes of domestic violence?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to give all members in the House and Canadians listening a few facts.
Between July 1, 2003 and October 27, 2003, a total of 343,683 registration certificates were issued. Some 84% of the applications since July 1 have been received via Internet.
The phone service at Miramichi is excellent. As a result of increased volumes due to hunting season, response times have increased from one minute to two minutes. More than 1.95 million people have--
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton--Melville.
Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, what a totally irrelevant answer. My question was about domestic violence and getting at the root causes of it, and the minister did not answer.
The justice minister's performance report tabled in the House last week documented an additional $47 million in indirect costs for the gun registry, never before reported to the House.
However, the report did not answer the one question everyone has been asking for the last 11 months. How much will it cost to fully implement the registry and how much will it cost to maintain it?
Marlene Jennings: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if perhaps the member opposite was not in the House when we voted the budget items and the supplementary estimates.
Guaranteed Income SupplementMr. Marcel Gagnon (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, thanks to the efforts of the Bloc Quebecois, the government has finally seen the error of its ways by providing 23,000 surviving spouses of veterans with access to the benefits they never knew they were entitled to.
In keeping with this gesture, and since, through its own fault, this same government has deprived seniors of the guaranteed income supplement, which they were entitled to, will it finally admit it was wrong and make retroactive payment to eligible seniors?
Diane St-Jacques: Mr. Speaker, according to international standards, the income level of seniors, already low, is dropping in Canada. We are doing everything possible to reach those who did not receive the guaranteed income supplement.
Members of this House have also taken steps to reach these individuals, and we will continue our efforts until all of these individuals have received this supplement.
The EnvironmentHon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Given the importance of the provinces, territories and industry in achieving the necessary reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, can the minister inform the House on the progress made so far on discussions with other levels of government and industry?
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House that a week ago today I signed the first of the federal-provincial-territorial agreements with the Territory of Nunavut.
Today, the Minister of Natural Resources will sign an agreement with Prince Edward Island. Yesterday, the Prime Minister signed the first agreement with industry, the Forest Products Association of Canada.
We are proceeding in a swift and effective way to get agreements in place so that we can cooperate fully with our territorial and provincial partners as well as industry to reduce the scourge of climate change.
Aboriginal AffairsDave Chatters: Mr. Speaker, we were assured by the government that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline would proceed as normal despite the allegations of the Deh Cho first nation about a conflict of interest with a senior bureaucrat from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
We now know that the actions of the aboriginal affairs minister have put the project timeline at risk. A lawsuit is being prepared which could tie up the pipeline for years. All of this is because the minister has refused to meet with this group.
Why has the Prime Minister allowed the childish actions of this minister to put the pipeline project at risk?
Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, there is no court case.
Second, we are meeting on a regular basis with the Deh Cho. We have been at the table for a number of years and we continue to negotiate with that group.
The pipeline and the process in the cooperation agreement are not at risk. If, through the process, first nations decide that they want to intervene either through the environmental assessment process or through the courts, nothing that I say here can stop them from doing that.
BioChem PharmaMr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the meeting yesterday with Industry Canada was crucial for the unemployed researchers from BioChem Pharma.
As proof, Shire's head of finance came from London in preparation for negotiations with Ottawa.
Can the Minister of Industry tell us if he ensured that the revitalization of BioChem Pharma would be part of the agreement with Shire to compensate for the closing of this laboratory and save several dozen jobs in research?
Mr. Serge Marcil (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the main concern of the Minister of Industry is to save existing jobs and investments that have been made.
We are awaiting the results of the discussions currently underway.
Presence in GalleryThe Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Pavel Dostál, Minister of Culture of the Czech Republic.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Message from the SenateThe Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill C-48, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (natural resources).

Routine Proceedings
Committees of the HouseBill Graham: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House the government's response to the report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled “HIV-AIDS and the Humanitarian Catastrophe in sub-Saharan Africa”.
I would like to thank the Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the members of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development for their work on this important report.
As the response sets out, the government has already taken, and continues to take, significant actions and has increased financial resources consistent with the report's recommendations. These recommendations highlight the tremendous problems in Africa and other places where people are suffering because of HIV-AIDS.
Yesterday in the House, we introduced a bill that has been pointed out as being a historic moment in providing the opportunity for Canada and Canadians to help deal with this issue. I think we can be proud of that bill.
I want to thank the committee for this important report and helping our ability to understand how we can deal with this terrible problem.
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Rodger Cuzner (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 16 petitions.
Committees of the HouseMr. Ivan Grose (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the government's response to the third report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs entitled “Honouring the Pledge: Ensuring Quality Long-Term Care for Veterans”.
Serge Marcil: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, entitled “Gasoline Pricing in Canada”.
Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the tenth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
The committee has examined the case of Dr. Wang Bingzhang, and calls upon the Chinese government to free him and allow him to rejoin his family and colleagues.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Internal Trade.
The committee has examined the matter of the tensions along the Eritrea-Ethiopia border, and suggests that the Government of Canada offer incentives in the form of development aid or other forms of aid to the governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea, if they respect their obligations under the Algiers comprehensive peace agreement, particularly those related to the recommendations of the Independent Boundary Commission.
I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the twelfth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade on strengthening economic relations between Canada and the Asia-Pacific region.
This report was prepared by the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment. It heard a large number of witnesses in Ottawa, as well as undertaking two fact-finding missions in the Asia-Pacific region.
The subcommittee recommends that the government make this region a higher priority as far as trade relations outside the North American continent are concerned. A sustained long term strategy to strengthen economic and trading relations with the region ought to be developed, and the necessary resources put in place to achieve that goal.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates regarding process issues that arose during the review of the proposed appointee to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this 12th report later this day.
Madam Speaker, just to give an indication of what a busy committee we are, I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates entitled “Disclosure of acts of wrongdoing against the public interest and the protection of whistleblowers: Canada must now adopt a more specific legal framework”.
I should point out that the work of the government operations committee regarding whistleblowers stemmed from the Radwanski scandal. We are seeking to act in the interests of public servants who had the courage to come forward to give evidence regarding wrongdoing in this regard but who, under the current legal framework of Canada, have no protection whatsoever.
I am very proud to present this report, which accurately reflects the work of the committee in trying to protect whistleblowers in Canada's public service.
If the House gives its consent, I move that the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
PetitionsMr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to lay upon the table this petition from constituents in my riding.
The petitioners pray that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being a lifetime union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and present a petition that was sparked by a young fellow from Alberta, Timothy Wishewan, and his cattle drive to Parliament Hill.
He has collected in excess of 10,000 signatures that support the beef industry across this country asking for better and quality interventions by the government in its dealings with federal governments in other countries in getting our trade back on track and getting the cattle industry back to some sense of normalcy.
Tim collected over 10,000 signatures in various spots across this country in his cattle drive to Parliament Hill.
Dave Chatters: Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first petition is from the community of High Prairie in my riding of Athabasca and two from the community of Fort McMurray. All three petitions concern the same subject.
The petitioners are urging Parliament to take action to protect the charter right of religious freedom for Canadians in the issue of Bill C-250.
The petitioners are pleading with Parliament to take some action, not only to protect gays and lesbians under the bill, but to also protect the religious freedom of Canadians.
Scott Reid: Madam Speaker, petitioners in my constituency have submitted a petition drawing the attention of Parliament to the continued problems of Canadian farmers due to the BSE import restrictions by the United States and other countries.
In addition to pointing out the hardships that Canadian farmers face, the petitioners draw the attention of Parliament to three proposed suggestions for rectifying the problem. The first is that Parliament ought to instruct the Minister for International Trade to renegotiate Canada's international trade treaties in order to ensure that restrictions placed for health care reasons cannot be maintained when in fact health care reasons have been dealt with. Therefore, these restrictions take the form of trade barriers.
Second, that Parliament provide for a public education program to alert Canadians to the safety of Canadian beef.
Third, that Parliament look at creating a new BSE compensation recovery program that will be more thorough than the previous one.
Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition in support of rural route mail couriers. This petition was signed by citizens of Lanaudière.
Rural route mail couriers are calling on Parliament to repeal subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act, which prevents them from bargaining collectively to improve their working conditions.
I want to congratulate the postal workers union on having successfully forced Canada Post to include the organizing of rural route mail couriers in the settlement of the collective agreement.
Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition from people around my riding who call upon Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps to ensure that materials which promote or glorify pedophilia and sado-masochistic activities involving children are outlawed.
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, I present a petition today from many residents of Cape Breton, from Glace Bay, Waterford, Sydney Mines and Dominion.
The petition has been signed by over 3,500 constituents who voice their concern over a decision taken by Devco, the federal crown corporation, to seek court action on the situation surrounding the pension surplus.
The petition has been signed by many former miners, the families of miners and miners' widows. They state that there has been a contravention of the Pension Benefits Standards Act and they call upon the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada to intervene in this situation so that the miners can obtain what is rightfully theirs.
Pat Martin: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of people from all over British Columbia: Vernon, Kelowna, Salmon Arm and Surrey. They are calling upon government to recognize that same sex couples form loving and committed relationships but are denied the equal ability to celebrate those relationships through marriage.
They point out that the protection of true family values requires that all families should be respected equally. They call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing same sex couples with the equal right to marry.
Rodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, I stand to present a petition on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his constituents who are from Morris Island, Pubnico, West Pubnico and the Surette Island.
They call upon the Government of Canada to uphold the traditional definition of marriage that stands between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.
Questions on the Order PaperRodger Cuzner: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.

