1986-11-24

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to petition Nos. 332-3, 332-4, 332-5, 332-6 and 332-8.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of Winnipeg and towns in Manitoba, including Birtle, Rossburn and La Riviere in which they say that the proposed measure, meaning the change in the patent drug law, will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. Therefore, they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A few days ago I drew to the attention of Hon. Members that it is the practice for an Hon. Member who rises to present a petition that all petitions which that Hon. Member wishes to present at that time ought to be presented together. I know the Hon. Member who has just spoken co-operated with the Chair in that regard, but I would ask Hon. Members to keep that in mind.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions that request the Government to withdraw the unjust tariff on books-

-and humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which may cause irreparable harm to the book publishing industry in Canada and jeopardize the federal Government's position on cultural industries in the free trade talks.
Mr. Speaker, these petitions were sent to us from every Canadian province, including my own riding.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several Canadians who are outraged at the Government's intent to tinker with the Patent Act which will result in higher drug costs. The operative paragraph is brief. It
says:
Wherefore, the undersigned, your Petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, this petition has been certified correct as to form and content, in accordance with Standing Order 106. The petition asks-

-to the honourable House of Commons and Parliament:
WHEREAS the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information, and;
WHEREAS the tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States, yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, distributors and Canada's culture, and;
WHEREAS rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries.
WHEREAS the undersigned, your Petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to: rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect to free trade negotiations.
That is one petition I have, Mr. Speaker, from the Province of Ontario. I have other petitions.
The second petition is signed by several residents from the City of Windsor. In light of the fact that rising book prices have placed a strain on book acquisition programs and the policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries, the petitioners are calling upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry.

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition addressed to the Canadian Government. This petition was signed by a great many people from Toronto, who are asking the Government to rescind the present duty on books, since the duty is only having an impact on small Canadian businesses and has no impact at all on the Americans, and because libraries and the education

November 24, 1986
Petitions
of Canadians are being affected. This is another petition I had the honour of tabling today.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from the City of Windsor, Ontario, in which the Canadian Government is being asked to rescind the retaliatory duty imposed on English-language books only, which is unfair, and our petitioners are against the negative effect this may have on the publishing industry, because the Canadian publishing industry is being penalized. That was another petition.
Mr. Speaker, I have one more petition.
I have one more petition to present, Mr. Speaker. It is signed by residents of Bracebridge, Huntsville and Belleville, Ontario. It calls upon the Government to rescind the tariff on imported books in the English language because it has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information and has little or no negative effect on the publishing industry in the United States. These petitions have been presented for your consideration.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this petition has been duly certified by the Clerk in accordance with Standing Order 106. It is signed by a number of Canadians protesting the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act. The petitioners indicate that these changes will result in higher drug prices for both individual consumers and provinces. They see this as another instance of Canada bowing down to the United States and they call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.
[ Translation]


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour of tabling five petitions from the province of Nova Scotia and more specifically from the people of Fall River, Halifax, Windsor Junction, Dartmouth, Bedford and Sackville.

Since the Government has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present, on behalf of a number of citizens of Canada, a petition which points out that the changes to the
Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase prices for Canadian consumers and restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for all Canadians.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, taking your earlier admonition fully into account I will submit a group of petitions signed by 170 residents of Windsor, Amherstberg and vicinity who ask the Government to rescind the book tariff for the very simple reason that it penalizes the Canadian consumer, book publishers, book sellers, book distributors and Canadian culture as a whole.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a very extensive petition from residents of Winnipeg, Fisher Branch, The Pas, St. Boniface, Ashern, Lauder, Eriksdale, Gimli and other points in Manitoba. There are 1,250 names in total. The petition has been certified by the Clerk. It reads as follows: Whereas a cabinet committee of the federal Government is considering a special excise tax on goods used by the consumptive users of wildlife, hunters and fishermen; guns, ammunition, rods, reels, lures, and on the nonconsumptive users as well such as canoeists, backpackers, campers and birdwatchers to name a few, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to halt this proposal immediately.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table a petition signed by a number of citizens of Canada who are exercising their right to do so. They protest the cut-backs of the National Research Council. They ask that those cuts be rescinded and demand that the Government act on its commitment to increase the rate of expenditure for research, science and technology to 2.5 per cent of the Gross National Product.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of Canadian citizens, exercising their right to do so, expressing their concern about the concession to United States interests represented by legislation being introduced which would have the effect of raising the price of drugs in this country. The petitioners demand that the Government withdraw this legislation and give consideration to a more appropriate approach to patent policy.
November 24, 1986


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from Canadian citizens in British Columbia who humbly call upon the Government to rescind the tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy and cultural industries.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition of citizens of Thunder Bay and Dryden in northern Ontario. I have a similar petition from people in Toronto, Scarborough and Mississauga. I also have a long petition signed mostly by people from Windsor, Ontario. All these petitioners oppose changes to the Patent Act which will increase the price of drugs for ordinary Canadians, particularly for senior citizens. They call upon the federal Government to withdraw the legislation before us and to favour a more affordable price of drugs.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, those who read, publish, sell and distribute books see the book tariff as a threat to Canadian culture. I have a large number of petitions from northern Ontario, southwestern Ontario, the Kitchener-Waterloo area and from the Toronto area which call upon the Government to rescind the book tariff.


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by several hundred residents of Edmonton calling upon the Government to rescind the tariff it has imposed on imported books because it will not be effective and it imposes a severe and irreparable strain on the book publishing industry in Canada and on Canadians who want to read.


PRIVILEGE
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I seek your guidance. It is my understanding that on matters of this sort one is required to give immediate notification if one believes one has a question of privilege. I regret to interrupt the submission of petitions. 1 seek the Speaker's guidance with respect to the concern which I wish to express.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of concern and interest in the release of five Soviet deserters into Canadian hands. At this moment the press is involved-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. The Hon. Member has sought the guidance of the Chair and he may get that guidance in a
Petitions
moment. I ask for order. Perhaps the Hon. Member could help the Chair. It would seem from his remarks that his question of privilege arises from something that has taken place outside the Chamber. If so, I would remind all Hon. Members that that would require one hour's notice to the Chair. I would be quite prepared to take his representation now as the beginning of that notice, but the one hour is required.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. My concern is with respect to the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is at this moment, or very shortly, providing a briefing to the press on the circumstances surrounding the release of the prisoners. It is a briefing which, as a result of communications with the Minister, has been denied to Members of Parliament. Surely it is-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You can go over to the press club.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that under the circumstances it would be best if the Chair accepted the intervention of the Hon. Member as notice of a question of privilege and the Chair will deal with it later in the appropriate fashion, without in any way prejudicing the Hon. Member's right to speak on the matter further.


PETITIONS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Petitions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Petitions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I move:
That the House proceed to Government Notices of Motions.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He does not have the floor for petitions.


Mr. Riis:: Question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair realizes that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has risen on a question of privilege. However, before I hear the Hon. Member, and I will, let me deal with the motion that has been presented by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski).
The motion is that the House proceed to Government Notices of Motions, which means that, if the Chair should rule that it is in order, a number of items that are in the usual order under Routine Proceedings would not be heard. It is the view of the Chair that that would be inappropriate and that we should proceed from item to item. Consequently, I regret to advise the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister that in the view of the Chair the motion is out of order. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.

November 24, 1986
Petitions


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I was going to pursue a question of privilege but, based on your ruling, at this point there is no need for it.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from my riding, the first I have presented on this matter. It contains numerous signatures and concerns the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. The petitioners state that this will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. There has been an overwhelming response to this in my constituency and I want to table the petition.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I have the honour, in accordance with our Standing Orders, of tabling various petitions on two different subjects, but I will table only two.

The Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information. It is a long petition which comes from Windsor.
I have another petition and, since you stated to present all the petitions together, I will do so.
These petitioners state that whereas the tariff has little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States and yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers and distributors in Canada's culture, and whereas rising book prices have placed a strain on book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries, the undersigned petitioners in these two long petitions humbly pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations.
I have abided by your ruling by making no comment, but I see that the Minister responsible for culture is here and I hope she will take action on this very important subject.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition on an equally very important matter. It is only the first of a multitude and multiplicity of others coming from my district and all across Canada. These petitioners are not from my district, but from Selkirk. Many of my colleagues from that district have the honour of presenting the same petition.
These petitioners state that whereas the federal Government's proposal to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, and whereas the proposed measures will unfairly hurt those Canadians, and whereas the proposal of the federal Government will result in higher costs to provincial Governments, the undersigned petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition concerning the retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language. Most of these petitioners life in Calgary. The citizens point out that increased book prices place a strain on acquisitions in libraries, that the Government's decision is causing great hardship to the book industry in Canada, and they call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries in respect of free trade negotiations.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition, duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions, regarding the retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language, which has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information. The undersigned petitioners pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens to seriously harm the Canadian book industry. This petition is signed by some 25 persons in the Toronto and Ottawa areas.
1 have another petition from 28 persons in the area of Dryden, Ontario, who are also concerned about the same matter of the retaliatory tariff on imported books in the English language. Again, these petitioners call upon Parliament to rescind the tariff.
I have a third petition, Mr. Speaker, from people in the Ottawa area and from Peterborough and Bracebridge, Ontario. It is signed by 26 petitioners. The petition as well has been duly certified by the Clerk of Petitions.
I have a fourth petition on the same subject. This is signed by some 25 persons from the Toronto area. The petitioners again call upon Parliament to rescind this very damaging tariff.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from people in the London area. I would urge Hon. Members from the London area to take note of it. The petitioners again call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff. This tariff is hurting Canadian book readers, particularly at this time prior to Christmas when a lot of people buy books for their own use and to give as gifts. If Parliament would rescind this tariff prior to the adjournment for Christmas it would be appreciated.
November 24, 1986


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of a large number of Canadians who are concerned that the Government of Canada has imposed a retaliatory tariff on imported books. This has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information of all sorts particularly, as the previous speaker has indicated, during this time of year when people are purchasing more books than they would during the rest of the year. This penalizes Canadian consumers, book publishers, booksellers and distributors and Canada's culture, and the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the Government to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on the cultural industry with respect to free trade negotiations.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have another petition which draws to the attention of the House the Government's intention to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. I think by all accounts it is accepted, except by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), that this will result in increased drug prices for Canadian consumers. In fact, I believe even the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs recently indicated that it will. This will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy the necessary prescription drugs. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject this legislation and urge the Government to reconsider its introduction.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is my
pleasure to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has moved, seconded by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), that the House do now adjourn-I am sorry, that the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day.


Bill Rompkey: That's the next one.


Mr. Murphy:: Don't rush us.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's comment was heard by the Chair but will be momentarily ignored.
We are now at Petitions in the proceedings, which has been going on for some minutes. I have already ordered this morning that it would be improper to move from Petitions to another item of business in the Routine Proceedings. However, with respect to the motion which has been put by the Hon. Member for Churchill, I draw to the attention of all Hon. Members the fact that this particular motion is covered by a specific rule of this House, that is, Standing Order No. 27:
A motion for reading the Orders of the Day shall have preference to any motion before the House.
Petitions
As a consequence I feel I am not entitled to take any discretion in this matter; nor can I call upon practice. I find that it is my duty and obligation to enforce the order. Therefore, it is the view of the Chair that the motion to proceed to Orders of the Day, moved by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), seconded by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), is in order.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen'.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I gave notice on Friday concerning a proposed emergency debate on the softwood lumber issue. I realize that with the support of this motion, once again my motion will be superseded. However, I should like to preserve my right to lpropose that emergency debate on tomorrow.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, you must have noticed that the Opposition is not very pleased with the initiative of the Government to pass Bill C-22. We on the opposition side of the House are not too pleased with the Government wanting to curtail debate to only a few hours. I for one do not think that the Parliament of Canada should deal with the issue in only a few hours. Hon. Members of the House should have an opportunity to speak, be they for or against the particular issue. However, as we know, the Conservative Government does not want it. The Government wants to curtail the debate. It wants to ensure that the debate is over quickly. The Tories want the pain to go away. They want Canadians to forget the very harsh provisions of the Bill.
Your Honour should not think for a moment that I am the only one who does not like the Bill. Perhaps there are Tories across the way who have the same view; perhaps they think that my views are somewhat tainted by partisanship. It is unlikely that you, Mr. Speaker, would think that.


Miss MacDonald:: Never.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The Hon. Member cannot have it both ways. He is supporting a motion to move to Orders of the Day. At the same time he in fact precludes his own initiative.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, that is totally unrelated. The Hon. Member asked Your Honour to keep in mind that tomorrow he will reintroduce the motion-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Some emergency.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Well, it is your fault.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) may have views about whose fault something is, but he knows that it is inappropriate to address another Member as "you" or to use the word "your".
The Chair has listened carefully to the comments of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) and takes note of them. Of course the Chair will expect him to bring his application tomorrow at the appropriate time.
I declare the motion carried.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mrs. Killens (p. 1378).
Don Boudria: Let me draw to the attention of the House some comments of people in the media. I am glad the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) is listening very carefully. She was in my riding recently-


Finlay MacDonald: And was well received.


Don Boudria: Undoubtedly she was well received. I would gladly have been there to greet her had she given me prior notification. Let me read for the Minister of Communications this editorial in the November 24, 1986 issue of the The Toronto Star, a very objective and serious newspaper. The article is entitled "Patently Bad Legislation". It reads:
After vehemently denying that drug prices will go up under his new patent legislation, Consumer Affairs Minister Harvie Andre now says drug prices, in fact, could rise. With that admission, Andre has come half-way to the truth.
His Bill would give multinational drug companies up to 10 years to market new brand-name prescription drugs before they can be copied and sold under generic names by Canadian firms. In other words, Andre is proposing to expand the multinational drug companies monopoly power. Whenever a firm enjoys a monopoly, prices not only can be pushed up, they inevitably are.
That's been the experience in every other area where monopoly power has been brought to bear. And so it is a virtual certainty that drug prices will go up-not just for new ones in the future but even for those now available. Luciano Calenti, chairman of the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, last week said that if generic drug companies are not allowed to bring in new products, they will have to raise prices on their existing products to stay in business.
You have it right there, Mr. Speaker, in black and white. It is not the opinion of just an opposition Member of this House, it is a totally objective opinion coming from elsewhere. I thought I would take a moment to share that with you.
Let me share with you, Sir, some of the other reasons that Liberals cannot support this legislation as presented. First, we have to remember that it was a Liberal Government of the past, a Government very concerned about the sick, the needy
*
November 24, 1986

and the elderly which brought in the 1969 Patent Act amendments. It was the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in 1968 who introduced the Bill and is now the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner). Another Minister continued with the same Bill after it had stayed on the Order Paper and died because of the very successful 1968 election. The new Government continued this very progressive legislation which lead to lower drug prices and to a situation which was very helpful for very many Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, if the Bill before the House today were to go through all stages in the House and end up as an Act of Parliament, most of the Members of this House would still be able to buy the pharmaceutical products they need, there is no doubt about that. Nor is there any doubt that a large number of Canadians will not be affected by these measures. However,
I have to say, as the Member for an electoral district that is not very wealthy, that many of my constituents will have considerable problems when they will want to purchase the drugs they need.