Government Orders
Patent ActDon Boudria: 
moved that Bill

C-56, an act to amend the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act
, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Serge Marcil: Madam Speaker, I think that yesterday was a historic day for the Canadian government. One of the best parts of the legacy the Prime Minister will be leaving is Bill C-56.
For many years, stakeholders in the non-government organizations and the developing countries have asked western governments to help in the fight against debilitating illnesses, epidemics and other illnesses found in these areas.
It should be noted that these countries cannot take charge of their own destiny. We know that on this planet, with its billions of inhabitants, the western and northern countries are living in opulence. We are developing all sorts of services for our populations. We are trying to improve our fellow citizens' quality of life as much as we can. It really is a shame to see that we are only looking north and that we are totally ignoring our friends in the south, the whole of Africa and many countries in Asia, which are appealling for help because they are facing major health problems.
Once again, Canada is playing a leadership role in assisting developing countries. The commitment of our government and our Prime Minister to Africa has taken the form of an extraordinary initiative. Canada has become the first G-7 country to make its knowledge, research and medical products available to developing countries.
I am very happy to speak to this bill. I congratulate the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Industry and the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development on the exceptional effort they made in so little time. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the officials of the industry department who worked tirelessly seven days a week to prepare a bill and implement a government decision to help developing countries by providing them with the drugs they so urgently need.
So, I want to congratulate them on an extraordinary bill which they prepared in very short order. This bill is very well articulated, and it really reflects the philosophy of the Canadian government on humanitarian assistance.
This bill was introduced yesterday, and we are already proceeding with second reading today, because we want to pass the bill as quickly as possible. But we do not want to botch the job. We did think we had done our work before the bill was introduced, but it is important that the bill be referred to committee as quickly as possible so we can hear witnesses. Many agencies, like Doctors without Borders, want to be heard and give their opinions on this bill. There is also the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association. I would like to quote just one paragraph from the letter it wrote to the leader of the Government of Canada. This letter is from the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association:

The CGPA and its member companies strongly recommend that Bill C-56 not be passed without further consultations with our industry and other stakeholders. We believe that, at the very least, it is necessary for the legislation to be referred to Committee so that amendments can be made to increase the likelihood that the goals of the legislation will be realized.