The Liberal Government recognized that more funds were needed for investments in research so that our young people could have jobs. Our Government appointed the Eastman Commission and it produced a report. This is not to say that with the Liberal laws now in force that Canada lost a substantial portion of its investment. As a matter of fact, Dr. Eastman in his report, which I have here, says that:
Total expenditures on intramural research and development for the pharmaceutical industry were equivalent to 3.5 per cent of the value of factory shipments in 1967 and 3.8 per cent in 1982.
Therefore, the legislation that is in force now has not drastically reduced investment, at least not according to Dr. Eastman.
However, no one should be satisfied with that. Of course we want more investment into that area. We also want the people to be able to afford to buy what the factories produce. That surely should be the main concern of Members of this House, Mr. Speaker.
Let me talk a bit about the growth of the industry. I refer you to page 65 of the Eastman Report from which I read the following:
Increases in both the total number of employees and production and related workers only has been greater in Canada than in the United States. Though these differences in growth since 1967 are relatively small, they are indicative of a more buoyant market for pharmaceuticals and medicines in Canada than in the United States.
You see, Sir, that the existing legislation, in spite of what these Tories across the way are leading you to believe, has not been all bad. It has lead to lower drug prices than otherwise. Many people would argue that it is still expensive and too expensive when you need to buy drugs, but in any case we do have lower drug prices. We have not, according to the Eastman Report, reduced the amount of research proportionately. It is greater now than it was before this legislation was
Patent Act
passed. Finally, the report says that Canada has been an area of larger growth for that industry than the United States.
Why do we now have this Bill, Mr. Speaker? Why do we have a Bill that will give 10 years of protection for patent holders in some cases and seven years of protection in others? During this 10 year period manufacturers of products will be able to charge virtually anything that they can get away with in the market-place.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will be hard-pressed to pay the additional, yes, I say additional, costs they will be charged as a result of this Bill, Bill C-22, if the House decides to approve the proposed legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Eastman Commission suggested a happy medium that would be just about fair. The Commission recommended four years of exclusivity. In the former Minister's Bill, the Government offered ten years of exclusivity in every case.
After last summer's Cabinet shuffle, the new Minister shortened this somewhat by granting ten years in some cases and seven in others, but still twice as much as the Eastman Commission recommended.
It is difficult to understand why the Government insists on pursuing this Bill. Some of us, however, have drawn our own conclusions. Some of us believe that pressure has been put on the Government of Canada by the US Administration, and that is why the Government wants to proceed with this legislation.
One thing for sure is that the American drug manufacturing multinationals have made strong representations to U.S. administration officials urging them in turn to lobby here in Canada to have us amend our legislation and make it more favourable to the Americans in terms of profitability.
I will bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a few examples of how prices are more advantageous to Canadian consumers under our present law than they are to consumers in the United States where producers of prescription drugs can charge almost any amount. The Canadian generic price for chlorpropamide is $19.03 for 1,000 250-miligram tablets. The brand name product in Canada sells for $141.80. The brand name product in the United States costs $431.58. The price ranges from $19 for the generic Canadian product to $431 for the U.S. brand name product. I have a whole chart of such examples.
Why would the Government want Canadian consumers to pay $431.5^ for something for which they now pay $19.03? Is it reasonable to want the Canadian consumers, whom we are here representing, to pay those exorbitant prices? Surely, Mr. Speaker, being the objective person that you are, you have

November 24, 1986
Patent Act
already recognized that this is not reasonable. The Canadian consumer should not have to suffer such price increases.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I bring to your attention that the display of exhibits in the Chamber has traditionally been considered inappropriate. The Hon. Member has referred to a big stack of reports relating to his topic.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, could I just get to my point of order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know what the Hon. Member is trying to portray. I do not think he was displaying any Bills or anything like that. I feel that that is debate. If the Hon. Member does have a point of order, I wish he would come to it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just wondered if the stack which he is displaying includes informationn on the 93 per cent of drugs which have no generic equivalent. Has he seen whether we are getting gouged in that area?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. That is debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has the floor.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as you probably recognize, not only is that not a point of order, it is not even a good point. I do not have a large stack of reports in my hand. I was referring only to one list. The rest of these documents have nothing to do with this issue, and I never said they did. Perhaps the Member across the way could listen a little closer, and I will tell him more about the price increases to which the Canadian consumer will be subjected.
The most difficult thing is to pronounce the names of these drugs.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Go to school.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, someone said, "go to school". I will not apologize for my humble beginnings. They have served me well until now. I will trade my oratorical skills for those of the Hon. Member at any time.
One thousand 100-miligram tablets of the Canadian generic product of chlorthalidone sells for $37.29. The U.S. brand product costs $613.01. The Minister has said in the House that prices will not really increase. However, the people whom he has hired to adminisiter say that they will. The Minister then did not say that they will go up, but they could go up. Well, if something can go up and someone has a monopoly on it, it does go up. Most of us know that if there is an opportunity to make more money, more money will be made. If there is an opportunity to make the consumers of Canada pay more, the consumers will pay more. That is the way it works.
We have good legislation now. We could, of course, provide better protection for the people in the industry in order to encourage research. Research has been increasing, but we should not be satisfied with that. We want more research and more jobs. It is a motherhood question to ask whether we want more research. Obviously we do. However, that is not the issue before us today. We are dealing with whether Canadians want to give exclusivity through this Bill which will result in Canadian consumers being gouged in the manner in which I have just described. Surely that is not why we were elected to this place.
[ Translation]
Last summer, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals held public hearings on drug patents. These hearings took place here in Ottawa and in Toronto, and I was privileged to attend them. We received briefs, we met with Canadian Consumers' Association executive members-a totally nonpartisan body, as we all know-and they proved to us Members of the Liberal Party ... Had Conservative Members done the same thing, they too would have been advised by the Canadian Consumers' Association that this Bill as drafted does not serve the interests of Canadians.
I therefore urge Members from all political Parties, Conservatives, New Democrats and colleagues in my own Party, to vote against this Bill and prevent this measure from going any further because Canadians do not stand to benefit from it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Hon. Member, both in the House and in my office.


Don Boudria: You were not even here.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I said "in my office". Once in a while even the Hon. Member himself should look at his television image. In view of what has been transpiring, and pursuant to the notice I gave last Friday, I would like to advise the House that I will be moving a revised motion, which will provide for an additional one day of debate for the consideration of the Bill at this stage, at the appropriate time.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Don Boudria: May I comment on that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You may if you want to.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Minister bootlegged that statement in under his privilege of asking questions on my speech. I want to use this opportunity to remind him that the notice of time allocation was given after two hours and 23 minutes of debate on offensive legislation.
November 24, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Don Boudria: Two hours and 23 minutes of debate on offensive legislation of this magnitude. That is what we are being subjected to in the House, the tyranny of the majority.


David Orlikow: Dictatorship.


Don Boudria: The Tory tyranny.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Eleven hours and 20 minutes.


Don Boudria: The Canadian people will not put up with this because they know what is right and they know that the Government is wrong.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, having participated in the tyranny of the minority on important causes like the Constitution of Canada, I have some comprehension of tyrannies on both sides of the House. It is one thing to talk about the time to be spent on debate, but I would like them to assess the time of the Chamber at $500,000 a day that is being wasted on motions to adjourn and ringing the bells just to deal with the situation. There have been over 11 hours of debate.
I want to get to the substance of the Member's speech.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Remember the bells.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: He came forward to say that he has done research that has shown what marvellous things the generic industry has done.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Charge the Speaker. Jump out of your seat.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: He called it unbiased research. Ninety-three per cent of the drugs have no generic competition. I want the Hon. Member to give us his unbiased research about that 93 per cent of drugs that have no generic equivalent.


Carlo Rossi: What about the 14 days of bells?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: How much are we being gouged? Will he admit that this Bill will put us in a position to order a roll back on 93 per cent of the drugs where the gouging may be occurring? Will he share his unbiased research with the
House?


Carlo Rossi: You were the leader, remember the 14 days of bells.


Don Boudria: I want to tell the Member who has become worked up over this issue that with regard to the cost for the amount of time taken in the House for the Bill, and that it cost $500,000 a day to operate Parliament, that I do not apologize for the price of democracy. It is a darn sight better than anything else, at any price.
Second, the price-tag for the Bill we are talking about is $650 million.
Patent Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Prove it.


Don Boudria: The House could sit a long time for that price.
The Hon. Member tells us about the time being spent by the House on an issue. It is difficult for me to take moral lessons from a group of individuals and the Member himself who was responsible in whole or in part for an event some years ago involving a couple of weeks of Parliament just listening to bells. I have no moral lessons to take from him on that issue.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight for Hansard with regard to exactly how much time has been spent, not on the substance of the Bill, but on the delaying tactics of the Opposition. The Chair should note that we have spent 11 hours and 20 minutes on the nonsense. They never wanted to get to the substance of the Bill because they are afraid of it. They do not want reseach and development and jobs for Canadians.


Nelson Andrew Riis: How much time on the Bill?


Philip Derek Lewis: That is before today. There is more nonsense when one considers the time that has been spent today.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Just withdraw the Bill.


Philip Derek Lewis: Why does the Opposition refuse to allow us to go ahead with a Bill that will bring research and development to Canada and help find cures for disease, and provide jobs for Canadians? Why all this time on useless delay?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that there has been 11 hours on what he has referred to as nonsense. I do not know of any parliamentary process or procedure in the House which could be called nonsense. As far as I am concerned, procedures involving the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament are just that and cannot be categorized in any way, shape or form as nonsense, even by that Parliamentary Secretary. He said that 11 hours have been used in that way. I want to remind the House that the notice of time allocation was given after two hours and 23 minutes of debate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Eleven hours, and you know it.


Don Boudria: Time allocation itself was moved after two hours, 39 minutes of debate. There has been two hours, 23 minutes of debate if we just consider the time involved between the beginning of the debate and when the notice of motion was given in the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Eleven hours of frustration.


Don Boudria: In my view, that is unsatisfactory. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) says: "Eleven hours". I disagree with that. Even if we did take 11 hours, does not a $650 million assault on Canadian taxpayers deserve 11 hours? It requires all the time of the House because it is an important issue for my constituents and the constituents of everyone else in the Chamber. We will take whatever time is needed.

November 24, 1986
Patent Act


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member. Would he agree with this comment which was made on July 17, 1981, and reported at page 11679 of Hansard:
At the very outset I must say that I abhor this tactic.
Referring to what the Government was attempting to do:
I find it offensive. I find it repugnant because it strikes at the basic fabric of our parliamentary democracy. Instead of having a parliamentary democracy, we have what resembles a parliamentary dictatorship.


Carlo Rossi: Who said that?


Nelson Andrew Riis: That was said by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) on July 17, 1981.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: How could you, Don?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member is quoting a statement out of context.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Any time that the function of Parliament is frustrated and not allowed to work, denying any Government Member, cabinet Minister or Private Member the right to introduce a Bill and have it debated, the right for Parliament to work and the right for democracy to work, it is a total subversion of the parliamentary process. That is what we have been putting up with here for the last week.


Carlo Rossi: That is what you did in 1981.


An Hon. Member:: That is why you are out of power.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has the floor on a question or comment.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I was asking my hon. friend what he thought of the quote. I will just finish it. The Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) said:
If we believe in parliamentary democracy and the right to freedom of speech, then we must ensure that the rights and privileges of Parliament are always secure. I think those rights and privileges are very sacred. After all, Parliament is the foundation of and very fundamental to our basic freedoms, and to suggest that we might be better off without it frightens me very much.
By virtue of a closure motion today we have a further contempt for and erosion of the spirit and privileges of this institution.
He goes on to say in closing:
I believe tyranny begins when parliamentary debate ends.
Would the Hon. Member comment on that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We want parliamentary debate.


Don Boudria: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that that was very well said indeed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now over. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You said that the time for questions and comments is over, but I think in all fairness that we should take the time used by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) in attempting to give us a lesson. We need no lessons from people who wanted to let the bells ring for 14 days.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) to note that I gave the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) an extra minute and a half because of the questions and comments. Therefore, the period for questions and comments, as I said, has now terminated. Resuming debate.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-22 because it has become obvious that this is going to be a very rare opportunity. I was surprised on Friday when, after only seven speakers had addressed themselves to this Bill, the Government House Leader indicated he would bringing in a motion for time limitation, a form of closure.
This is a Bill of great importance to all Canadian people, yet the Government is introducing a form of closure after only a few speakers have had a chance to address themselves to this issue. We have introduced Petitions from literally thousands of Canadians from coast to coast who protest against the nature of this Bill. They point out it is going to result in increased costs to themselves and to their provinces. They object to the way in which this Government is bowing down to the United States. They are calling upon the Government to not proceed with this Bill. But we have a Government which wishes to push the Bill through the House as quickly as possible. We expect it will then try to do the same in committee because it is afraid of its own Bill. It does not like what is in this legislation and does not want the legislation to be examined by the Canadian people.
Our purpose in this debate and in the entire process, both within the House and outside of it, is to try to draw as much public attention to this Bill as we possibly can, because when the people realize what is in the Bill they will oppose it. The Government knows it is in some trouble with Bill C-22 and wants to try to dispose of it as quietly as possible. We do not intend to let that happen.
Canadians do not like this Bill for a number of reasons. The more they know about it the more they dislike it. First, of course, they see it as just one more example of the way in which the Government is bowing down to the dictates of Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam is spending $100 million to send the Contras
November 24, 1986

into Nicaragua to try to make it say "uncle". They do not need to do that in Canada because we are prepared to say ''uncle" at any given time. We have seen one example after another of the way in which the Government has done that; for example, the way in which it abolished FIRA, the gutting of the national energy policy, and backing down from its own stated policy-not a Liberal policy but a Conservative policy- regarding the publishing industry when Gulf and Western took over Prentice- Hall. We have seen the shambles of the last weeks with the Government's mishandling of the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. First, the Government was going to negotiate, then it was going to fight, now it is going to negotiate again. It reminds us of the Grand Old Duke of York who had 10,000 men. First he marched them up the hill, then he marched them down again. We are marching the people up and down the hill on this question of whether or not we are going to fight the United States on the issue of softwood lumber. No one seems to be very sure of the Government's intentions. The Government has made a comple shambles of that particular issue and it will pay for it. That is just one more example of the way in which the Government is completely mishandling our relationship with the United States.
The Government desperately wants some kind of agreement on free trade, yet the word coming from the chief American negotiator, Peter Murphy, is that if Canadians want free trade they are going to have to make more concessions. Peter Murphy did not say that last year. He said it last Friday after we had made one concession after another. But he says Canada is going to have to make more concessions if it wants a free trade deal.
There was pressure put on the Government at the Shamrock Summit by President Reagan. He told the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) how important it was for them to get some action on changes to the Patent Act. Clayton Yeutter put on pressure, Peter Murphy put on pressure and, of course, the pharmaceutical companies have put on their own steady pressure.
As Canadians see what is happening in a wide range of spectrums, they do not like what they see. They see the entire Canadian-United States economic relationship being badly mishandled. They see we are bowing down to the dictates of the United States rather than standing up for the interests of Canadians. This Government, with the largest majority in Canadian history, just refuses to stand up for the interests of the Canadian people. We have drug legislation which is basically prescribed by the United States pharmaceutical companies.
Second, Canadians oppose this Bill because it is going to mean higher drug costs. All last week we saw the spectacle of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) as he tried to quibble with the opposition and with the Canadian people as to whether or not there were going to be higher prices. Canadians are going to have to fork out more
Patent Act
money to purchase drugs at higher prices. That is not debatable, it is a fact. It is going to mean more money coming out of the pockets of Canadians to pay for drugs. The Minister himself finally had to admit that.
In the 1960s there was widespread concern in Canada about drug prices. The Hall Commission noted at that time that our drug prices were among the highest of any industrialized nation in the world. Drug companies at that time had 17 years of protection under the Patent Act.
There were three different commissions in the 1960s which looked at this issue. Each one of them called for more competition. They had different suggestions as to how this should be done. The 1963 Restrictive Trade Practices Commission recommended a very radical move, the total abolition of drug patents. Perhaps that would have been the advisable route to go. However, two later commissions, the Hall Commission and the Harley Commission looked for some kind of compromise route, and in 1969 a policy was adopted which allowed for a limited amount of patent protection and gave to other drug companies the possibility of producing generic copies of the original drugs in return for paying a royalty to the pharmaceutical company which had developed those drugs in the first place.
This policy, although it was passed by the Parliament of Canada and became the law of the land, was never really accepted by the pharmaceutical companies. Their opposition took two forms. First, they dragged through the courts practically every attempt to introduce a generic drug. The generic drug companies had to face court case after court case which slowed the whole process down and, incidentally, added considerable cost to drug prices for Canadians. Second, the pharmaceuticals opposed this whole issue by putting a great deal of pressure on the Government to change the Patent Act.
The Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in 1983, was the recipient of a lot of that pressure. He buckled under that pressure and the Government at that time changed his ministry and he was shuffled off to something else. However, under the pressure, the Trudeau Government in 1984 appointed Professor Harry Eastman to a commission of inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry. Professor Eastman made a number of very interesting points. He pointed out that since the 1969 amendment to the Patent Act, there had not really been any decrease in the profits of the drug industry. In fact, the profits had continued to grow.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Paproski):: Yes. The Hon. Member has 10 minutes left for his debate when Orders of the Day are called, plus 10 minutes for questions and comments.
It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.

November 24, 1986


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Fernand Robichaud: Again, Mr. Speaker, the Government has ignored the Atlantic region. A few months ago when the Government decided to retaliate with a tariff on Christmas tree imports from the United States, it did not even bother to consult eastern Canada producers whose Christmas tree exports represent a $70 million industry.
The same thing is happening now. The Government did not even get in touch with eastern producers when it was attempting to reach agreement with the United States concerning the 15 per cent lumber tariff. Well, Mr. Speaker, organizations like the Maritime Lumber Bureau are furious. Should the U.S. administration endorse the agreement, the Maritimes will be in a difficult position because producers in our region already have to pay higher royalties than anywhere else in this country. The situation in the Maritimes is not the same as in the rest of Canada, but the federal Government could not care less and does not even bother to consult us, and this is altogether unacceptable.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the proposed postal rate hikes for second-class mail pose a great threat to community newspapers and newsletters.
The publisher of one of the weekly newspapers in my riding told me his mailing costs will increase $3,000 next year if the proposal is passed. The Presbyterian Record, having contracted to a new printer, will lose its subsidized second-class status and be faced with increases totalling $17,000 monthly, or 400 per cent, with third-class service. The United Church Observer could also be looking at formidable postal increases which could have a devastating effect on this vital publication.
I advocate that Canada Post officials and the Government abandon the notion of cruel price hikes that threaten the
existence of Canada's news organs. It is wrong to offset the post office deficit by gouging those fragile businesses operating on their own shoe-string budgets.


FOOD IRRADIATION ALERT-CALL FOR LABELLING OF TREATED FOODS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, many people in my riding share concerns with the approximately 12,000 members of the Food Irradiation Alert. These people request an immediate moratorium on the sale of irradiated foods. They are concerned that irradiation is a byproduct of the nuclear industry and that it radically reduces essential nutrients in the products which have undergone treatment. The jury is still out on the questions asked about this process.
At the very least the Government must take responsibility for ensuring that consumers can know what they are buying. Therefore, I propose that any food irradiated food should be clearly labelled in such a manner as to indicate the purpose of the treatment; the dose or doses absorbed by the food; and the types of ionizing radiation source utilized in the process.
People have a right to know whether the food they buy is irradiated or not.


COMMUNISM
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, the media announced that the communist regime in Moscow is now allowing citizens to operate small businesses. Lenin, the great leader of socialists throughout the world, was wrong in 1928. We could say he was the grandfather of the 29 Canadian socialists here in the House today, Mr. Speaker. The message of this return to private enterprise is one that should be understood by our 29 socialist colleagues. It will not be long before the socialists of this House, who finance their party with donations from workers living under our strong capitalist system, will have to explain quite frankly why socialism does not work. Canadians will ask the Leader of the socialist party to clarify his position and they will insist on hearing the same message across this country. The same message for Quebec and Manitoba, for francophones and anglophones.
November 24, 1986


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) told chemical industry representatives that "we know virtually nothing about the health and environmental impact of 80 per cent of the 800 chemicals known to exist in the Great Lakes". At the same time the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) defended changes to the Patent Act on the basis that not changing the law would jeopardize the future of a great many young scientists.
If these two statements truly reflect the Government's concern, one wonders why it cancelled funding for the Toronto-Guelph Toxicology Centre that would answer questions about the 800 chemicals in the Great Lakes and would provide a future for young scientists. If the Government means business, it should reinstate the funds for the Toxicology Centre it cancelled in November, 1984. How else can we take seriously those two Ministers of the Crown?


UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER- CANADIAN PROPOSAL
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, the dispute with Americans on softwood lumber exports continues to occupy our thoughts and attention. The issue is still being decided through the required steps in the U.S. courts.
Because of the seriousness of the effect of the action taken by the United States lumber industry, it was necessary for the Governments of Canada, federal and provincial, to become involved. Thus the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), with the backing of provinicial Premiers, albeit one reluctant Premier, put forward a proposal to the U.S. Commerce Secretary that would result in an out of court settlement. This entails a commitment on our part to raise various fees to a 15 per cent rate equal to the assessment made earlier by the Department of Commerce.
I read in this morning's paper that U.S. Commerce Secretary Baidrige endorses this plan and will be taking it forward on our behalf to the U.S. lumber industry. We compliment the Minister along with the provincial Premiers for this proposal which we trust will lead to a solution for a most difficult problem.


NUMBER OF WOMEN IN TRAINING PROGRAMS
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, a recent study done by the Canadian Congress on Learning Opportunities for Women showed that between 1977 and 1985 the number of women in federal job-training programs dropped by 10 per cent. Short-term training programs under the Canada Jobs Strategy are not serving women adequately. The practice of contracting out training programs does not protect spaces for women, and it is a well-known fact that the training programs of employers favour men.
Immigrant and visible minority women, at their recent conference, repeatedly criticized the federal Government for not having more language and job-training programs combined with child care and counselling. Women from remote areas have little access to training or educational programs. Many women are trapped forever in low-paying and part-time jobs because of the requirement that they be unemployed and out of the labour force to qualify for training.
Token words spoken by First Ministers are not good enough. The Government must adequately fund relevant training for women, along with child care.


REFUGEES
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, again, as in 1979 during the turmoil in Iran, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) deserves our hearty congratulations. Through his sheer determination in dealing with a volatile geographical area of the world, he was successful in obtaining the release of five Soviet Army defectors from Afghanistan. This task was extremely complex since it involved overcoming overwhelming bureaucratic obstacles and the fact that no country wanted to assist them in crossing the border due to potential retaliation by the forces conducting an immoral war in Afghanistan.
These five defectors are solid proof that the Soviets are not succeeding in convincing even their own soldiers that this war is just. Their statements show the barbarity and brutality exhibited by the Soviets towards the Afghans in order to enforce the slavery that Communism brings to all the people it has touched. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has again shown the world that Canada will always assist those who seek freedom. We should all applaud his actions.

November 24, 1986


S.O. 21 INDUSTRY FUTURE OF SYDNEY STEEL CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today to condemn the Government's inaction on the future of the Sydney Steel Corporation. While the future of Sysco and the city of Sydney and the surrounding municipalities hangs in the balance, the Conservative Government drags its feet. This Government assured the people of Cape Breton that Sysco's future was not in doubt. But we all know now that Sysco's future is very much in doubt and the Government does nothing.
The Government of Canada, as the sole shareholder of Canadian National, could have ordered the railway to increase its orders of steel rail from Sysco and provide this mill with a long-term contract. As we all know, the Government has ignored its responsibility to the employees of Sysco, to the people of Sydney and the surrounding areas, and it has chosen to do absolutely nothing.
The Government has dragged its feet too long on assuring the second phase of the Sysco modernization program. It has failed to direct CN to live up to its responsibility as a federal Crown corporation to assist regional development. The people of Cape Breton will not soon forget the hollow Tory commitments on regional development.


PARLIAMENTARIANS GLOBAL ACTION-FIVE CONTINENT PEACE INITIATIVE
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, along with some of my House colleagues I recently participated in a parliamentary forum at the United Nations sponsored by Parliamentarians Global Action. This unique, non-partisan group of over 600 parliamentarians from 35 countries on all continents, has an unprecedented track record.
No NGO has ever been able to mobilize so quickly and so successfully the leaders of six nations, Mexico, Sweden, India, Greece, Tanzania, and Argentina, into the powerful force called "The Five Continent Peace Initiative" that now shapes public opinion on the need to focus more on disarmament and development in the world.
Professor J. K. Galbraith's plea that we bring the world military power into full, candid, and open discussion by focusing on arms buyers as well as arms sellers was echoed by Peru's Prime Minister and Vice-President, Dr. Luis Castro. Canada's Ambassador for Disarmament, Doug Roche, in an October 16 speech to the UN General Assembly, stated:
The current levels and trends in global military expenditures stand in sombre contrast to the state of the world economy.
I call on all parliamentarians and the Government to assist in the vital search for a solution to end the arms build-up.
God help us all if we fail!


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, at the First Ministers' Conference, and at a fund-raising affair in Calgary the other night, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) criticized the Premier of Manitoba and defended the indefensible decision to give the CF-18 contract to Montreal on the grounds that Manitoba had a low rate of unemployment.
If the Prime Minister applied that principle to other areas of Canada, northern Ontario could forget about getting any assistance because Toronto has a low rate of unemployment; rural Nova Scotia could forget about getting any Government assistance because Halifax has a low rate of assistance; and northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba would be in a similar situation because their cities have a low rate of unemployment. It is time for the Prime Minister to stop playing pork-barrel politics and treat all parts of Canada fairly.


CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE-GREY CUP FINALISTS- MEMBERS' WAGER
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I realize that it is against the Standing Orders to congratulate, so I will not congratulate the Hamilton Tiger-Cats on snatching victory from the jaws of defeat.
As I predicted last week, I have forced the Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) to eat his words, and to eat his bet. I wish to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that I have just sealed a deal today with the Member for Edmonton North, the former great football player-albeit for the wrong team- and I trust that I may break the Standing Orders and use his name-Mr. Steve Paproski. We have it on the line that Hamilton is going to take Edmonton this weekend. The Grey Cup convention will be the highlight of a fantastic weekend for the Liberals and for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 24, 1986


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Manitoba are very angry with the Government. I wish to read the letter of resignation from a member of the Tory Party, Mr. Douglas Broeska of Fort Garry. The letter is addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and it states:
Dear Sir,
I am deeply sorry to have to inform you of my resignation from the Conservative Party of Canada. In addition, I intend to discontinue any future support or involvement of myself and my company with Conservative Party
activities.
The blatant favouritism shown Canadair over Bristol Aerospace in the awarding of the CF-18 maintenance contract has shown the people of this country that the Prairies and Western Canada are effectively disenfranchised when it comes to making major development decisions.
It continues:
It is the reason that I hereby resign my Party membership and the basis on which I will work to defeat a Government which espouses such an unprincipled
policy.
Respectfully,
H. Douglas Broeska.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Now that the Canadian Government has buckled under once again to the United States, when is a final offer a final offer?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no buckling under of any kind. I assume my right hon. friend is referring to the lumber issue which is of such great importance to British Columbia, the province he represents. The position endorsed by the First Ministers was strongly endorsed by the Premier of British Columbia, the Government of British Columbia, and the Premier of Quebec, both of whom I believe control in excess of 80 per cent of the resource. The approach considered by the First Ministers is clearly in the national interest. We think that it will be of benefit to Canada-to British Columbia and to all other provinces.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister might forget that in citing some endorsement from some provinces, he is really saying that he yielded a purely federal matter in commerce and trade. He should be dealing
Oral Questions
with it on his own responsibility and on the responsibility of the Government of Canada.


CANADA'S ATTITUDE TOWARD UNITED STATES- CONSEQUENCES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that by giving in to the Americans on the lumber issue, he is now laying himself open to U.S. attacks on pulp and paper, steel, the Auto Pact, fish, grain and so many other Canadian products?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have not made any concessions whatsoever to the Americans. The approach formulated by the federal Government and supported by all provincial premiers who were seriously involved, including Premier Bourassa from Quebec and his active support, is one that the federal Government judged to be in the national interest. The procedure is an entirely normal and responsible one, and with it we hope to be able to resolve a very serious problem, a problem that cannot be solved by the partisan appeals my hon. friend is making.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell the House, in his obsessive pursuit of a free trade agreement with the United States, how far he is planning to go in selling out Canada? When will he begin to stand up for Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister for International Trade put forward for consideration following discussions-and it was a position endorsed by nine provinces, nine First Ministers-has the objective of wiping any negative decision of any precedent value from the books against Canada, of managing Canadian forest resources on exactly our own terms, and of keeping approximately $600 million per year in Canadians' pockets. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he should explain to Mr. Vander Zalm and the people of British Columbia why he is proposing a course of action which would put $600 million per year in American pockets. We are opposed to that.


TERMS OF CANADIAN OFFER
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. While we are on the topic of explaining things, would the Prime Minister be good enough to explain to the House what it is exactly that we are offering the Americans? What is in the deal? What is in the proposal? So far we have seen no terms. Is it a stumpage fee? Is it an export duty? What in fact is the Canadian Government offering as part of its concession to the United States?

November 24, 1986
Oral Questions
[DOT] (M20)


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in terms of offering concessions, what we are talking about is a matter that had been decided by an appropriate authority in the United States. They are saying that "if you want access to our markets, here is the price of poker." We contested that. We continue to contest it very vigorously.


David Orlikow: What is the price?


An Hon. Member:: Vigorously?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The cost of the original price of poker-very vigorously and very energetically.


Mr. Tobin:: Spoken like a wimp.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will realize that all Hon. Members in this Chamber have the right to be heard both when they are asking questions and when they are answering them. Comments such as I just heard do not make it easier for Hon. Members to do the task that is appointed to them. They lead to disorder in the Chamber. I would ask that all Hon. Members restrain themselves. The Hon. Prime Minister.


Martin Brian Mulroney: What is taking place, Mr. Speaker, as I say, with the endorsation of the First Ministers involved, is an approach designed to resolve a very complex matter in Canada's favour which would guarantee our ongoing access to the market. His Leader is briefing the Member. I will be happy to answer any further questions he may have.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, I would say to the Prime Minister that I think the matter has only been compounded in its confusion by his last statement.
You say you are negotiating on some kind of proposal-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: Pardon me. I will rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Prime Minister why it is that we are making an offer about which we do not know any of the details at the same time as the Prime Minister is saying that we are continuing to pursue the matter in front of the U.S. tribunals and the international tribunal. You cannot be proposing to negotiate a deal, and at the same time say that the deal is no good before a tribunal. You cannot contradict yourself continually this way. We would like to know what is it that you are doing. Are you trying to negotiate a deal or are you going to pursue the matter before those tribunals?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows very well that the last part of his question went well beyond what is the accepted standard. I know the Hon. Member wants to put his question with force, but I would remind the Hon. Member that the Chair has had to rise several times with respect to questions of
that sort. I know that the Hon. Member would please the House if he could put his questions with force and vigor, but I would ask that he be more careful about the use of the word you.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question, if 1 might. My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the Government now pursuing another final offer to the United States based upon imposing taxes here in Canada, or is it continuing to pursue the matter in the international tribunal and in the U.S. tribunals? What is it that the Government of Canada is proposing to do?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are seeking to reach agreement on an approach that will resolve a very complex matter in Canada's interest that will keep the $600 to $700 million a year in Canadian hands to be plowed back into, for example, the forestry in British Columbia as opposed to elsewhere.
My hon. friend refers to the question of contradictions in regard to trade negotiations. I refer to an analysis by Mr. Cohn of The Toronto Star in which he concludes:
Now, there are four Liberal positions on free trade: Johnston gung-ho for negotiations; Axworthy, calling for a moratorium; Gray, flat-out opposed. And then there is Turner ... If there is confusion about all the crossed signals-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the position of the Government of Canada. First the Minister for International Trade said there should be no bargaining because it would undermine our position which was before a tribunal. Then she undermined that by saying there would be a 10 per cent final offer. Then she went to a 15 per cent offer, and then at the First Ministers' meeting she announced there had been a deal with the Department of Commerce in the U.S. which was, within hours, denied by the Department of Commerce. Does the Prime Minister think the Government of Canada has any credibility left in terms of negotiating now?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the New Democratic Party will want to deal from objective facts. He says that the Minister announced a deal. The Minister did not announce a deal. The Minister announced agreement among us all on an approach to attempt to resolve-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Now it's an approach.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The sidekick of the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry-


Lloyd Axworthy: Be nice now.
November 24, 1986


Martin Brian Mulroney: -appears to be perplexed.