Therefore, it is important to ensure that organizations who share the same concerns as the government have a chance to speak up and share their views on how to improve the bill and enhance it so that it is not just a token gesture, but a tool to provide real assistance to developing countries.
We held consultations. The bill was not established in a contextual vacuum. Again, I congratulate officials in the Departments of Industry and International Trade. We cannot thank them enough for their hard work. They went to great lengths to consult as many Canadian organizations as possible to ensure that the bill, at least at first reading, is consistent throughout, and facilitates Canadian government action for the benefit of developing countries.
These last two months, a special group made up of officials and both ministers concerned has been working on the bill. I can say, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, that we have been closely involved in the drafting of this bill.
Today, the Government of Canada is at the forefront of a worldwide movement to promote access to pharmaceutical products needed by developing countries to address public health problems such as AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics.
During my short life I have had the privilege of working in developing countries, and I hope to get back there. I had the privilege of working in Senegal, Niger, Mali and Burkina Faso. I either worked in the field or took part in training sessions in these countries. I had to deal with these health issues on a daily basis.
We talk about AIDS, but two of the leading causes of death among children are malaria and diarrhea, both of which are the subject of considerable research. We Canadians, as citizens of the world, must take part in this kind of research and work toward improving the quality of life of people in developing countries.
We cannot and must not ignore the problem, be navel gazers and only criticize what happens at home. While striving to improve our own lot, we forget about the needs of people in the rest of the world.
If we took the six billion people living on this planet and tried to determine where the wealth is, we would easily find that the wealth is controlled by less than one-sixth of the population. More than two thirds of human beings live in totally unacceptable conditions.
Today, we are setting an example, but we are also inviting other western countries to imitate Canada and do what we are doing today. Hopefully, we will get the support of the United States, France, Germany, Great Britain and others countries, all members of the World Trade Organization and the G-7 who like to make a great show of their economic power every year. I hope that from now on these countries will start to reflect on the fact that the planet does not belong only to a minority, but to everyone. Everyone has a place on this planet.
All those who have the privilege of living in a healthy environment should turn to those in need and help them. These people have a right to the same human respect, they need our help and they need to live.
Of course, we cannot buy respect, and Africans do not want to beg from western countries. They want to be recognized as true citizens of this world.
Today, acknowledging the call of those people, we have converted our thoughts into an exceptional act. It is true that we are acting through CIDA and international trade programs. It is true that we are acting through the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. CIDA spends hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to developing countries.
Today, all Canadians, through these agencies and departments, approve this action and congratulate the Canadian government because it had the courage to take the lead on this issue and call on other countries to imitate Canada's action for communities in need.
Essential agencies are playing a role in developing countries. There are hundreds of NGO's in Canada. Quebec is very much involved with NGO's. I have had the opportunity to work in education for the Fondation Paul Gérin-Lajoie, which was founded in the 1980s.
As I said earlier, I witnessed some totally unacceptable situations. Every year, many Canadians and Quebecers go to work as volunteer cooperants with other NGOs, like Oxfam Quebec or CECI, to share their knowledge and help the underprivileged to learn to look after themselves. Doctors Without Borders is another organization that plays a remarkable role.
Today, I want to pay tribute to Dr. Thomas, from Doctors Without Borders, who worked hard to ensure that the Government of Canada would show some leadership on this issue.
I do not want to go into this further, but I would urge all members of Parliament, regardless of their political affiliation, their origins and the regions they represent in this House, to support this initiative. This bills ought to be referred to a committee as soon as possible. I would also encourage them to meet with the organizations and the workers who are in contact with the people in need. Listen to them and see to it that this bill does not come back to us in a year or two to be amended. Let us draft a good bill right away so that we do not have to revisit its purpose constantly and that we can give the front line workers a badly needed tool and reach out to those who really need our help.
James Rajotte: Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague and friend a couple of questions.
One of our concerns is obviously the short time period. It is expected that this will be the last day the House sits this year. We do not know what will happen with the new prime minister in the new year. I have some simple basic questions that I have received from people who are interested in the bill.
Why did the government not introduce this legislation in October and send it to committee at that time? Why did it wait so long to introduce this legislation? What will happen to this legislation if, as I think will happen, unanimous consent is granted to send it to committee right away and the House adjourns? Will the committee sit in November and December? If the House prorogues, we know then that committees cannot sit. What is the government's intent? Has the new Liberal leader promised to reintroduce this legislation in February or March, whenever the House resumes?
Why did the government introduce the bill with great fanfare yesterday but now it seems to believe that it is flawed? On this side of the House we certainly support this initiative, but why did the government introduce a piece of legislation that it believes is flawed?
Serge Marcil: Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from my colleague, the member for Edmonton Southwest, whom I admire and respect.
I had the opportunity to work with him on the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. I can tell you that he does a fantastic job. I respect his judgment and his analytical ability. Therefore, I am convinced that he will easily understand the answer.
The ministers for industry and international trade have a keen interest in this project. With their respective teams of officials, they worked seven days a week. They held consultations.
Right now, we are not saying that the bill is deficient. However, we are not infallible. Everyone must understand that various organizations want to be heard.
Earlier today I mentioned the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association and Doctors without Borders. There are NGOs who want to give their views on this bill. It was introduced in the House yesterday and they should have the opportunity to voice their opinions. Like any other bill in the House, this one will have to follow the procedure, which is introduction of the bill, first reading, second reading and referral to committee where witnesses who want to express their views can be heard.
We want a strong bill. We do not want to be forced to bring it back in the House to amend it in a year from now because there are legal problems or other kinds of problems with its implementation.
I make the commitment, as a member of this committee, to participate in the committee's sittings as early as Monday, if people want to convene the committee. This is not a problem for me. I absolutely want to take part in the proceedings of the committee, and I want it to hear people on this bill, to get the views of the public and the organizations that will have to implement it and work with it. We must get their opinion to ensure that international organizations, countries that will receive the aid are not handicapped by a bill that might have problems in some regards.
However, I am not in a position to explain these problems, because we believe the bill is strong, but we feel there is a need to explain them. People and organizations have already expressed themselves. They want to give us their opinion. They want to analyze the bill with us.
I believe we must do this because Canada is making an extraordinary gesture. I am ready. Even if Parliament is not in session, the committee can sit. I have no problem with this, if we want to do so.
In conclusion, I want the member to know that the future Liberal Party leader totally supports this bill. He will ensure that the bill is brought back to the House as soon as possible so that it is put into effect as quickly as possible.
James Rajotte: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his answers to those questions.
I want to state at the outset that the Canadian Alliance does support this initiative. We support Bill C-56 and we certainly look forward to seeing the government acting on this.
I want to state a few points just to be clear and to be on the record. Some have suggested that the Canadian Alliance is a johnny-come-lately to this issue. That is not true. In fact, it goes against the public record itself.
As soon as the Ministers of Trade and Industry raised this issue in September following the agreement at the WTO in August--and I think we all should commend the World Trade Organization for taking that step in August--as soon as these two ministers publicly mused about doing this, my colleague, our critic for international trade, and I publicly wrote to the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Industry. I would like to quote directly from the letter. We stated:

We would like you to know that the Canadian Alliance supports efforts by the Canadian government to facilitate the delivery of drugs to help developing countries deal with public health emergencies such as the HIV-AIDS crisis in Africa.
October 2, 2003