Lloyd Axworthy: Dalton Camp is going to get you.


Martin Brian Mulroney: May I refer to the statement made. It was: "We have agreed on a proposal. There is agreement on the approach that Canada has taken". Perhaps my hon. friend has not seen the text. It continues: "Until there is something signed there is no deal obviously".
We were seeking, very much in the national interest and very much in a mature and reasonable way, to obtain agreement on an approach which we believe, when negotiated with the United States, will be of great benefit to Canada, British Columbia, the producers, and the timber industry.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, half the country saw the news report of the Minister for International Trade announcing that there was agreement with the Department of Commerce. Within hours the Department of Commerce of the United States announced that there had been no deal established with the Government of Canada. That is the truth, no matter what the Government wants to say today.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows.
In the United States, the Department of Commerce and even major newspapers like The Los Angeles Times are against the position taken by the American lumber industry on this issue.
My question to the Prime Minister is therefore: Why is the Canadian Government supporting the U.S. industry?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is exactly the other way around.
The Government of Canada has agreed, for instance, to support the Government of Quebec, which manages this natural resource and which under another formula would have lost as much as $150 million per year. The Leader of the New Democratic Party supports a position that would cost the Government of Quebec between $100 and 150 million per year. That is totally unacceptable.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that if the Government of Canada spoke up with the traditional position taken by the Government of Canada, we could be winning that case in the international tribunals without costing Canadians one cent.


GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister in the House, and the Minister outside the House, have said today that no precedent is being set by this plea bargaining by the Government of Canada. The position which we have taken
Oral Questions
in the U.S. is now being considered there and is being appealed to GATT by the Government of Canada. Will the Prime Minister not acknowledge that by this constant plea bargaining we are undermining the future of several other sectors in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why my friend draws in words like "plea bargaining" which have pejorative connotations for other areas. There have been and always will be discussions on matters this complex. We are attempting to resolve the issue with conditions favourable to Canada, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and the other involved provinces.


Mr. Benjamin:: You just wrecked our case. I sure wouldn't hire you for a lawyer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: One of the NDP Members just said that the Government surrendered the case. Jack Munro, the President of the IWA in Vancouver, said on Friday that the Government was completely right on course and that he supported the initiative of the Government and that of the Government of British Columbia completely.


CANADIAN APPROACH
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the Prime Minister looks very much like a fellow who has fallen into quicksand and is foolishly trying to kick his way out. We all know what happens. Will he confirm whether he is telling the House of Commons that, contrary to statements made by the Minister for International Trade last weekend in Vancouver, in fact she has reached no agreement with Secretary of Commerce in the United States, Malcolm Baldrige? Will he also tell us why the Deputy Minister for International Trade, Mr. Gerry Shannon, is in Washington today trying to negotiate a deal that was announced last Friday by the Prime Minister and the Minister for International Trade?
Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for International Trade): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has his facts wrong. On Friday the Minister did not say there was an agreement with the United States. With your permission, let me quote the following:
Without committing himself to all the details involved, Secretary Baldrige informed Minister Carney that he endorsed such an approach-
That is what we are talking about, an approach to try to get out of this very difficult and complicated situation.


IMPACT ON HOUSING COSTS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister, who has now become the head waiter for the White House, compared to when he was head waiter to the provinces. Why did the Government of Canada not consult the forest

November 24, 1986
Oral Questions
industry in this country before taking this approach? The Government did not consult all the provinces in advance of Friday. Does the Government know what the impact of a 15 per cent increase in stumpage fees will be on the domestic housing industry in this country? Will it be inflationary?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, may I just say that it is better to be a head waiter than a dumb waiter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Brydon Foster: Pretty dumb answer.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Pretty dumb question.


UNITED STATES COUNTERVAIL DUTY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. On October 1 the Minister for International Trade made a 10 per cent out-of-court offer in relation to the duty. On October 16 the U.S. Department of Commerce came down with a 15 per cent preliminary ruling. On October 21 the Minister for International Trade said:
First, we will fight to reverse this verdict.
We then learned last Friday that 15 per cent will be the new top. There are more mixed signals than one would find in the backfield of the Toronto Argonauts.
Does the Prime Minister stand by what the Minister for International Trade said in Vancouver, that 15 per cent this time is the top, the final irreversible offer by the Government of Canada?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that these negotiations are taking place. An agreement was made between the provinces, which own the resources, and the federal Government on an approach to try to solve the problem. That is being undertaken right now.


SUBMISSION MADE TO GATT
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. On October 27 the Minister for International Trade said:
-we feel that this preliminary ruling by the U.S. Commerce Department has no basis in U.S. law, is badly flawed, and is inconsistent with the U.S. obligations under the GATT.
Will the Prime Minister and the Government continue this fight before GATT, or are we buckling under entirely?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the case before GATT is still going on at this time.


ANNOUNCED CLOSURE OF TERRACE BAY SAWMILL
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. This morning the president of Kimberly-Clark Canada called me to say that the sawmill at Terrace Bay, Ontario, was being closed. He said this is a direct result of the 15 per cent tariff. He also said that even if the 15 per cent were to be applied in a different way, as the Government has proposed in its approach to the Americans, sawmills all across northern Ontario would be closed and thousands of jobs would be lost. Why has he agreed to approach the Americans in this manner, rather than fighting that unfair 15 per cent, because we could have won?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that the Liberals brag that they got rid of the problem in 1983. The problem did not go away. It is still here. We are proposing to try to solve the problem once and for all so we do not have it hanging around.


STUMPAGE FEES-EFFECT ON NORTHERN ONTARIO
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that if the 15 per cent were to be applied to stumpage fees, it would mean a threat in northern Ontario not only to the lumber industry but to the production of pulp as well? Why has he decided to abandon northern Ontario? Is it because he knows he cannot hold on to those Tory seats anyway?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we are not abandoning northern Ontario.


B. Keith Penner: You are.


John Horton McDermid: We are not.


B. Keith Penner: You are.


John Horton McDermid: We are fighting on their behalf to preserve those jobs-


B. Keith Penner: You have abandoned northern Ontario.


John Horton McDermid: We are fighting to solve a very difficult problem that has been around for many years. The Hon. Member knows that.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North.
November 24, 1986


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On innumerable occasions, both inside and outside the House, he said that the results of the patent legislation which he has brought forward will not mean increases in the price of prescription drugs. On Friday he said that there is a worst case scenario in which this could very well happen. Given that the generic companies have said that this legislation will increase their prices very substantially, and that the provinces have said it will add millions of dollars to the cost of their pharmacare programs, what information does he have on the actual increases that will take place after this legislation is passed?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the answers to all those questions are contained in my speech to the House during second reading on Bill C-22 last Thursday. I remind the Hon. Member that that is probably the reason for Citation 359(12) in Beauchesne which states that questions should not be asked about subjects that are currently a matter of debate before the House.


EXTENSION OF PATENT RIGHTS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Minister also told journalists that the legislation was needed: "To quiet criticism from the U.S., Britain, France and other countries that Canada does not protect patents properly." Is the Government also extending the life of all patents from 17 to 20 years because it is afraid that we cannot have a patent policy of our own within the industrial property conventions we have already signed?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, again this is a good reason to get the Bill to committee. The effect of moving from 17 to 20 is no change. Twenty years comes into effect as soon as the patent is applied for, while previously it was after it was granted, which was three years. The 3 and 17 add up to 20, or no change.


AIR CANADA
Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Many retired Air Canada employees are concerned about the lack of information being made available to them on the excess funds in their pension plan. Will the Minister allay their concerns by asking Air Canada to provide them with full annual reports of the contributions made to their pension fund and ensure that
Oral Questions
the full amounts of the surplus funds be used for enhancing their pensions?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there is an annual report on the Air Canada pension fund and that report is made available to the pension committee. The pension committee includes representatives of management, employee groups, and retired employees. The report is not distributed but the information from it is available to all groups through their representatives on the committee. If anyone has any difficulty getting the necessary information, if they contact me I will personally see that they get it.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Over the weekend the Minister admitted what thousands of Canadians already know, namely that his Bill will have a direct impact on the price Canadians pay for drugs.
Since the Minister himself did acknowledge that it will have a very negative impact on the price of drugs in Canada, would he tell the House why he is not prepared to table forthwith the secret studies on drug prices? What does he have to hide?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am more than willing to have a complete discussion. That is why I am anxious for the debate to carry on so we can get the Bill to committee and have that discussion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for hoof and mouth disease on the weekend-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member, I am sure, would not want to proceed in that way. I know she will probably withdraw the remark.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the nomenclature.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister stated on the weekend that he was not going to give this information to the House because he did not want to provide "fodder" so the Opposition can "beat us over the head".

November 24, 1986
Oral Questions


John Barry Turner: Question.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Is that not just an admission that the facts in that secret study are so dangerous he does not even want them brought up on the floor of the House?


An Hon. Member:: Cover up.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am most anxious that all the facts be discussed. That is why I am asking the Hon. Member to urge her colleagues to help us take it to committee so we can study all those facts and she and her constituents can be aware that this is good legislation for Canada-


Jacques Guilbault: Table the stuff if it's that good.


Harvie Andre: -and it is going to generate thousands of jobs. It will provide a lot of research funds and is something the Hon. Member really ought to support.


CHILD CARE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who stated at the First Ministers' Conference that his commitment to a child care program is real and he is prepared to allocate substantial resources to this initiative. I commend him for that. In view of the urgent child care crisis right across Canada, will the Prime Minister allocate in the next Budget an emergency federal fund for child care services?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the commitment of the Government to child care is real and substantial. We have worked very closely with the provinces. The Minister of National Health and Welfare will be convening, I think in early January, a meeting of the appropriate Ministers to deal specifically with this issue.
It must be dealt with, as my hon. friend knows, jointly with the provinces, and the federal Government will be providing both leadership and resources to bring this about.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, we have a national case of child neglect in Canada. We need action now. It could take years to complete those negotiations.


REQUEST FOR $320 MILLION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Will the federal Government do what Katie Cooke advocated and allocate $320 million in the upcoming Budget and begin to deal with this emergency during the period when negotiations are going on with the provinces? We need to upgrade and extend child care services in the meantime.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is quite right when reference is made to the fact that this very important matter of child care has been neglected by the federal Government for years. That is an accurate statement.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What are you going to do about it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend will not have to wait for years to have this matter resolved.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: This Budget?


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is a priority for this Government and I hope for this House.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: This Budget?


Martin Brian Mulroney: On behalf of Canadian women, appropriate action will be taken.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the Government tells us the price of drugs may go up for provincial Governments and that is why there is $100 million allocated in the Bill-that is the cost of drugs-but the price of drugs will not go up for Canadian citizens. The Minister explains that difference by saying: "The truth lies in recognizing the difference between price and cost". That is about as clear as Milk of Magnesia. I would like to give the Minister an opportunity to explain in clear and simple English what he means when he says the cost of drugs may go up for the provincial Governments but the price of drugs will not go up for Canadians?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I sure wish the Hon. Member and his colleagues were willing to listen to that explanation.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Well?


Harvie Andre: If they were, they would help us take this Bill to committee so I could explain exactly that fact, and explain to Canadians, through the committee, how thousands of jobs are going to be created-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: -and the net benefits which will accrue to Canada as a result of this legislation.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Americans have persuaded the Government to increase the
November 24, 1986

price of drugs to Canadians. They have persuaded the Government to increase the price of lumber to Canadians. I ask the Prime Minister if the Government does not now agree that the cost of satisfying the Americans is too high a price for Canadians to pay?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I remind the Hon. Member again of what the Government he supported in June of 1983 said: "To generate further growth in this industry, the Government of Canada has decided to change the Patent Act to rebalance the 1969 policy". We are balancing the 1969 policy, carrying forward on the decision his Government had made.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's a set-up.


ALBERTA OIL COMPANIES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who said the other day in western Canada in response to cries for economic health: "Canada is much more important, much bigger than a cheque". It seems to me that westerners do not want a blank cheque, they want a pay cheque. Will the Prime Minister tell the House what he meant by that and what concrete action he proposes to take to help, for example, the small Canadian oil companies which are now going under in Alberta?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, for example, an indication of-


Mr. de Jong:: No!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Is that against the law, Mr. Speaker, what is going on over there?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: They are strong arming. They are not the
odd couple.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will agree that much goes on that is not against the law.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: If it is legal, so be it.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: He is getting adjusted, that is all.


Martin Brian Mulroney: In response to my hon. friend, what was intended was simply that, of course, the value of Canadian citizenship ought not to be measured by what Edmonton or Victoria "did for me yesterday". Canada is much more important than simply a balance sheet added up at the end of
Oral Questions
any given week. It is a question of our heritage and what we mean to one another and what regions can do for one another.
However, regarding illustrations of the kinds of actions on behalf of national unity, I think the position adopted by the Government of Canada, which was so strongly supported by the Government of British Columbia on Friday, is a clear indication, and getting rid of the PGRT in close co-operation with the Government of Alberta is also an indication of what we can do together.


SITUATION OF SMALL OIL COMPANIES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, getting rid of the PGRT really only helped the big American multinational oil companies, not the small Canadian companies. Will the Prime Minister tell us why it is Government policy, according to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that financially troubled Canadian oil companies are up for sale to foreign buyers? Is that not a step backwards and not really of any particular help to Canadian small oil producers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do, in concert with the Government of Alberta and the industry, is try to deal with the new situation-new this year-brought about by the calamitous decline, from a producing point of view, of prices in energy. That is a situation which did not obtain in 1984. It is a situation which did not obtain when we put together the Western Accord. The Western Accord was clearly beneficial because 1985 was a great year in terms of energy in western Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Tell that to the folks in P.E.I.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We now have new dimensions of a problem which we are going to have to work with very closely. I am hopeful we will be as successful in dealing with the new problem as we were when we came in and were able to negotiate the Western Accord.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment. Why was an untendered contract in the amount of $124,000 granted to Secor Inc. of Montreal to study youth unemployment when Claude Forget was a partner in that firm and had already been given a similar mandate as chairman of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance? And how was Secor able to produce its report on September 5, 1986, three days after it signed the contract? Who in Government approved of this wasteful and bizarre deal?
1454
[Stage Direction]
November 24, 1986
Oral Questions
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, it was agreed upon by myself with Mr. Gaucher and Mr. Wright that they needed an analysis done and not a report on very specific issues concerning youth. We have an ongoing agreement to share in this research. That is why it was done in this way. It was agreed upon to use Secor because of the expertise they knew was there, and Canada Consulting Group was also used for the basis of the analysis we now have at our disposal.


AWARDING OF CONTRACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, we already had the Senate Committee on Youth reporting in February, 1986. We had the President of the University of Waterloo given a similar mandate in March, 1986. How can the Minister justify the fact that he only approached one contractor when the Treasury Board policy states that when a contract is over $50,000 several contractors must be considered? How does he explain that?
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gaucher, Mr. Wright and myself agreed that this group was the best prepared. With respect to the very specific questions, we wanted it done rapidly at that time, which is a big difference between the way we operate and the way the previous Government operated. In March of 1983 the back-benchers of the Party of the Hon. Member signed a petition asking Cabinet for a military youth program, and in the same breath complained that the then Minister did not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONFLICT OF INTEREST INQUIRY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns a $124,000 contract given to Secor. Does the Minister not consider it a conflict of interest to give this contract to Secor when Claude Forget is the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry into Unemployment Insurance, which federal inquiry is making a major part of its study youth unemployment? Is it not a conflict of interest when a company in which he is a partner obtains a contract to study something he is already studying?
[ Translation]


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there is no conflict of interest since the Forget Commission does have a mandate to inquire into unemployment insurance. There is no connection, in my opinion. We do not feel that the fact that they belong to the
same company creates a conflict of interest, and this is why both studies can be made at the same time by the same company without raising the possibility of a conflict of any kind.


INQUIRY WHY COMMISSION USED UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUNDS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: So what is this all about, Mr. Speaker? The Commission also spent close to $2 million more than provided in the Budget. Can the Minister explain why the commission used unemployment insurance funds instead of general revenues? Why did the commission carry out its inquiry by spending the money of Canadian workers, men and women alike, instead of general revenues? What does the Minister have to say about that?


Benoît Bouchard: There are two questions, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the first one, the figures are false. We have spent, that is the Forget Commission so far has spent and will spend a maximum of $5.2 million. Its appropriations were in excess of $6 million, but they will not be totally expended; $5.2 million is the official figure.
Second, I already answered the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East concerning the use of Unemployment Insurance Commission Fund; there is a provision under which we are authorized to use the general fund, this is why we did just that, and everything is quite normal.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and deals with the pharmaceutical industry. In recent days, Quebecers have been very worried by the negative attitude of the leader of the Socialist party, who is making every effort to prevent a job-creating pharmaceutical industry from locating in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, this massive and negative movement of Socialists against Quebec is of concern to us and I would like to ask the Minister to reassure my friends in Quebec.


Harvie Andre: First, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Levis for asking this question. The Bill introduced in the House three weeks ago is good for Canada and for Quebec. Indeed, pharmaceutical companies have already announced several investments in Quebec. We expect this bill to produce over $600 million in Quebec.
November 24, 1986


UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER-GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr,
Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It concerns the softwood lumber issue. I wish to quote for the Prime Minister comments made by the director of the Maritime Lumber Bureau who said:
I'm horrified that the Government would go over our heads to make this deal when the industry has spent $ 10 to $ 12 million fighting this thing, and was on the way to a decent settlement-
I ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister where was the consultation with the industry, the people who are so desperately affected by this particular move by the Government of Canada? Has the Prime Minister abandoned consultation with the industry with regard to a very important issue, the softwood lumber issue?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, not at all. Consultations on this particular subject have gone on over a great number of months with the industry and the unions. As the Prime Minister said today, the unions are solidly behind this decision, this approach which we are taking with the United States.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member, he is not a head waiter, he is not a dumb waiter. He is like the Prime Minister; he is a dumb head waiter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member will recognize that that is probably not necessary. Will he proceed and use more appropriate language, please?


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, if he has guts enough to stand in his place and answer questions in the national interest.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Native people in Canada have been waiting for some time for a reaffirmation of the commitments the Prime Minister gave them during the early
Oral Questions
months of his mandate. He now has that opportunity with the introduction of a policy on comprehensive claims to Cabinet. Will the Prime Minister stand up in the House and answer the native people of Canada by providing a statement that his Government will indeed bring in a policy that provides for the fair and equitable settlement of comprehensive claims?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, to reiterate a point which I think has been made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, may I say to the Hon. Member that he in fact does take this whole question very seriously. He is working very hard in terms of the comprehensive land policy. We expect that progress will be made.


GOVERNMENT FUNDING
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that an under-funded policy could lead to costly court settlements and undoubted damage to the social fabric of Canada, will the Minister of Justice assure the House and the native people of Canada that the policy will be funded so that claims can be settled fairly with all the resources necessary for that settlement?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, no one can doubt the hard work that my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is putting into this particular endeavour. I simply want to reassure the Hon. Member and the House that this is a matter which the Government takes seriously in conjunction with other matters affecting the aboriginal people of Canada. I can tell the Hon. Member that when the policy has been determined and the consultations have been carried out it will be one which he will be happy to support.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. There is a growing concern that some of Canada's top athletes are leaving the country to attend schools in the United States on athletic scholarships. Will the Minister tell the House what he is doing, what efforts he is making to keep our young and talented athletes at home in Canada?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a problem that is of great concern to many Canadians. That is why some time ago I initiated discussions with interested parties, including the provinces, with a view to developing a scholarship program. I am glad to report that recently the CIAU has supported this

November 24, 1986
Patent Act
initiative and principle. As a result, the former President of York University, Dr. Ian MacDonald, has accepted the role of co-ordinating our efforts to come up with some resolutions and suggestions which we hope to start implementing as early as next year.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. However, in his absence I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
On February 26 of this year speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada with regard to the sale of Mitel to British Telecommunications the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion stated:
Jobs will be preserved as a result of this transaction as Mitel's manufacturing as well as research and development activities will continue to be carried out in Canada.
What safeguards to back up this commitment of the Government of Canada were placed on the conditions of the sale of Mitel to British Telecommunications?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion I would say that I know he and members of the Government recognize the unfortunate situation that has occurred with respect to Mitel. I can also tell the Hon. Member that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is looking into the matter and in fact is checking out the commitments under the safeguards to which the Hon. Member referred.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TABLE DOCUMENTS CONCERNING SALE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, will the Government undertake to table in the House of Commons today the details of the sale of Mitel to British Telecommunications so that Canadians can find out what provisions, if any, were made to keep this research and development and these jobs in Canada?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question under advisement. I think the Hon. Member would know that documents which would pertain to commercial confidences would have to be excluded, but I will certainly undertake to look into that and report back to the Hon. Member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Government deserves the congratulations of the House and the Canadian people for having successfully achieved the freedom of the Soviet prisoners from Afghanistan.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Douglas McCurdy: However, my question is the far more serious one of the freedom of the people of Afghanistan. What steps has the Government taken to obtain the removal from Afghanistan of the Soviet Union military which has imposed upon those people a dictatorship of foreigners, freedom from which should be achieved by the participation of all free countries in the world?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that Canada took a very strong stand against the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and took very strong measures to demonstrate that. It was under the leadership of the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, and I think she deserves to be fully commended for that initiative.
The passage of time has not diminished our resolve with regard to the unacceptability of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We are also very deeply concerned about the massive violation of human rights and are doing everything in our power not only to facilitate an end to the war that is taking place but particularly to deal with the area of human rights. I join with the Hon. Member in congratulating all those who were involved, including the Kingston Whig-Standard, the Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and indeed the entire Department of External Affairs, in the latest very bold initiative.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-22, an Act to amend to Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be read a second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mrs. Killens (p. 1378).
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at one o'clock, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) had the floor.
November 24, 1986


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted at one o'clock, I had been referring to the Eastman Report. 1 would like to put before the House some of the points made by the Eastman Commission regarding the drug industry in Canada.
First, with regard to the growth in profits in the drug industry since the 1969 amendment, Dr. Eastman says-Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have some order?


Mr. Speaker:: I know all Hon. Members will want to hear the remarks of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands (Mr. Manly).


James Douglas Manly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Regarding the growth in profits in the drug industry since the 1969 amendments, Professor Eastman has said:
An overall summary of the comparison of the growth and development of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada relative to that of the United States yields the straightforward conclusion that growth has been more buoyant in Canada than it has been in the United States since 1967.
That statement appears on page 65 of the report. On page xix, Professor Eastman said:
Compulsory licensing has not had a discernible negative impact on the profitability and rate of growth of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada as a whole.
Looking at the question of employment in the drug industry since the amendments were made in 1969, Professor Eastman, as recorded on page xix of the report, said:
Turning to employment, it turns out that total employment in Canada between 1967 and 1982 rose by 28.8 per cent whereas in the United States it grew 22.6 per cent; the number of production employees in Canada rose by 29.9 per cent and in the United States by 13.2 per cent.
One could ask if all this growth and employment occurred as a result of the generic drugs taking business away from patentholding companies, and the answer is no. Again, on page xix, Professor Eastman has said:
The growth in the industry in Canada is not dominated by the growth of the generic sector. In 1969 the number of employees in the industry was 12,645, few of whom were in generic firms. In 1982, the employment was 15,707 of whom approximately 1,300 were employees of generic firms.
In other words, the vast majority of employees in the Canadian drug industry were not employed by generic firms and the growth itself was not at the expense of employment in patent-holding pharmaceutical companies.
One could ask whether or not the major pharmaceuticals were suffering unduly from this. Professor Eastman is very clear about that. On page 274 of the report, he said:
In spite of (several problems in making cross-country comparisons), the data- suggest at the very least that pharmaceutical operations in Canada are no less profitable than they are in the other countries in which these multinational corporations operate.
I believe these statements illustrate very conclusively that the 1969 amendments to the Patent Act benefited the Canadian people, benefited employment in Canada's pharmaceutical industry and did not impact unfairly on the major pharmaceutical companies.
Patent Act
Just to give the House an idea of how important the 1969 amendments were to the Canadian people, in 1983 alone, some $211 million was saved by Canadian consumers who were able to purchase generics rather than higher priced brand-name drugs.
In an article of June 23, 1986, The Ottawa Citizen published results of a survey which sampled some 20 drugs used to treat such diseases as diabetes, anxiety, insomnia, arthritis and urinary problems. Of the 20 drugs surveyed, 15 were available in generic form. The survey showed that the purchase of 1,000 units of each of these 15 drugs would cost on average $42.41 for the generic Canadian drugs; $83.49 for the generic American equivalents; $137.71 for the brand Canadian equivalents; and a staggering $349.80 for the brand American equivalents.
Whether we are comparing Canadian generics with American generics or Canadian generics with Canadian brand names or Canadian brand names with American brand names, the results are the same and are very conclusive. The 1969 drug legislation which made changes to the Patent Act was very beneficial for Canadian consumers.
These are the changes that the present Government wants to rescind. It wants to turn back the clock to the pre-1969 situation when Canada was paying the highest, or the second highest drug prices in the industrialized world, instead of in the present situation where we are paying perhaps the second lowest.
We have tried to get information from the Government as to what the increased costs to consumers will be. The Government has refused to release any studies, citing reasons of confidentiality. A study that was done by Currie Coopers & Lybrand, a respected accounting firm, shows that by 1995 Canadians will be paying some $650 million a year more than they are now paying for their drugs, if this legislation goes through.
The Bill before us gives the pharmaceutical companies 10 years of protection from any generic equivalents. Not only that, it is retroactive to include drugs that are already in the pipeline. Generic companies are working at present to try to get on the market their generic products equivalent to those brand name drugs. Drugs that are presently in the pipeline will be adversely affected.
How the Minister can maintain that this is not going to cost one cent more, that there is not going to be one cent of price increase, is something that the average Canadian will not accept. Even the present generics will cost more. Last week Luciano Calenti, the Chairman of the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association stated:
Generic drug companies will have no choice but to raise prices because of the Government's new drug patent legislation.
The Government uses three justifications for bringing in this legislation. The first is perhaps the most basic. It is what the

November 24, 1986
Patent Act
Government calls the intellectual property argument. It sees patents as a form of intellectual property. The Minister in his speech defending the legislation appealed to a centuries-old tradition. There are also centuries-old traditions where knowledge is to be used for the benefit of all humankind, not just the personal advantage of the people who developed it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Douglas Manly: I wish to remind the House that no property rights are absolute, whether they are intellectual property rights, or not. This summer when I returned to my place in British Columbia I found that the Department of Highways had driven stakes through my property because it thinks that it might want to build a highway there. My property rights are subject to considerations of the public good.
That is also true in terms of intellectual property. There is a great need for the Government to maintain some level of control in this area. For example, research that has been done by the Imperial Oil Company of Canada does not belong to the Imperial Oil Company of Canada. It belongs to the parent company. The idea of intellectual property can be used for syphoning intellectual research results away from Canada down to the headquarters of multinationals in the United States or elsewhere.
What are the rules for intellectual property regarding drugs? Even the present legislation acknowledges that there are some limitations. The present Patent Act provides for a two-year protection period. The Government legislation states that there will be a 10-year protection period. Even the Government's own legislation acknowledges that there are limits to the concept of intellectual property rights. These limits have to be very clearly stated. They have to be made in the interests of the Canadian people. The multinationals have known what the rules have been since 1969. They have been prepared to come into Canada under those rules, and they have been able to make money under those rules. I do not feel that the justification of property rights stands up-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has more than expired.
Do we have questions and comments?


Mr. Greenaway:: Mr. Speaker, before lunch the Hon. Member gave us a litany of items about the present Government, what it had accomplished and what it had not accomplished. One of the things that the Hon. Member said was that we had gutted the National Energy Program. As a western Member, I was wondering if the Member or his Party was in favour of the National Energy Program?


James Douglas Manly: The position of our Party on the National Energy Program is very well known to the Hon. Member. We supported some aspects of it, and we opposed other aspects of it. The part that the Government did away with that I am particularly concerned about was the back-in provisions, where
Canadian people have supported exploration and drilling through their taxes.
On the basis of that, we believe that the Canadian people, through their Government, should have the right to a certain percentage of the resources that were found as a result of that exploration. The Government has done away with that. That was another example of caving in to the United States, which was not in the interests of the Canadian people. I am sure that the Hon. Member would agree with me.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: No, I do not agree you. I was wondering if you consider that that one item justified gutting the whole program?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Members address their questions and comments through the Chair, please.


James Douglas Manly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to do that.
Certainly the back-in provision, as far as we were concerned, was one of the most important aspects of the National Energy Policy. I will concede to the Hon. Member that the Liberal Government, before this one, had already gutted its own National Energy Program when it did not include strong Canadian content regulations, regulations that would have made it the type of National Energy Program we on this side could have supported 100 per cent. But the elimination of the back-in was a very serious mistake on the part of this Government.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the member of our caucus who was speaking earlier was making an excellent speech as to why he was opposed to the legislation which is being shoved down the throats of Canadians, especially those who are really suffering because of the already fairly high drug costs. This legislation will increase drug costs, especially for the elderly. The Member had one or two more remarks to make. May he finish his speech and explain exactly why he is opposed to this legislation.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of other points that the Government has given as justification for this legislation. The first is that there would be a prices review board to monitor prices. The Government states that even if prices go up, there is the prices review board. Everybody in the House, including the Members opposite, know what this Government's attitude is toward such a mechanism as a prices review board. They regard that as the very essence of unnecessary regulation. We saw this Government going around the country during the last election campaign making promises that it was going to be deregulating. It is bringing in legislation to deregulate the whole transport area. Do we have any confidence that it will bring in a prices review board that is going to have any real teeth, that is going to be able to take hold and say to these pharmaceutical companies, "Your prices are too high. We are going to cut them down". That is not the style of this Government. It does not believe in that approach
November 24, 1986