We put ourselves as a party on the record as supporting this initiative at that time.
Further to that, I want to discuss the work of another colleague, the member for Calgary East, who has brought up this issue with me on numerous occasions and has been pressuring me to push the government to act. As we know, he was born in Africa. He has a very personal connection with that continent and this issue and he would like us to act. He stood up on a member's statement and he called for it, which was publicly recognized in the The Toronto Star by Carol Goar.
Third, I would like to point out the work of one of my colleagues who is a doctor. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has been on trips to Africa trying to actually facilitate the much needed delivery of drugs to people. This is something that my colleague himself will not talk about, but I can because I think it is a wonderful example of a member of Parliament dedicating his time and resources to try to address this issue.
So I want to state publicly that the Canadian Alliance has been very publicly supportive of this initiative. We have some concerns on how it is going to be implemented, but we do very much support the initiative.
I have to say that I was quite pleasantly surprised with the bill that was introduced yesterday and with the briefing. I know that on this side of the House often we are critical of those in the bureaucracy, but quite frankly, I thought the bureaucrats from Industry Canada and Health Canada had done their homework. I thought the briefing was very good and I think that in general this is a very good piece of legislation.
Obviously I want to touch upon why we need to do this, why we in the House need to act. The fact is that because we are facing epidemics, as human beings we have to address the issue. The developing countries have simply been ravaged by HIV-AIDS, by tuberculosis and by malaria.
In Botswana and Zimbabwe alone, it is estimated that 30 million Africans have HIV-AIDS, which is equal to the entire population of Canada. Just to think of the staggering numbers is simply astounding.
The plague has already killed 15 million Africans. Women and girls are particularly vulnerable. Sixty per cent of infected Africans are female. Less than 200,000 Africans are receiving HIV-AIDS anti-retroviral drugs with the appropriate medical follow-up.
In August 2003, the World Trade Organization agreed on legal changes that would make it easier for poorer countries to import the cheaper generic drugs made under compulsory licensing if they are unable to manufacture the medicines themselves.
In September, the WHO made a proposal known as “3 by 5”: to get HIV-AIDS drugs to three million people by 2005. Only 300,000 people in poorer countries now receive the drugs with appropriate medical follow-up.
There are a number of problems associated with AIDS, which the United Nations is trying to overcome. For instance, HIV-AIDS and TB often occur together. In addition, malaria thrives on bodies whose immune systems have been weakened by AIDS. We have to look at these diseases in concert and try to address them all.
While there is presently no cure for AIDS, anti-retroviral drugs, ARVs such as AZT, can prolong the life of an infected person by up to 20 years and reduce the chance of an infected pregnant woman passing on the virus to her unborn child. ARVs curb the reproduction of the virus itself.
We have to address the issue of poverty. Currently, companies like GlaxoSmithKline provide HIV-AIDS drugs for as little as 19¢ a day. In August 2003, GSK licensed a generic manufacturer in South Africa.
However, these low costs, as low as they are at 19¢ a day, are still too expensive for most patients. In addition, people who cannot afford the correct diet or clean water may have an adverse reaction to a medication. This is why we encourage the government, not in this bill specifically but as part of this initiative, to look at the medical infrastructure and the medical follow-up and take a holistic approach to this problem: not just getting the drugs at a low cost to the people who need them but ensuring that the medical infrastructure is in place and that there is medical follow-up.
In terms of distribution, even the president of South Africa, who was here recently, has said that while he wants cheap drugs to be delivered “tomorrow”, the effort would be wasted without putting in place an adequate infrastructure to ensure the medicines were stored properly.
We in the Canadian Alliance hope the government recognizes that drugs are only one component of improving care in African countries and other developing nations that have been ravaged by HIV-AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Poverty, distribution problems and a lack of medical care continue to compound the problem of public health crises in these countries. While we support the provision of cheaper drugs, we must look at it, as I have said, in a very holistic manner.
In terms of the timeline, the Minister of Industry announced in September that Canada would export cheap generic versions of AIDS drugs to developing nations. Obviously we know that generic drugs are copies of the brand names. In Canada, generic drugs can be produced only after the 20 year patent expires for the initial brand name.
We recognize that there are some concerns with the legislation, but we also believe that because of the good faith surrounding these issues we can address these concerns quickly.
I have talked to as many interested parties as I could, certainly this morning and last night: the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Doctors Without Borders, the generic drug companies' representative association, and representatives of research based pharmaceutical companies. Certainly these interested parties should have an opportunity to present at committee and to try to make what they see as improvements in the legislation, but the issue of timing is of concern to us.
As I mentioned in my questions, I think the new Liberal leader should state exactly where he stands. If he supports this, that is great. Then he should be encouraged to bring this legislation back as soon as possible, because if this is the last sitting day then unfortunately the committee would not be able to get to this before the new year, which I think is unfortunate.
Again, just for the record, the Canadian Alliance supports the government's initiative in proposing that the bill pass second reading unanimously and go straight to committee. We support this initiative to provide lower cost drugs to developing nations to address HIV-AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and possibly other diseases. We certainly look forward to working with any and all interested parties on the issue.
Serge Marcil: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his comments. The arguments he presented encourage and promote committee work.
I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly where parliamentary commissions meet more often outside the regular session than during it. I would consider it quite normal for the parliamentary committees to also be able to meet when the House recesses. This would help us to move things forward as quickly as possible.
I just wanted to say that we have a Canada-Africa committee that is composed of parliamentary members. Yesterday I think, this committee was recognized by the House of Commons as being a parliamentary association. The president of this association is the member for Ottawa—Vanier. I congratulate him on the good work that he has done in this regard.
The member for Edmonton Southwest was right when he talked about one of his colleagues having participated. A number of members of parliament have had the experience of working in a developing county. I have met many of them and we talk a lot about it.
I would like to ask my colleague from Edmonton Southwest a question. Are there any specific groups, beside Doctors without Borders—I am sure pharmaceutical and generic companies will ask to be heard—that the committee should invite to appear? As a parliamentarian, would he be ready to participate in the work of this committee, even if the House is in recess, in order to ensure that we are able to table a report or to make recommendations to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology as soon as the House returns?
James Rajotte: Madam Speaker, I will try to respond to all the points.
First, as a member of the industry committee, I would certainly be willing to meet when the House is not sitting. If the House is adjourned, I would certainly be willing to do that. The parliamentary secretary could certainly indicate that to the chair of our committee.
In terms of who would want to appear, I have been contacted by four organizations, but there could be others that want to appear. There are: the one the member mentioned, Doctors Without Borders; the Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network; the research based pharmaceutical companies, which yesterday in a statement indicated that they support the legislation; and the generic companies, which have indicated in the past that they support this type of initiative. Certainly those four groups should appear before the committee to advise us, but again, I think it should be open.
As well, at committee or perhaps beyond that we should look at the question of medical infrastructure. Perhaps Oxfam or other groups would want to advise us on how best to do that.
Frankly, we should also look at some of the ongoing initiatives, such as those my colleague, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, has been involved in. I also know that the member for Calgary East has taken a very strong interest in this issue. Let us look at what is working now and see whether in the interim we can build on that as well, even before this legislation is passed.
In terms of the committee meeting, I would certainly be willing to meet in November or December even if the House is not sitting.
Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a question to the official opposition critic member of the Alliance Party, who has spoken in support of the legislation.
It is very welcome to have the Alliance in this very important battle to deal with an unbelievable crisis of such monumental proportions that it is impossible for us to even fathom. In Africa, one person dies every 13 seconds of HIV-AIDS.
The member will know that very early this year, in March, Stephen Lewis, the United Nations special envoy dealing with the HIV-AIDS pandemic, strongly urged that there be improved access to generic drugs. That recommendation was reflected in June 2003 in the foreign affairs committee report on the African humanitarian crisis.
The Alliance chose to dissent from that report and did not indicate its support for the importance of gaining the access to generic drugs.
I wonder if the member could share with us, because I think it would be helpful, what the basis was of the Alliance coming to the realization that this indeed is a supportable recommendation and that the Alliance should come on board, in view of the magnitude and severity of the crisis.
James Rajotte: Madam Speaker, to respond to my colleague, I was informed by the member for Calgary East, who is a member of that committee, that the Alliance did agree with this specific recommendation. They dissented from the report for other reasons. I am not a member of that committee, but that is certainly what I have been informed of by my colleague.
I know the NDP has stated that the Alliance was not supportive of this initiative early on, so I think I should emphasize this, because in fact we did take the step of publicly addressing a letter to the Minister of Industry, the minister for whom I am a critic, and the Minister for International Trade, and we stated publicly:

We would like you to know that the Canadian Alliance supports efforts by the Canadian government to facilitate the delivery of drugs to help developing countries deal with public health emergencies, such as the HIV-AIDS crisis in Africa.