to regulation. It believes in deregulation and letting the market decide.
The second thing, Mr. Speaker, is that they have been promising a number of research jobs. There are no commitments in this legislation, and there have been no real commitments that are ironclad which have been given by the pharmaceutical companies. There have been a number of promises. We hear about all the possible research jobs for young Canadians coming out of college. But we have seen what the action of this Government has been in the last few weeks. It has been cutting research jobs, and slashing the National Research Council. We have no confidence whatever in its whole research policy.
I would simply urge Members opposite to think of what is in the best interests of their constituents. The fact is that their constituents will be paying higher drug prices. Provinces will pay more for pharmacare programs. This Bill is not in the interests of Canadians. It is not in the interests of their constituents. I urge them to send a message to Cabinet to withdraw the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the time provided for questions and comments has now terminated.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the new patent policy tabled in the House by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) aims to achieve several objectives. One is to make Canada's pharmaceutical industry into a first-rate innovative sector by substantially increasing investment in research and development.
Today, Canada's position in drug research is not a particularly enviable one. In fact, we spend relatively little in this field, compared to other countries. Canada ranks far behind the United Kingdom, Switzerland and the Federal Republic of Germany, while Japan, the United States and Italy are also ahead of Canada in the amount of money they spend on research. The kind of research done in Canada in the pharmaceutical sector is not considered basic research. It is mainly pharmaceutical formulation involving clinical research only.
The reason is the climate of uncertainty and hostility that has prevailed in Canada since 1969, when a system of compulsory licences for importing active ingredients was introduced. Brand companies had no guarantee as to the period of protection they could expect for products patented in Canada. Developing a new drug is laborious and risky. Sometimes it takes as long as ten years, while the financial investment is considerable, between $50 and $100 million. In this country, as soon a product had substantial commercial potential, it could be copied by a manufacturer of generic equivalents without the brand company receiving adequate compensation for its risktaking and the considerable investment made. This unfair
Patent Act
situation has been criticized both nationally and internationally, Canada being the only industrialized country that puts restrictions on intellectual property.
The amendments to the Patent Act will change that. The new policy will encourage research by broadening patent protection. The potential for expanding research in the Canadian pharmaceutical sector is considerable. Our new policy will lead to unprecedented growth in R&D investment in Canada.
Drug manufacturing companies have formally agreed to boost their research and development outlays, which now amount to 4.9 per cent of their sales. They will go up to 8 per cent by 1990 and 10 per cent by 1995. In other words, implementing our current policy will double these investments, $1.4 billion more over the next decade. Since last June only, over-all investments announced from coast to coast are roughly $647.6 million.
In addition, Hon. Members should note that these investments will put Canada in the same league as Japan, the United States and Italy with respect to expenditures for drug research in terms of percentage of sales.
We also made it clear to the companies that they will be expected to concentrate their efforts in both clinical and basic research. This might be the appropriate time to point out that our definition of research and development is consistent with that of the Income Tax regulations. More research spells more benefits, and it has been estimated that this will create more than 3,000 jobs for Canadians.
Our graduates will have challenging employment opportunities, and their scientific and technical know-how will be a source of lasting benefits to all of us.
Universities, hospitals and private research institutions also stand to gain from increased research. Everything indicates that these institutions can expect to receive up to 30 per cent or $420 million of higher research and development outlays.
The new policy will be a boon to all regions of Canada, not only to Quebec and Ontario. Companies doing research have been encouraged to have more of their work done by universities and hospitals throughout the country.
As I have already mentioned, these installations will get over $400 million more. For instance, it was recently announced that research investments in British Columbia would increase from $1.5 million to $15 million by 1995 as a result of the amendments to the Patent Act.
I should add that the Medical School of the University of British Columbia and its affiliated university hospitals will be the main beneficiaries of these investments. In Alberta, the Bio-Mera research company in Calgary and other firms in Edmonton will also benefit.
Medically, the increase in research will have immeasurable benefits. First, there is the medical knowledge that our researchers will acquire through analysis and tests on drugs. This knowledge will lead to the discovery of new drugs and to

November 24, 1986
Patent Act
the development of better pharmaceutical products. For instance, treatment for cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, and so on, could become quicker, better and less expensive. In fact, this will mean an improvement in the health of all Canadians. Greater medical knowledge and better quality drugs should also make our medicare system more efficient. In the long term, hospitalization costs should also go down.
The promotion of pharmaceutical research will put Canada in the forefront. Canada will no longer be considered a place where there are only clinical tests and virtually no fundamental research. Canadian companies will receive more encouragement to undertake all stages of research leading to the marketing of a new product.
Mr. Speaker, for over a year, editorial writers throughout Canada have written often and well in support of this new legislation.
On May 25, 1985, Frederic Wagniere wrote an article entitled "The Social Usefulness of Patents" in the newspaper La Presse which said the following:
It is just as certain that the Canadian legislation which has allowed this imitation since 1969 penalizes pharmaceutical companies which carry out or used to carry out research in Canada. But the return to an adequate protection of patents would not necessarily affect consumers negatively: a dynamic Canadian pharmaceutical industry, at the forefront of progress, would certainly be an excellent guarantee against the constant increase in medical costs.
And Mr. Wagniere to conclude:
When making his decision, the Minister will have to take into account the interests of consumers on the one hand, and those of a major industry on the other. These interests are not incompatible; but the industry must regain strength and enjoy the same protection as its competitors in all the other countries. The Government must be able to curb the abuses of this protection, but a few cases of abuse should not warrant striking a death-blow to an industry.
In the February 26, 1986, issue of the Ottawa Le Droit daily newspaper and under the headline: Our scientists are crying for help, Alain Dexter wrote:
Canada is the only country in the free world to have legalized this type of practice which is nothing but a form of piracy.
He wrote further:
A number of Ontario and Quebec scientists, including famous endocrinologist Dr. Michel Chretien, from the Clinical Research Institute of Montreal, have denounced Bill C-102 which gave rise to the generic drugs industry. According to Dr. Chretien, experience has shown that the legislative action taken in 1969 to create competition in the drug industry has mostly discouraged research, forcing a number of our most prominent pharmacologists to move to the United States.
And the editorialist to conclude:
At the same time, Canada has lost nearly 2,800 highly specialized jobs. In the area of pharmaceutical research, we have now the status of a banana republic of an Eastern country. Our scientists are perfectly right to be crying for help.
On March 25 last, even before the previous minister, Hon. Michel Cote, introduced his bill in the House, Albert Juneau wrote in Le Devoir newspaper:
Has the time finally come to put an end to one of the most costly and absurd liberalities Canada has allowed itself over the past few decades? Since 1969, there is no longer in Canada any patent rights on pharmaceutical products.
Canada is the only OECD country not to guarantee such rights. Everywhere else, pharmaceutical discoveries are protected for a period of at least 17 years.
Mr. Juneau continued:
The impact of the Patent Act is mainly being felt in research centres. There is no incentive for large corporations to invest in research and have research teams, knowing that they have no guarantee of recouping their costs. In that context, what can be the future of a University of Montreal graduate in Canada if research opportunities are greatly reduced by legislation and competition that is really unfair?
He concludes with the following:
The unreasonable giveaways in the current legislation have led to one of the rare unanimous motions being passed in the Quebec National Assembly. On two occasions, in June 1984 and in the summer of 1985, both parties in the Assembly called for an amendment to the federal legislation that would offer better protection to the drug industry. Canada cannot afford to hand out any favours to competing countries. The federal Government must restore a situation that was totally jeopardized by an untimely intervention.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but let me quote the Canadian pharmaceutical industry which says:
For the benefit of Canadians.
Canada has everything to gain from a renewed policy that would better recognize patent rights on drugs. The long-term benefits to consumers, derived from better incentives to do research, exceed any savings gained on generic drugs; such savings are deceitful, because they are of a temporary nature and on a very short-term.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude with a final quote from Ottawa's Le Droit of November 19, 1986, which is very recent. Under the headline "It was about time", columnist Alain Dexter wrote:
The Mulroney Government took courageous action when it introduced a bill aimed at returning to the drug industry which is investing in research and development the ownership that was taken away from it by the previous Liberal Government, allegedly to prevent a sharp rise in drug prices in Canada.
And Mr. Dexter adds:
There is nothing exaggerated in speaking about the courage of the Mulroney Government. Indeed, we believe the opposition will jump at this opportunity to take it to task immediately there is the smallest price increase on the drug market. Such a behaviour would be really demagogic because such a bill as presented by the Government could not possibly have a conclusive effect on prescription drug prices before a few years down the road. And even if it were to happen, the Patented Medicine Price Review Board provided for in this Conservative legislation would have a power of intervention that nobody could ignore.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by pointing out that we are eager to proceed as early as possible with the debate in committee where all parties involved may state theirs views on the bill which we feel is of the utmost importance.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. parliamentary secretary for rising to speak. She has been the second member on the Government side to speak on this Bill and we expect that others like her will have the guts to rise and explain the reasons for this Bill to the Canadian people. This is in fact why I would like to discuss this matter briefly with her. We know that the Eastman report clearly states about compulsory licencing, and I quote on page 259:
The profitability of pharmaceuticals clearly exceeds that for all manufacturing industries.
That is a fact. Drug companies make more money than the average industrial company. This is what the Eastman report says elsewhere:
November 24, 1986

Compulsory licencing has not had a discernible negative impact on the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada.
In other words, the generic drug industry has had no negative impact on the drug industry in Canada. This is the Eastman Commission speaking, not me.
We also know, Mr. Speaker, that 4 million Canadians are not covered by a private or Government medical insurance plan. Not just a few, but 4 million people! They are not protected against the price increases which we expect to result from this new legislation. More important, Mr. Speaker, generic drugs have helped Canadian consumers save some 211 million dollars. Ironically enough, the U.S. Government, which knows very well that our present drug system in Canada may be one of the best, one of the most competitive and one of the fairest in the world, presently is reviewing our system and considering implementing our methods in the United States where the price of drugs is terribly high, as we all know.
My question to the parliamentary secretary is very simple. Given the three or four arguments I just mentioned which, although not necessarily related, have an impact on the Canadian consumer, and considering that the Minister-and this is the subject of my question-has been repeating for a week that the cost of drugs will go up but not the price to the consumer, I would like the parliamentary secretary, who knows the Department well and is speaking on behalf of the Minister, to explain to us, during the few minutes remaining, how the Minister and the Government can say to Canadians that the cost will rise, but not the prices? How can we reconcile, in plain language, this apparent contradiction?


Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister has been saying since the beginning is that the price of drugs will not increase as a result of this Bill. Naturally, if there is some inflation and if all prices go up, the price of drugs might follow, but it will not be because of this Bill.
Secondly, a prices review board will monitor all drugs sold in Canada. You mentioned the percentage of Canadians not covered by a plan that will have to pay, or already pay, for their drugs. We have statistics showing that 85 per cent of the population is covered by Government or private pharmacare plans.
I have difficulty understanding the opposition to this Bill, especially from the Liberals, considering that in their days, in 1983, they published a working paper, probably under pressure from the phamaceutical companies, where they proposed changes to the Patent Act in order to promote investment and research.
In the working paper he signed, Andre Ouellet, the then Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, said: "In order to speed up the development of this industry, the Canadian Government has decided to modify the Patent Act in such a way as to counterbalance the policies adopted in 1969". Even though the minister had decided in 1983 to amend the act, the Liberals never had the political gut to go through with those changes. Mr. Ouellet also said in that same working paper
Patent Act
that: "The capacity to invest more into research and development seems to remain the privilege of patent holding companies. The provisions to extend the patent ownership protection period could be more favorable in that regard."


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is true that in 1983 the Hon. Andre Ouellet tabled a discussion paper to have the whole issue examined. It is also true that following that, the Eastman Commission was appointed to inquire into the problem and submitted its report. My position is not that the issue should not be examined, but I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the problem is the following: in 1968, before amendments to the Patent Act were introduced, drug prices in Canada were among the highest in the world. Drugs were very expensive. Ever since we introduced amendments to the Patent Act, we have enjoyed in Canada the lowest drug prices in the world. So there is a connection between those two facts, there certainly have been downward pressures since, according to statistics, we now have drugs at the lowest prices and of equal if not higher quality than those of many other countries. Here is my question to the Parliamentary Secretary: How can she reconcile the fact, as has been confirmed, that our drug prices are now among the lowest in the world with the fact that those costs were among the highest before the introduction, in 1969, of legislation to amend patents? How can she acknowledge those facts and claim today that, although she will give in to drug companies and eliminate competition from generic manufacturers, we will maintain for sick or old Canadians a price system that is fair, equitable and reasonable?


Gabrielle Bertrand: In my view, one does not exclude the other, Mr. Speaker. We can still have very low cost drugs, as we presently have, the only change being that it will take longer for generic drugs to reach the market than at present. It takes approximately 10 years for generic drug manufacturers to put a product on the market, and the protection we are extending to pharmaceutical firms is 10 years. Therefore, there will be no change.
Now, you said that Canadian drugs prices are the lowest in the world. Good for us! But since the 1969 Act was passed, drug companies have left the country, scientists have gone and our young university graduates cannot find research jobs. I therefore believe that we can accomodate all these interests, those of researchers, scientists as well as university graduates, and at the same time, through a price review board mechanism which has never existed before, control the prices of generic drugs and other products.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) a further short supplementary in order to maintain continuity.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Just a short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has just said,

November 24, 1986
Patent Act
would she once in committee accept an amendment which would freeze prices at their current level precisely in order to maintain this fairness, this profitability, this quality that Canadian plans have of being cheaper than those existing in other countries? Would she accept an amendment in that regard that would freeze prices at their current level?


Gabrielle Bertrand: This debate deals with second reading; once we get to committee stage, there will be ample time to discuss it.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Government has spent a considerable amount of time trying to convince the people of Canada that there will be no increase in the cost of drugs. That statement has been made on many occasions by Government Members. Would the Parliamentary Secretary explain why the Government is paying $25 million per year to the provinces as a result of this Bill? Why are the multinational drug corporations guaranteeing Canada a couple of million dollars if there will be no increase in their profits?


Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, since the provinces buy 60 per cent of our medical products, they obviously are the largest buyers in Canada and they set the parameters of the plan that covers their clientele. Therefore they will have to readjust their procedures. There will really be some change in the way they do the distribution. So this could bring about some additional costs. That is why the Government has provided for that cushion, in proportion to the population in each province, in case it should cause any additional costs to the provincial Governments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and remarks is now over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle) has the floor.

The period for questions and comments is now terminated. [Translation]


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull-Aylmer):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-22, a very important Bill whose purpose is to amend the Patent Act. Since I have practised medicine for nearly forty years, the subject is of particular interest to me because it directly concerns the physician's main tool, the pharmaceutical industry, and indirectly, the patient or consumer.
This very important question demands close scrutiny because the issue is a complex and difficult one. Discussion and debate on the subject has been going on for nearly twenty years, and as you know, no other industry has ever had such a powerful lobby in the corridors of Parliament. I think the pharmaceutical industry has been lobbying quite ferociously, but as a good politician, I will refrain from rhetoric and concentrate on the facts.
To understand the general characteristics of an industry that is indeed unique, I think it would be useful to outline briefly what the pharmaceutical industry actually is. First of all, throughout the world, the industry is heavily multinational in character. The major companies in countries which have no or hardly any domestic drug industry are American, European or Japanese. That is the case in Canada, for instance, where 84 per cent of our drugs are made by foreign-controlled companies, mainly American. Actually, there have been no major changes since 1970, when this percentage was 87 per cent.
The multinational character of the industry has been furthered from the fact that the world demand for most drugs can be met by the production of only a few plants. The chemical components of a drug are generally produced in a single plant located not far from the headquarters of the multinational company to benefit from substantial savings in the areas of production, research, development and quality control.
Another factor which promotes the development of a multinational industry is the fact that there are two phases in drug production, the synthesis and chemical composition, and the blending of the components to manufacture the final product.
The last stage of manufacture, the blending phase, is generally carried out by a subsidiary of the multinational in the country where the final product will be sold. This allows the multinational company, through its subsidiary, to benefit from existing tariff protection in that country.
It can be said that the pharmaceutical industry is characterized by a lack of competition. Indeed, there is relatively little competition, especially as far as prices are concerned.
The control pharmaceutical companies have on prices results partly from the importance of the Patent Act for this industry.
As we all know, in Canada, the Patent Act generally grants an exclusivity period of 17 years. The exclusivity period of the patent allows the inventor to recover his research and development costs and to make substantial profits as a reward for his innovation. The American companies which dominate the Canadian pharmaceutical industry rose to their position on the Canadian market by obtaining Canadian patents equivalent to those which gave them the monopoly for their products on the American market.
The practice of granting patents associated with a period of exclusive right to commercialize an innovation is common throughout Canada as it is in all industrialized nations. However, the pharmaceutical industry is in a somewhat special situation in this respect because such patents would provide a monopoly for the production of goods which could influence the health of consumers. The establishment of public health insurance plans in Canada during the 1960s has helped spread the notion that health goods and services should be accessible
November 24, 1986

to all at reasonable prices. Moreover, when it became common practice to reimburse the costs of medicine through public health insurance plans, the need to maintain reasonable prices for drugs became a major concern of the various Governments and the general public. We know that 60 per cent of total spending for medicine is taken on by the provinces through Medicare.
When pharmaceutical companies compete for the production and marketing of similar therapeutic products, the competition is not at the level of prices but mostly in the differentiation of their products. This is due in part to the fact that the Canadian patents legislation grant patents on the process used to make the drugs and not on the drugs themselves. This could result in research and development expenses which are hardly productive socially since they often result in production of drugs which are essentially identical. These drugs are sold at prices which are by and large the same, in view of the fact that companies compete only at the marketing level. To grant a patent on a process rather than on a product, as is the situation in the pharmaceutical industry in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and which the Eastman Commission wanted to change, at least in its recommendations, is largely useless in an industry where new processes do not translate into lower prices. The lack of competition in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry results also from structural characteristics of the prescription drug market. First of all, for a number of reasons the demand for drugs does not fluctuate along with prices. When a physician writes a prescription he does not take the price into account since he is not the one who will buy the prescribed drug. In addition, the consumer, patient or beneficiary-to be quite clear, let us say the person who is sick-who is buying the prescribed drug does so under relatively urgent circumstances which make prices almost irrelevant in the sense that it is a matter of health. On top of this we developed private and/or public health insurance plans which freed the consumer from undue concern about the price of drugs since they were covered under such plans.
Mr. Speaker, this is the general characteristic of the drug industry which I have just mentioned.
As we have pointed out, Bill C-22 would amend the Patent Act, more specifically section 41(4) of the Act.
Section 41(4) allows generic drug manufacturers to market copies of patent drugs provided they pay a 4 per cent royalty to the manufacturer of the registered brand. This is a major exception to the Patent Act. As you know, the patentee usually benefits from a 17-year exclusivity period. Since 1969 when the Patent Act was amended, the multinational drug manufacturing industry has been protesting-and continues to protest-against what it considers as being outright injustice, discrimination and property seizure.
The multinational corporations, Mr. Speaker, claim that the protection of new drugs over a given period time is essential to recoup the large investments needed for research and development-the figure could well be up to $100 million. However, before 1969, the Patent Act was applied without question. Did
Patent Act
the drug companies do more research than they are doing now? Perhaps, but it did not amount to much, and for that reason indeed the then Government was forced, following the findings of the Harley Commission, to enact certain recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee to avoid an excessive increase in the price of drugs.
Because of this objection, the Bill now before us wants to grant the patentee an exclusivity period of 10 years or 7 years, as the case may be, but this provision is being opposed by generic drug manufacturers and consumer organizations who feel that it gives multinationals an opportunity to maintain the price of drugs at artificially high levels because of that monopoly situation. That is self-evident.
Generally speaking, generic drugs currently sell for half the price of the equivalent patented drugs. Last week, in Washington 1 think, Ayerst-McKenna published the findings of a $50,000 study it had commissioned on whether generic and patented drugs actually sold at comparable prices. It was found that, indeed, occasionally, generic drugs sold for about the same price as the equivalent patented medicine. But the basic explanation is that the manufacturer's price was much lower for generic drugs than for patented medicines, except that some drug stores took advantage of that situation by increasing their prices to a level somewhat equivalent to that of patented medicines.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, multinational corporations strongly support those amendments. On the other hand, they are committed to invest $1.4 billion more by 1995 in research and development of new drugs. Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that research and development, especially in the medical field, is not done by the drug companies but mainly by the universities and foundations. We all know the example of the University of Toronto and the Connaught Institute which, I believe, was created in 1914 and which gave us insulin, one of the great discoveries of the century.
So when we hear this talk about spending a lot of money, I think that what the drug companies mean is that they mainly want to spend a lot of money on clinical research, Mr. Speaker.
It is important to understand why we radically changed the legislation in 1969. Today, the Government, against the advice of the Eastman Commission, intends to restore what was considered to be excessive pricing around the middle of the sixties. The Canadian Restrictive Trade Practices Commission recommended abolishing all patents on pharmaceutical products. There was the Hall Report on medical services which recommended a compulsory licensing system under which Canadian companies would be able to produce and market generic drugs, provided they pay a royalty to the original manufacturer.
The system also received the support of the Harley Committee of the House of Commons which examined this question, and I may point out to the House that in the course of its investigations, the Harley Committee found that Canadians

November 24, 1986
Patent Act
were paying 75 per cent more than consumers in other countries, for the same drugs.
The amendments to Section 41(4) of the Patent Act, providing for compulsory licenses, have had major consequences both for the pharmaceutical industry in Canada and for the consumer.
In 1983, Mr. Speaker, there were 70 drugs under compulsory licence in Canada, with sales worth $328 million. This amount represented 20 per cent of the total sales of ethical drugs in Canada. Of that $328 million, generic manufacturers sold and paid royalties on, 32 of the 70 drugs. Their sales totalled $46 million. They paid royalties totalling $1.8 million to the original manufacturer, and while the 17 generic manufacturers in Canada employed, as I said earlier, 1,300 people in 1983, the 64 brand manufacturers employed 14,400.
While the manufacturers of generic drugs have not replaced the patent holders, they have brought on vigorous competition, as noted by Dr. Eastman. On the average, as I have just said, the price of generic drugs is about half that of brand name products.
In addition, competition urges the patent holders to reduce their prices. To have an idea of the impact of the compulsory licencing system, let us look at valium. The retail price of valium, which is a well-known drug sold by the Hoffman-La Roche company, is $345.93 in the United States, while the same quantity sells for only $80 in Canada. However, the generic drug equivalent Diazepam sells for the modest price of $2.31. The consumers paid a total of 211 million dollars less in 1983 than they would have done without compulsory licencing.
There are other examples. The Pfizer company charges $431 for a product called Chlorpropamide in the United States, while the same product is sold for only $141 in Canada. However, because there is competition from a generic product called Diabinese, Canadians can pay only $12.03 for the same quantity of this generic product for diabetics.
There are many other such examples, Mr. Speaker.
In view of these substantial savings for consumers, we are justified in asking why the Government wants to replace compulsory licencing by an exclusivity period of ten or seven years. In spite of the opposition of many groups, including a coalition of 14 non-Government organizations which wrote to the Prime Minister last September 3 in this regard, last year, the Eastman Commission advised the Government to maintain the compulsory licencing system. Since it is amending the Act, the Government seems to have accepted the objections of the multinational pharmaceutical industry, which has long claimed that its property rights were being violated. Naturally, the generic companies pay royalties to the multinationals, which royalties amounted to $1.8 million in 1983, as I mentioned earlier, but these are considered insufficient in view of the cost of innovation, research and development in Canada. During the 1970s and the early 1980s, several foreign drug manufacturing companies put an end to their research activities, but we must remember, Mr. Speaker, that all these
companies which were involved in research, those which have left or have threathened to leave, were not doing any research in Canada anyway; however, they could still claim here income tax deductions and send the money abroad.
Since I still have a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I know the Government wants to establish a medicine prices review board to control any increase in drug prices. I hope this legislation will have teeth. We are in the dark now about this.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, may I say that there exists a better way to increase competition, as well as research and development in Canada. Instead of abolishing the compulsory licensing system, the Government should take Mr. Eastman's advice: increase royalties to 14 per cent would certainly compensate adequately innovative efforts and encourage investment. With 14 per cent royalties, makers of generics would have payed $6.4 million to multinationals instead of $4.8 million. Mr. Speaker, the Government seems to believe that by amending the Patent Act, it is acting in the best interest of Canadians, but a great many Canadians think otherwise. A moment ago I referred to a non-Government coalition of 14 organizations, representing the poor, the elderly and other consumers, which wrote to the Prime Minister in September and is still waiting for a reply. A recent Gallup poll reveals that at least one third of Canadians believe that drug companies ought to be protected for ten years; more than half, 50 per cent of people polled think that when a new drug hits the market it should be available as a low-cost generic drug. But then Canadian Drug Manufacturers' Association spokesmen for 17 no-name drug companies are highly critical of the Bill because, in their opinion, it seriously undermines the prospects of an industry which is thriving right now.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Government will not be swayed by the pressure tactics of three major drug companies which, hours before the Bill was tabled in the House, told everyone who cared to listen that they would spend $102 million for research and create the odd job. I said so at the outset, Mr. Speaker, the drug industry operates the world over and Canada will always be a branch plant. Of course we will have to concentrate our efforts on expanded research and development, but I hardly think we have taken the right approach or the best way to put Canada on the map when it comes to research and development.


Mr. Weiner:: Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the words of my hon. colleague. I know the time and effort he has put into the practice of medicine in the past and, as a practising pharmacist, I certainly want to put myself on record on a number of issues to which I am in direct opposition.
Something I would like to underline is that I do not want to relegate the youth of our country to being copy-cats for the rest of their lives. Our young people have an expertise, a quality of experience and intelligence that is second to none.
November 24, 1986

When I travel around the country visiting universities why should I have to say to the students and graduates that they will never be able to work in Canada, that they will never have a future in the fields of biotechnology or pharmaceutical research? To start with, the sum of $1.4 billion will create
10,000	jobs, and probably many more. I can tell the Hon. Member that as a result of visiting universities 1 know that there are compounds being synthesized which are deserving of being brought out on the market in Canada and not in any other country.
As a doctor the Hon. Member would want to be concerned with the quality of health care. He would always want to ensure that his patient receives the best medical care possible. Right now Canadians are being deprived of that privilege because new pharmaceuticals which are available in other parts of the world are not being brought to the Canadian market. They are not available to Canadians. Thus we must very often make do with second-class medical care.
There are enough examples of drugs and pharmaceuticals which are available in Europe, Japan and elsewhere which take years to come to Canada. That deprives us of the best care possible. As a physician, and in focusing on costs, one may also want to focus on the over-all costs of the health care package. From what I understand, pharmaceuticals represent only about 8 per cent of the total cost. When one considers the advantages that can be derived from new medication being made available sooner rather than later 1 tell the Hon. Member that there will be significant savings in the over-all package of what it costs to treat a patient. That is a consideration.
Those are a few of the thoughts I have on the matter. Since the Hon. Member has been so kind as to keep bringing us back to 1969, I would like to ask him if he would not mind reflecting on the percentage of pharmaceutical research done under Medical Research Council funding in 1969 as opposed to what it is in 1986.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to know that my friend who just asked that question has been practising as a pharmacist for a number of years. In the first place, I must tell him that with respect to research, it is a myth in my view to tell our young people who now have to go abroad to find work, that by 1995 all of them will be working in research, especially those who are in that field in Canada.
As I said earlier, the pharmaceutical industry-I am not talking about research and development in the field of health care-but what I am saying is that in the drug industry, the multinational pharmaceutical industry is a very special one, one that can produce in a few plants around the world. The drug industry has already shown that when it could not make enough money or when wages were too high on the North-American continent, they went to Ireland or to the Southern United States. Therefore, I do not think I can tie the whole of Canada's future to that, and as far as our young people are
Patent Act
concerned, I cannot tell them: You will have openings for your research potential. I do not believe the Canadian drug industry will provide them with that.
Second, you also referred to drugs that a physician must prescribe in order to give his patient the best level of care, using of course the best drugs available. As a pharmacist, you know very well that generics also must pass the Canada Food and Drugs test. They must be of the same level of quality as those made by the innovator. So I see no danger there. Moreover, the provinces in 1970, faced with the astounding level of expenditures on medicines or their usage, requested as you know that when Librium is prescribed, for instance, the pharmacist may fill in with the generic equivalent.
So, the provinces themselves encouraged the generic drug industry, no more and no less. Why? Because these drugs have the same quality for less money. It is a matter of savings in my view because, basically, the consumer is not that much involved. The provinces are involved because they have to foot the bill for prescriptions that are totalling millions of dollars every year and this amount will go on increasing. Besides, the Canadian Government, if I am not mistaken, will have more money made available to the provinces.
Concerning the matter of whether there is more money now than there was some years ago for the research and development fund, well I hope there are more funds than previously. But it is not by relying on private industry that we will provide for an increase in research and development. I am sure of that.
Therefore I hope I answered the questions. Surely you will not be satisfied with that, but those are the answers to the basic questions you wanted to ask me.
One thing is certain: when an industry gets into a monopoly situation, clearly prices can be controlled at will, and this is self-evident. So much so that when we look at the price of drugs, as you well know being a pharmacist, comparing the prices paid for drugs in the United States with those paid in Canada for the same thing, with generics, you will find that competition has made prices much lower in Canada than elsewhere. Besides, a number of foreign countries want to copy our system.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I would merely have a short comment.
I think the Hon. Member missed my point. I did not comment on the quality of drugs that are available now with generics and equivalents. That is not the point.
We have means of finding bioviability. What I am referring to are the drugs that are not available in this country although they are elsewhere. For instance, we have drugs that are a new kind of Digoxin, a very potent medicine with quite severe side effects.
There is a drug that has been available in France for six or seven years but does not exist here. This is only one example.

November 24, 1986
Adjournment Motion
There are dozens of drugs that are not available here, and because of that we have second class care.
I am not discussing those drugs that are available. I also support generic drugs, because as a pharmacist we have all the drugs and will have more and more generics on the Canadian market.
What I am discussing is simply that we do not have certain drugs and we will not be having them for years to come. This is something I do not want.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the Minister that I simply do not think that anyone can prevent any drug from any country from entering Canada except that, as my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) points out, it has to meet the food and drugs legislation standards. This may take several years in some cases, but the mere fact that no basic research is done in Canada does not justify barring new drug entries into this country.
All I am saying is that from a commercial standpoint the drug industry is highly specialized, it is unlike other industries because it is always doing business with sick people and patients, its customers.
Mr. Speaker, this is why if ever you experience problems with a drug I hope you will get in touch with food and drug officials to give them its name just so Canadians will benefit from these extraordinary drugs you are talking about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The time for questions and comments has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger)-Science and technology-(a) National Research Council-Abolition of 200 positions in April-Government position, (b) Government funding; the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson)- Banks and banking-(a) Estey Commission report-Nonpublication of uninsured depositors' names, (b) Inquiry concerning possible interim reports; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)