That is a pretty clear statement. I think it is a constructive statement made by the official opposition to the government indicating that we would be supportive of this type of initiative. That is why we are supportive of this legislation in general and supportive of it going forward to committee right after second reading. I think it is very clear that the Canadian Alliance has acted very responsibly in its support of this type of initiative.
We have recognized the size of the epidemic. I think Stephen Lewis should be commended for making this well known to us as Canadians. The Canadian Alliance was at the forefront of recognizing this and acting responsibly.
Bob Nault: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find unanimous consent that Bill C-57, an act to give effect to the Westbank first nation self-government agreement, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported from a committee without amendment, concurred in at report stage, and read a third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Does the minister have the unanimous consent of the House?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to this bill. Quite often the title of a bill does not reflect its content. Let us have a look at the title of this bill; it is an act to Amend the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act.
In fact, it is one of the greatest gestures towards struggling developing countries, who have been crying out for help for several years, highlighting the need for a spirit of cooperation that goes beyond the traditional approach to international trade.
We want to make sure that people in the poorest countries of the world have access to quality drugs. In this regard, the bill is very important in my opinion.
Before getting to the substance of the bill, I would like to call on every party in this House to approach this issue with as little partisanship as possible. Obviously, throughout Quebec and Canada there is a common feeling that this bill must go ahead. Indeed we have to make sure that it is the best possible bill and that it includes all the elements necessary to ensure its proper implementation.
Yes, it must be passed as soon as possible, but at the same time we must ensure that its content is appropriate and that, as political parties in this House, we stick to a non partisan approach. I believe this is very important.
I would to start by reminding the House that in the ministerial statement made in Doha in November 2001, members of the World Trade Organization recognized the seriousness of the problems experienced by developing countries in the field of public health, especially problems related to acquired immune deficiency syndrome, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases.
On August 30, 2003, members of the WTO agreed to amend certain provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which deals with trade, and which seemed to be preventing poor countries from importing affordable drugs.
The way the international market was organized did not allow these countries to have access to such drugs. Human tragedies are currently taking place in several countries; people keep dying from these diseases. It is not that we did not have the required drugs to treat the diseases, but it was not possible to get these drugs because of the existing provision.
With regard to the Government of Canada, the Canadian Parliament, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that our legislation can be adapted accordingly. This agreement says that the decision must be implemented in good faith for the purpose of solving public health problems, and not for industrial or commercial ends. It also says that it is important to ensure that these drugs reach their intended destination.
I believe the objectives are relevant. Changes are being proposed to the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act. These amendments will certainly not improve the health of those in developing countries overnight, but when they are approved by Parliament, we will be able to create an environment to improve the situation and to correct several problems that are now unacceptable.
Therefore, this is a step in the right direction. This measure complements the work done in other sectors and in other countries. We hope that all developed countries will adopt a similar approach in order to maximize the impact as soon as possible, so that satisfactory results can be attained and the spread of several of these diseases stopped.
To reach that goal, we must work in close cooperation with the WTO, the World Health Organization, and the World Intellectual Property Organization. We often hear people say that the World Trade Organization has a very insensitive approach, that it does not care about social issues. This international agreement, which is at the heart of the bill before us, will change that attitude. The WTO has agreed to talk about an issue with an important social impact. It has agreed to change the existing trade rules which were accepted and enforced by the entire industry, to the benefit of industrial promoters.
The stakeholders have agreed to include an obligation to consider the human aspect. I think this fact is worth mentioning; it sets an example that should be followed so that, in the long term, maybe the WTO and the WHO and all the international organizations will cooperate more readily and better results will be obtained.
This bill amends the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act. The whole issue of development, marketing and management of drug products in Quebec, in Canada and in all other countries of the world, is a very complex one. It requires a great deal of planning. We must make sure that the industry can develop new drugs, and has the financial means to do so, but also that it has the means to make those drugs available to the public as quickly as possible
On the other hand, we must ensure that there is no abuse and that we will continue to have a good system in Quebec and across Canada. We want to facilitate access to these drugs at the international level. I think that passing such legislation will be to our credit as a Parliament. I think that we will be doing something worthwhile. At the same time, we must ensure that we are not just acting on a sudden burst of generosity, as has happened in the past, without putting the right provisions in the legislation to achieve good results.
Some of these issues need to be raised. This is why I think that we should be able to study this in committee as soon as possible to ensure speedy passage of the bill. This would allow us to discuss issues such as the right of first refusal granted to industries that have developed products. We must ensure that this mechanism does not interfere in the domestic market and that such practice is consistent at the international level and takes the whole picture into account.
We must also ensure that the various partners, that is research and development companies as well as the generic sector, can adjust to meet the objectives of the bill and do what is expected of them.
We must also take into account the comments made by international development organizations, including Oxfam, which issued a release saying that it was happy about the patent amendment, but pointing out some weaknesses in this amendment. Oxfam wants to have an opportunity to make representations so that maybe we can improve that part of the bill.
It says for example that the proposed mechanisms for suspending patents can represent major progress in the fight against diseases since the high cost of patented drugs is the main cause of death for 14 million people each year. They die of diseases that could be treated. Now we want to make these drugs available. Therefore, there is a solution to this problem.
As I mentioned earlier, the amendment proposed by the government would implement a WTO agreement. Oxfam points out that the agreement covers all countries and all diseases. It is not limited to public health emergencies. This is interesting.
However, the bill provides a list of eligible pharmaceutical products that Oxfam finds unnecessarily restrictive. So, there are issues that deserve to be considered in committee. We have to listen to the research and development companies, the generic manufacturers and the international development agencies who work in the countries covered by the agreement in order to ensure that the appropriate amendments are made to this bill if need be.
We are, of course, pleased with the principle of this bill and we think that the bill needs to be further examined and then passed as soon as possible.
Given the circumstances, with a new prime minister about to take office, we understand all the tension surrounding such a bill. Everyone wants it passed, but we also need time to consider it further. The answer lies with the government. It has not yet asked to adjourn. Normally, we would get back to work in a week and, in the meantime, we can attend any committee hearings that are held.
However, if the government decides to prorogue, then it will have to live with its decision.
We have to be open to all kinds of options to ensure that such a bill is dealt with. It would be a shame to wait three, four or five months to pass this bill, knowing how great the needs are and that time is of the essence. We have before us some rather complex pieces of legislation.
A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, Her Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:

Royal Assent
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, Her Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-45, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal liability of organizations)--Chapter No. 21.
Bill C-25, an act to modernize employment and labour relations in the public service and to amend the Financial Administration Act and the Canadian Centre for Management Development Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter 22.
Bill C-6, an act to establish the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims to provide for the filing, negotiation and resolution of specific claims and to make related amendments to other acts--Chapter 23.
Bill C-459, an act to establish Holocaust Memorial Day--Chapter 24.
Bill C-55, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2004--Chapter 25.
Bill C-37, an act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts--Chapter 26.
Bill C-50, an act to amend the statute law in respect of benefits for veterans and the children of deceased veterans--Chapter 27.
Bill C-48, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (natural resources)--Chapter 28
Bill S-21, an act to amalgamate the Canadian Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors and The Canadian Association of Financial Planners under the name The Financial Advisors Association of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
[Stage Direction]
C-56, an act to amend the Patent Act and the Food and Drugs Act
, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: Resuming debate. The member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques has 15 minutes left.
Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the floor back after that rather archaic interlude. We are led to the other place for the royal assent. It is always surprising for those who are elected by the public to take a second seat to those who are not.
I will conclude briefly. I will not use all my time. I think it important this afternoon that we complete if at all possible consideration of this bill at second reading.
This bill will make it possible to make drugs available to the countries most in need of them. The legislation we must analyze is complex. I wish that we could go to committee as soon as possible and that, based on that work, we could pass the bill and implement the relevant mechanisms. This would allow people in countries with the greatest development and financial difficulties to have access to quality drugs.
I think that, in this year of the war in Iraq, it would be very nice to conclude with something tangible like this. Let us hope that we can pass the bill as soon as possible, after studying it, so that we will have legislation that is workable, that will not be challenged in the courts and that will allow people to have access to these drugs.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in what is probably the last day in the current session to speak to an extremely important bill.
During our life as parliamentarians, we often make mountains out of mole hills even though there are no mole hills in this dignified House. But here we are dealing with an extremely important bill in the dying days of a session.
Regrettably Bill C-56 was put forward at the very last minute. It could already have been reviewed in committee and disposed of, sent to the other place where it could have been reviewed, amended if necessary, and passed.
A political agenda has taken over a humanitarian agenda. This is what is going on here. For the past few days, even weeks, various opposition parties, several government members and some ministers also, I hope, various stakeholders in Bill C-56, including brand name drug companies and generic name drug companies, as well as humanitarian and community groups involved in this issue have been urging the government to go ahead.
As a matter of fact, the office of the Minister of Industry had invited members to a briefing session on the bill, but it was postponed and was only held this week. It makes one wonder.
This week, the Prime Minister answered a planted question on Bill C-57, reading a prepared text saying that it was a priority. We might stop sitting very soon. Yesterday, the government House leader, before leaving for a warmer climate as a result of an appointment, said good bye to parliamentarians although Bill C-56 has not passed yet. Once again, the partisan agenda has taken over the humanitarian agenda.
For several weeks now the government has tried to blame the drug industry as well as the opposition parties, including the Progressive Conservative Party, the sponsor of the Drug Patent Act, accusing them of delaying matters. The holdup is not with us; it is with the government.
I will not talk about the benefits of Bill C-56, as everybody is in agreement on that. However, as my Bloc Quebecois colleague said, now that Bill C-56 can be discussed, as we are doing now, we see that there are people on both sides who have reservations, be they the brand name drug companies or the generic drug companies, humanitarian groups or non-governmental organizations.
We are ready to take a few hours or a few days to study the bill in committee, very quickly. We will not be the ones holding the process up. The problem is that every time there is a delay, there are more deaths in these countries, every day.
Let us imagine the possible and probably scenario of an adjournment and a prorogation in the next few weeks. We should be called back sometime in February. However, if there is a prorogation, all the bills will die on the Order Paper, unless there is an agreement among the parliamentary leaders of all the parties represented in the House. This could represent a delay of three or four months.
I would not want to hit a nerve here, but how many hundreds of thousands of people will contract these diseases, tuberculosis, malaria or AIDS, in that period? How many hundreds or thousands of people will die? It could be interesting to air the Liberal convention in Africa next week to make sure people realize that, because of a leadership convention, everything is being put on hold while people are dying.
We all agree with the bill. Yes, we support the pharmaceutical companies, and we also support the Patent Act since we introduced it. As one of my colleagues was saying earlier, what is interesting in all this is that we can be compassionate while doing business.
We can do it. The big bad World Trade Organization was able to arrive at a compromise, to strike a delicate and complex balance. It can be done.
That being said, we are stuck in a situation that we cannot control. The four opposition parties are in agreement about speeding up the process, but not at any cost. Our party does not have on its agenda a leadership convention that will be broadcast on all major Canadian networks on November 14 and 15.
We are lawmakers. We are here to finish any job that we start. Certain bills are frivolous. In fact, they exist just to make a minister or a government look good.
Bill C-56 is a very important bill. The Minister of Industry has made a number of blunders when he was justice minister and when he was health minister. We all remember the blunders he made on the hepatitis issue. At least here, with the credibility given to this file by the Minister for International Trade, he had a chance to speed up the process. But no. We are getting a new prime minister.
People dying in Africa are not a priority after all. Surely something can be done. We, in the Progressive Conservative Party, are in contact with our colleagues and our leader in the Senate. He and the PC team in the other place are ready to do the job quickly, but properly.
Will we have time to finish the job? While reading a letter, the current Prime Minister was boasting about the fact that we are the first country to legislate on the WTO decision, but the legislation may not be passed because of the partisan agenda of this government.
Yes, maybe it is time we had a new leader. Yes, maybe it is time we had a new prime minister. I agree with that, but surely there can be better planning. It is so important. Surely it would be possible to give the House, the committee and the other place the opportunity to look at this issue.
House leaders on this side met and they had discussions with the government House leader, or at least the person who will be in that position probably for another few hours. Rumour has it that he is going to Brazil. They can send him wherever they want. The fact remains that he always was a good soldier for the Liberal Party.
However, what are we going to do now? We will be back in our ridings next week. In my riding, I have organizations lobbying to have this bill passed. In Quebec there are organizations lobbying to have it passed. They are going to ask us what we are doing. And we will have to answer that we are currently on break. Their next question will be, “So will you be able to deal with it next week?”
We do not know whether or not we will come back. Regardless of the fact that the Order Paper is calling us back on November 17, we do not know if that is what is going to happen. We are ready. I am ready, as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, to come back next week to review the bill, to bring in people concerned with Bill C-56 and speed up the process.
We can do it. However, in some respects, we wonder if we should lend credibility to the Liberal partisan agenda. Should we do it? They tried to put the blame on us, “We know full well that the Conservatives favour the big drug companies. In the 1990s you introduced the Patent Protection Act and so on and so forth. You are against it. You are the bad guys in this Parliament.”
We are not the bad guys in Parliament. The bad guys are those who are unable to get their priorities straight with regard to their own legislative agenda. That is the problem.
With better planning and cooperation when they introduced Bill C-56, it could have passed today. Today, we are realizing that the big mean drug companies are not the only ones to have reservations. The generic drug companies also have reservations regarding the implementation of the bill. As I said earlier, without sounding like I am repeating myself and rambling on, organizations have reservations regarding Bill C-56. We would like to hear from them in committee. I can guarantee we will speed up the work, but we will do it.
If it were only pharmaceutical companies that had reservations, I would not be making this speech today. But stakeholders on both sides have reservations about the application and the applicability of this legislation.
Members of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology discussed this issue, and we would like to see the regulations. A bill is often 3, 4 or 5 pages long, whereas regulations are often 3, 4 or 5 inches thick. We would like to see what would be in there.
We must protect tens of thousands of jobs in Canada. In fact, we must protect the delicate balance between Canada and the United States with regard to pharmaceutical research and the distribution of pharmaceutical products.
Therefore, this bill must go to committee quickly. I am sure that, on this side of the House, we would agree to do this right now. Members on this side of the House, or at least members of the Progressive Conservative Party, are ready to sit down in committee and do a good and credible job.
Today, we can help those who are suffering, those who have had enough and those who will contract these diseases. We can tell them that Canada's commitment is more than a statement made by a Prime Minister at the end of his reign. Parliament will take its responsibilities.
At the same time, if the government has not done a good job in terms of legislative planning, that is its problem. It is not the opposition that is the big bad wolf here, but the government.
Bill C-56 is one of those bills that gives goose bumps. Yesterday, we were watching the Prime Minister who was boasting about Bill C-20. It gave me goose bumps, but not for the same reason. It gave me a negative feeling, whereas Bill C-56 gives me a positive feeling. If everybody agrees, we could look at this as early as next week, unless the partisan agenda prevails again over the humanitarian agenda, unless the government is willing to wait three or four months and have a few thousand more sick or dead people on its conscience. We are ready to move quickly to do a credible job.
Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, I will begin my brief debate on this extremely important bill that is before the House this afternoon by quoting a message I received in my office this morning from an international development student who happens to be at St. Mary's University in my riding. I think she both expresses the sentiment and reflects the experience of a great many people who have visited the African continent in the last several years. The message reads:

I just returned a few days ago from a four month CIDA-funded research project in Malawi, Africa. I interviewed women who were caring for dying family members. I spent my days in the villages, witnessing the most shocking and horrible situations: a nine year old girl, alone to nurse her dying mother and take care of her twin seven year old brothers--she told me that the best part of her day was when she walked 40 minutes to get to school because once there, it was the only time of the day that she could rest; an old woman, completely bent over, unable to stand straight or walk properly, nursing her sick daughter and looking after scores of orphans from her other children who had already died. I spent days in the pediatric palliative care unit, talking to mothers of dying children--what can be said? What hope can they have? Imagine such a thing happening here. One thing that stays in my mind is women telling me repeatedly, “here, there is no peace--they weren't talking of civil war or political unrest, they were talking about the misery and poverty and injustice of so many people dying from a disease for which there are drugs, but not for them. There certainly can be no peace as long as this continues in our world. It is a blight on our common humanity.

To that I want to add that I think it would be a blight, not just on the record of the Liberal government, but a blight on the record of all members of Parliament if we are not able to summon here, over the next week, starting with the vote on this bill this afternoon, the absolute commitment, with determination, persistence and an appropriate sense of urgency, to ensure that the bill goes to committee where hearings will be held and that it comes back to the House for passage within the next 10 days.
I want to refer again to a statistic that I cited earlier. We think people can imagine the human misery that lies behind the statistic that every 13 seconds a person in Africa dies of AIDS. Nelson Mandela, not surprisingly, has been an incredible champion of the cause of dealing with the African pandemic. He stated:

The vision which fuelled our struggle for freedom;--

Referring to the struggle against apartheid. He goes on to say:

--the deployment of energies and resources; the unity and commitment to common goals--all these are needed if we are to bring AIDS under control.
This is a war, it has killed more people than has been the case in all previous wars... We must not continue to be debating, to be arguing, when people are dying.

Those words inevitably give rise to the question: why are we here discussing instead of doing? Why would we stop or hesitate for one nanosecond in getting on with speedy passage?
The possibility existed for us to send the bill all the way to third reading and conclusion in the House today. The questions that will be asked of all 301 of us will be: Why are we here debating? Why are we sending it to committee? I think we have to answer those questions honestly for Canadians.
I do not want to dwell, in the spirit of all party cooperation, on the point that has been made by the previous speakers that the government left it awfully late in the life of this session to introduce this legislation, because I want to focus on how we can deal with this in the most hasty manner possible but not such a hasty manner that we do not fix a fundamental flaw that exists in the legislation.
The reason we are here discussing the legislation and proposing that it go to committee is so the flaw can be fixed.
This is an occasion when we should express our gratitude, not only to the incredibly Herculean work of special envoy, Stephen Lewis, who has literally laid his life on the line in this struggle against the HIV-AIDS pandemic, but the other heroes and heroines on the ground: the NGOs in the African villages and communities who are doing unimaginable work; the representatives here in Canada who have helped to deal with our ignorance and our complacency in relation to this HIV-AIDS pandemic. This includes those who have been working under the umbrella of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network , Oxfam, Medécins son frontières and many more. I think through them we want to express our thanks to all of those who have worked so hard.
Let me share with members what the coordinator and the spokesperson for the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network said today. He said:

The bill is intended to amend the Patent Act by allowing generic pharmaceutical companies to make lower-cost medicines for export to developing countries to deal with their public health problems. But as currently drafted, Bill C-56 provides that a brand-name pharmaceutical company has the right to take over a contract that a generic manufacturer has negotiated with a developing country. If they do so, the generic manufacturer cannot get a licence to make the medicine and export it.

This leaves generic companies unable to fill contracts that they have negotiated in good faith and at great cost and effort with developing countries.
As Richard Elliott, director, legal research and policy of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, has said, “as a result, developing countries cannot effectively give licences to generic manufacturers to make their cheaper medicines”. This means we will not actually end up seeing lower prices from either generic companies or brand name companies and developing countries will not see the benefit that Bill C-56 is supposed to deliver.
We need to heed the concerns that are being expressed. We should not act so hastily that we do not fix the flaw in the bill. At the same time, however, we must unanimously agree to act with great haste to make sure the legislation is enacted as quickly as humanly possible.
Yesterday was a rare day in the House, one of those rare occasions that I wish occurred far more often, when there was a real sense of common purpose in the House. I want to pay tribute to the outgoing Prime Minister when I say this. Yesterday we saw him, not only in some of his finest moments, but he delivered a very important message to us. It was a message that I think we have to take very seriously.
Sure we can have some fun poking criticisms at the record of his government, and there are legitimate criticisms, but let us today act in the spirit that was very evident in the House yesterday and the tone that was set by the outgoing Prime Minister when he pleaded with us to make Parliament work and to demonstrate to Canadians that we are all here for the same reason.
If there were ever a test of that resolve, if there were ever a test of whether that can be truly said about the 301 parliamentarians assembled here working on behalf of Canadians, surely we can make that commitment. Surely we can commit today to see the bill through in the most effective and efficient way that we possibly can do it.
The government can demonstrate good faith here. I do not buy the idea that it is bad faith on the government's part that it is saying we should send this legislation to committee. To the contrary, it is evident that the government wants to see this legislation became part of the so-called legacy of the Prime Minister. It is fair game for all of us to say we will help make it part of the Prime Minister's legacy.
That requires a commitment today from the House leader and from government members opposite that this legislation will go to committee, that it will be fast tracked. If there had not been a fundamental flaw in the bill, we were prepared to fast track it through at every stage of reading today and see it enacted as soon as possible. We cannot do that.
What can we do that is second best? What can we do in view of the circumstances that we face? We can agree today that we will be back on Parliament Hill for committee meetings.There is a recess in the parliamentary calendar and the government party has important work to do with respect to electing a new leader, which we all understand and respect. However we can be back in this place a week from Monday to hold committee hearings. Those hearings can happen over a period of a few days. We can ensure that the legislation will come back and will be enacted within the next 10 days or two weeks.
There are all kinds of suggestions going around that the government is shutting down this session of Parliament. It has tried every day this week to get the means to do that by outvoting us on a call to recess Parliament. We stood against it in solidarity with other parliamentarians to ensure that Parliament did not recess before we had an opportunity to deal with the legislation to get drugs to the millions of people who are dying in Africa.
Let us use the opportunity that we have to summon that all party cooperation. Let us make sure that we can hold our heads up high. Canadians and other countries around the world want Canada to provide the leadership. Let us make sure that the committee does its work and that Parliament does its work to get this legislation enacted within a couple of weeks.
I would like to finish by quoting Stephen Lewis, the special envoy who has been working tirelessly on this issue. He provided some of the most powerful inspirational evidence before the foreign affairs committee on this issue early in 2003. He said:

The pandemic is overshadowing anything we know in human history, that nothing is comparable, not the 14th century Black Death nor all the loss of life, both military and civilian, in the two world wars of the 20th century, military and civilian. Nothing can begin to compare to the dreadful consequences of the pandemic. People now talk about 100 million deaths down the road. I don't doubt that for a moment. The numbers may rise even higher than that.

The numbers will rise higher than that and they will rise faster than is necessary if we do not fast track this legislation. The numbers will rise if the desperately needed drugs are not dispensed in the most effective way possible. The numbers will rise if we do not help put the infrastructure in place to ensure that the drugs can be dispensed in the most effective way possible and that treatment and support is given to those who are suffering from HIV-AIDS.
Let us act with compassion in dispatch and get the job done. That can be part of the legacy, not only of the Liberal government, but of this Parliament.
Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, I listened to the comments of the member from the NDP. While she articulates the point of view about the crisis in Africa, I find a complete irony in her presentation. She alluded to the position of the Canadian Alliance on the issue. She talked about the humanitarian report of the subcommittee on Africa. She read a letter from somebody who had been to Africa, but she forgot the fact that I grew up in Africa. I have been back to that continent many times and have seen the ravages of AIDS there. I do not need a lecture from her or her party.
I was on the foreign affairs committee when it did this report on Africa. I knew very well of the humanitarian crisis in Africa. As a matter of fact I was quite surprised that her contribution from her own party on that issue was not very strong because I have been on that committee many times.
Therefore, I would like to say to her that when she stands in the House of Commons and starts accusing anyone else, she should check her facts first before she comments on what the Alliance Party has said.
I have attended the talks by Mr. Lewis. While I understand Mr. Lewis, he was appointed by the United Nations to look at the horrendous tragedy taking place in Africa, I do not need anyone to tell me what exactly is taking place. When I see what happened 20 years ago, and when I see what is happening right now, anyone who is from that part of the continent knows the devastation.
I want to make that point clear. However, I do not want to take away from the importance of this legislation which the government has brought forward to fight this pandemic. Her party is supporting the bill. We are supporting the bill. Let us get on with the work.
Alexa McDonough: Madam Speaker, I did not forget and I certainly did not mean to offend the member by not mentioning the fact that he was born in Africa. I am sure that is part of what gives him considerable insight into the magnitude and horrors of the HIV-AIDS pandemic in Africa. Therefore, it was surprising that there was not a stronger commitment made in the dissenting opinion by the Alliance in the foreign affairs committee report on the humanitarian crisis in Africa.
However, it is absolutely not in the spirit of what we need to do, to look backward instead of forward. I welcome the member's comments. I acknowledge his commitment, and it also allows me to address briefly one issue on which he might have commented.
Another way in which the government could get the job done and demonstrate its good faith about wanting to fix this legislation in the most effective possible way, would be to seriously consider referring the legislation to the parliamentary committee that deals with international development issues and not just to the industry committee.
I do not know what the government's intention is in that regard. It is perhaps something that could be considered. However, the concern is to ensure that it is driven by the commitment to humanitarian concerns in meeting the crisis in Africa, not driven by the possible financial interests of Canadian pharmaceutical corporations representing the multinationals.
Bob Nault: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to put the question based on unanimous consent that Bill C-57, an act to give effect to the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to and reported from a committee, without amendment, concurred in at report stage and read a third time and passed. I seek consent of the House for that.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there agreement?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is the House ready for the question?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from November 6 consideration of the motion that Bill
[Stage Direction]
C-57, an act to give effect to the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement
, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Maurice Vellacott: Madam Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent to pass Bill C-57, an act to give effect to the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement, at second reading and refer it to a committee without debate or amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is there agreement?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, given that it is now close to 2:30 p.m., I would like to seek the concurrence of the House to call it 2:30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): Is it agreed to see the clock as 2:30 p.m.?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos): It being 1:56 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, November 17, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:56 p.m.)
The second session of the 37th Parliament was prorogued by royal proclamation on November 12, 2003