Pharmaceutical industry- Statement attributed to United States negotiator, (b) Consumer Association's position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mrs. Killens (p. 1378).
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us today, Bill C-22, a Bill that will amend the Patent Act, is an example of one of the more shoddy ways the Government has bowed down to pressure from American corporations by putting the interests of multinational corporations ahead of the interests of Canadians. This is occurring in an area which is extremely important. All people will need access to drugs at some time in their lives. Our population is aging and will require the increased use of drugs. Yet the Government is introducing and trying to push through legislation which will result in rather substantial increases in the cost of drugs.
Let us look at how we got ourselves into this situation. In recent years, Canadians have seen a diminution in the price of drugs as a result of very specific legislation. Canadians are very upset at the thought that those advantages will soon be lost if this legislation is passed.
In the bad old days when there was no competition from generic drugs, drug prices in Canada were enormously high. In the 1960s, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission in 1963, the Hall Royal Commission on Health Services in 1964, and the Harley Special Committee of the House of Commons on Drug Costs and Prices in 1967 all investigated the pharmaceutical industry in Canada. These three major inquiries agreed that drug prices were too high and that government action was required to bring them down and to stimulate price competition.
The Hall Commission concluded that Canadian drug prices were among the highest in any industrialized nation in the world. All three inquiries felt that it was the foreign-based multinational drug companies that were dominating the Canadian drug industry and using their 17-year patent periods to set prices which were too high.
The Restrictive Trade Practices Commission recommended complete abolition of drug patents, a very strong remedy indeed. The Hall Commission and the Harley Committee recommended a compromise policy designed to stimulate price competition while maintaining the principle of patent protection but a reduced patent protection allowing companies that wished to import and sell generic equivalents of patented brand names to do so upon receipt of a compulsory licence and the payment of a royalty. This compromise was indeed
November 24, 1986

legislated in 1969 and became Section 41(4) of the Patent Act. This, of course, is the section that is at risk now.
Since that time, multinational corporations have attacked compulsory licensing and they have stepped up the attack in recent years. I recall being a part of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations a couple of years ago. While we were in New York, American multinational companies took the occasion to lobby Canadian legislators. I must say that I was ashamed by the behaviour of Conservative members of that delegation who simply listened respectfully to the multinationals and said: "Yes, sir, you are unhappy with what we are doing with pharmaceuticals, we will change it". This occurred very soon after the 1984 election, so Conservative members said to the multinationals: "Just give us a chance. It will not take us long to do what you want but we have only just come into office. We can assure you that you will get the kind of legislation that you want". Of course, what they were saying was that the interests of American multinationals would be put ahead of the interests of the Canadian people.
I am getting ahead of my chronology somewhat. In 1984, the federal Government appointed Professor Harry Eastman of the University of Toronto to head a commission of inquiry on the pharmaceutical industry. His report, which was released in May of 1985, recommended that we retain compulsory licensing. However, he proposed that patent holders be guaranteed four years of exclusivity and freedom from competition and that companies that actually do research in Canada be able to receive royalties higher than the current 4 per cent. Again, that was something of a compromise but one which did maintain the principle that compulsory licensing would be, if modified, nonetheless continued.
Since the introduction of compulsory licensing in 1969, drug companies have still, of course, enjoyed enormous growth and very adequate profits. The idea that this measure created a difficulty for them is not supported by any factual investigation. On that, the Eastman Report said:
An overall summary of the comparison of the growth and development of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada relative to that of the United States yields the straightforward conclusion that growth has been more buoyant in Canada than it has been in the United States since 1967.
If compulsory licensing had completely ruined the industry, this would not be the case. The idea that we should adopt the American model for growth is simply not borne out.
Again, the Eastman Report said:
Compulsory licensing has not had a discernible negative impact on the profitability and rate of growth of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada as a whole.
That is pretty clear as well.
We have seen pharmaceutical companies take legal action to try to get even higher profits by challenging the compulsory licensing provisions. A decision was made in November, 1985 involving a multinational drug company's challenge to this section of the Patent Act under the Charter of Rights. At that time, the Federal Court stated that there was no information to demonstrate that compulsory licensing was denying either
Patent Act
the multinational companies or their Canadian subsidiaries a reasonable return on their investments. So much for the contention that compulsory licensing has been harmful to the industry and the contention that there has been any unfairness.
On June 30, 1986, the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs released the Government's draft amendments to the Patent Act outlining the provisions we are studying today. These provisions were, of course, brought in under a great deal of pressure. I already noted the example of drug companies lobbying parliamentarians directly. Of course, we know that they have lobbied the American Government and have managed to get President Reagan to take up the issue, indeed at the highest level, with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself.
The issue was discussed at the 1985 and 1986 so-called Shamrock Summits. We know that the Prime Minister agreed to knuckle under to the American pressure at that time. The pressure continued as the Government did not respond fast enough. In early April, 1986, the United States Trade Representative, Clayton Yeutter, rapped Canada's knuckles for failing to honour the commitments made by the Government through the Prime Minister by saying that the drug issue "-should have been resolved a long time ago. We've been exercising uncommon patience. But even our patience ultimately begins to wear thin". That was pretty heavy-handed indeed, and I am sorry to see that anyone would respond to it.
In late April when President Reagan's plan for so-called fast-track free trade negotiations with Canada ran into trouble, the drug industry in the United States actively lobbied committee members to go along with the President and the Canadian Government. We have seen how the talks on free trade have been brought into play in this issue as well. On several occasions in 1986, the Government appeared to be on the brink of giving in to pressure but backed away. Ultimately, the Government did capitulate.
The Bill before us raises many questions. The commission of inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry found that profit levels of multinationals were higher than in most home countries including Switzerland, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Japan, all major producers in the industry. The one exception to that was the United States which has had among the highest drug prices in the world. Of course, Canada provides tax incentives to research which are among the most generous in the world.
The manner in which this legislation is supposed to operate assumes that decisions are made a certain way within the companies as to where they will do their research and where they will produce their product. Drug manufacturing breaks down into two phases. The first is the making of the active ingredients, the chemicals themselves. Then there is the preparation of the final formulation, including combining the active ingredients with various inactive ingredients: colourings,

November 24, 1986
Patent Act
flavourings, stabilizers, packaging, labelling, and those aspects of the final preparation of the drugs.
At the present time, almost no active ingredient manufacturing takes place in Canada. Both the patent holding and the generic companies import their active ingredients. Then they do some of their final stage manufacturing in Canada. That holds true for both the generics and the patent drugs. I think that we have to understand that.
A few small countries have developed active ingredient manufacturing industries to serve world markets for generic drugs. Generic companies in Canada have the right to apply for compulsory licences to manufacture the active ingredients. This right has existed since 1923. But they do not very often do so because the Canadian market is too small to make such an operation viable.
The failure of the 1923 policy to create drug price competition in 1969 led to the creation of compulsory licences to import because we did not have domestic production. We know that often a single factory in one particular country meets a company's world-wide markets. Usually these factories are located in the multinational's home country, or in some place like Ireland or Puerto Rico that offer particularly generous tax breaks, and sometimes tariff-free access to major markets. So there are these structural reasons in the industry itself.
While we cannot expect a big change as a result of the legislation that we have before us, these are conditions that we have known about for some time.
Despite all of this, the federal Government claims that the Bill before us will stimulate both generic and multinational firms to make the active ingredients in Canada. This claim rests on the provisions of the Bill that generic companies will still be able to acquire compulsory licences to manufacture generic active ingredients in Canada, although subject to qualification. Patent holding companies can avoid this type of generic competition if they notify the Commissioner of Patents that they intend to make the patented active ingredient in Canada completely or substantially to meet Canadian demand. If they do notify the Commissioner, they must begin manufacturing within two years, or risk losing their market exclusivity.
It is not at all clear to me why generic companies would manufacture more active ingredients in Canada under this Bill than they did between 1923, when they could have done so, and up until 1969, when the patent legislation was changed. Why are we bringing in a provision that has already been tried for more than 40 years, and it did not result in domestic manufacturing of the active ingredients? We can have no optimism that that will change now.
With regard to the final product manufacturing, there is every reason to expect that multinational companies will invest in plant expansions in Canada within the next few years, regardless of whether or not this Bill before us today is passed. These are the trends. There is an increase in the demand for drugs. There is a change in the demographics. There are more elderly people with health care concerns and people needing
drugs. We would otherwise have expected to see this type of expansion, with no thanks to this legislation whatsoever. Yet there is no confidence that the legislation will bring about the change in the manufacturing of the active ingredients themselves.
The Government has made many claims that this legislation will improve research and development in Canada. We must look at those claims. I am sure our Party would be very partial to legislation that would improve research and development in Canada. Unfortunately, when we examine more closely what the Bill says, this result will not happen either. Canada has very little basic research. This was true in the pharmaceutical industry in the period prior to 1969 as well as since. We have no reason to believe that the same pharmaceutical companies that were not doing research and development before 1969, when there was no generic drug legislation, would suddenly do it now.
In 1983, only about 15 per cent of research and development expenditures by pharmaceutical firms were for basic research. That is considerably less than 1 per cent of the value of those firms' sales in Canada. That is a pretty shameful record indeed. It is pretty typical of countries whose pharmaceutical industries are dominated by the subsidiaries of multinationals.
The levels of drug research and development in Canada are similar to those of some other small countries which do not have independent non-multinationals or their own pharmaceutical industries.
Most pharmaceutical research in Canada involves clinical testing of a drug's safety and effectiveness. That is simply to meet requirements of our own health and drug legislation. It is not basic research. It is simply to meet the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act.
Despite these well-known facts, the federal Government claims that its draft Bill contains "strong new incentives" for research. I would like to quote what the Government has stated:
Drugs invented and manufactured in Canada will receive full 17-year patent monopolies.
If the Government is not satisfied with the industry's research investments by 1990, it may remove some or all of the exclusivity granted under the Act.
The federal Government claims that the new policy will turn Canada into "a world-class centre for the research, development, and manufacture of pharmaceuticals".
Unfortunately, these very fine hopes entirely ignore the conclusions of the federal commission of inquiry that Canada is not well placed to become a major world centre for pharmaceutical research, or for the production of active chemical ingredients for the very reasons that I have just related. We have these multinational companies, and it is not their practice to do research and development, or indeed to manufacture the active ingredients in smaller countries. In the case of research and development, they do it in their home country. They do the manufacturing under very specific conditions.
November 24, 1986

The question of drug prices has been pretty hotly debated in the House over the last weeks. It is being considered very actively by the Canadian public. We have had extremely outlandish statements by the Government that this new legislation will not result in an increase in drug prices.
The generic competition stimulated by the 1969 amendment has saved Canadian consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. This has been calculated at $211 million for 1983 alone. Of course, when added up over the years, it is into the billions of dollars that Canadians have been spared by having generic drug competition.
We have a Minister who claims that the new policy will not cause drug prices to rise, indeed that the new policy will not cause an increase of even one cent in drug prices. On the other hand, when you get down to the fine print, the Government has to admit such things as, and I quote, that it "may, however, result in a delay of the price reductions associated with the introduction of new generic drugs".
This is a pretty roundabout way of admitting that when a new drug comes on to the market there is the four-year period of protection. After that the prices go down. So you must look at the costs at least over a 10-year period. If you look at a 10-year period, you will see that prices are indeed considerably lower under the condition of generic drug competition than with the monopoly situation that the Government wishes to reintroduce.
Canadian consumers can expect substantially higher drug costs during the 10-year delay in the introduction of new generic drugs. I note that the federal Government's published cost estimates for the new policy stop at 1990. This is a convenient place to stop, because the Government does not want to admit that the prices are then going to go up. Reductions that would otherwise have happened because of generic competition simply will not happen. That drug competition which the 1969 policy brought in will have ended.
Despite its claims about drug prices, the federal Government has nevertheless promised to pay the provincial Governments $100 million in transitional payments by 1991.1 think that this rather embarrassingly belies the argument that there will not be any increases. Why is the federal Government handing over $100 million if there will not be any increases? Any person with common sense will certainly be asking that.
It will be very scant consolation to Canadian taxpayers to know that they will be subsidized through federal taxes instead of provincial taxes. The money will go to provincial Governments so that they can pay the multinational corporations for these increased prices. The point is that increased prices will hurt. If it means that provincial Governments have to pay more for their particular medicare costs, then the federal Government will have to pay more. Even if it is not the individual consumer, we know that these costs have to be borne.
Patent Act
We expect the Government will then say that the cost of drugs has risen and that medicare is costing too much money. In that event, it will be required to cut back somewhere else in the medicare system. It will have to cut other services to make up for the increased costs of drugs.
Of course we do not want to see that happening. We do not want to see medicare hurt. We do not want to see other services being cut back as a result of increased prices in pharmaceutical products.
In winding up my remarks, let me point out that the proposal of the Government for a regulatory board to look at drug prices is not a satisfactory option. It is not clear how much authority the board will have. The Bill provides for provincial and federal health Ministers to intervene in hearings. However, there is no provision for consumers or other public interest groups. It is a very unsatisfactory business altogether. We will have another bureaucracy to carry out a policy which is not as good as the present one.
I urge Hon. Members to look at the past progress with generic drug competition and the enormous savings for Canadians as a result of the policy. I ask them to reject this extremely misguided approach which puts the welfare of American multinational pharmaceutical companies ahead of the needs of Canadians for decent drug prices and adequate competition in the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that prices remain at a reasonable level.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). We heard the Minister say that he would bring information to us in committee but that he would not bring us specific documents relating to the costs or an analysis of the costs which will be faced by consumers. Would the Hon. Member speculate on why the Government does not want to release those documents?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) raises an extremely important question. She will know that her colleagues and members of my Party have raised with the Government in Question Period the need to have the documents tabled so that Canadians and consumer and advocacy groups can look at the cost estimates.
She will also know that the Government indicated that it would not cost a cent more but that it would not provide the information which gives specific estimates as to the costs in particular years. This must be a fraudulent claim, if the documentation is not to be put before Members of the House and the Canadian public.
A Government which really had hard information showing that prices would not rise would be delighted to document it and to hand over its study results. We have to be entirely suspicious of a Government which uses taxpayers' money to collect information and then denies Members of the House and the Canadian public access to the information on which they

November 24, 1986
Patent Act
can make their own reasoned assessments and reach their own conclusions.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, could the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood also elaborate on some of the reasons the Government would see fit in certain instances to inform some multinational drug companies of what was coming up in the way of legislation without letting Hon. Members of the House have that same information?


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, indeed the Hon. Member for Hamilton East raises a touchy question. I hope the Government was extremely embarrassed to have this information come out. Multinational corporations were given information which Canadian parliamentarians were not given. This coincides with my own experience of seeing government Members lobbied by representatives of the same interest and seeing them completely willing to capitulate. They were willing to put second the interest of Canadians and to put first the pressure from American multinational corporations. It is shameful. The incident to which the Hon. Member referred is simply the last in a very shameful series of incidents of this nature.


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). She might answer any or all of them, if there is time.
Could she tell the House when the last drug was invented in Canada? I think she will find that it goes back a great many years, partly because the system as it is now provides no incentive whatsoever to discover drugs which perhaps her mother or my mother might need. We are trying to create an atmosphere in the Bill where the Japanese will not have a drug which we do not have in Canada.
Perhaps the Hon. Member does not understand that $600 million has been committed by the drug industry for research and development and product development in Canada because of the Bill. I do not know how many thousands of jobs it will mean in Toronto, but I am sure her city will receive a lot of them.
The main point of the Hon. Member's speech was that prices will rise under the Bill. It is very clear that the prices of existing drugs will not rise as a result of the Bill. What is happening is that they are speculating about drugs which may be on the market in 1995 or whenever. How can the Hon. Member feel that the Bill will make prices higher in 1995 than they would have been otherwise?
Also I wish the Hon. Member would say something about the recent Eastman Report which recommended balancing the interests of consumers like her mother and my mother with the interest in getting some new development of drugs in Canada. The Hon. Member might know that presently people are simply filling bags in Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton or wherever. No research is being done. Nothing is being developed. This is why the situation is intolerable.
Britain, Germany, Switzerland, and a great many other countries think that Canada has been acting in a highly irresponsible way for many years. It is time we grew up and did things in the same way as the rest of the industrialized world.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, in the very short time left to me, let me touch upon the questions raised by the Parliamentary Secretary. Turning to the question about higher drug prices, certainly Dr. Eastman said that the prices would be going up because there would not be reductions as would happen under generic drug competition. As soon as the generics come on to the market, there is competition and prices fall. This process will not happen in the future if the Bill is passed.
Let us turn to the question about the discovery of drugs. Of course it is a very important one. We would be very sympathetic to legislation if we thought it would result in increased research and development and the invention of new drugs in Canada. There is no reason to think that that will happen because there are structural reasons for how multinational corporations decide to do their research.
In the very long period of time between 1923 and 1969 very little research was done in Canada. The change in generics only came about in 1969. If the Hon. Member wants to make the point that there has not been enough drug discovery in Canada, then he must explain why it did not happen before 1969 when the same conditions held as the Government proposes for after 1986 or whenever the legislation is adopted.
The question of jobs is a very tricky one. Naturally we would like to see more jobs created in research and development and manufacturing. However, I note that there are no firm guarantees. An exchange of letters is no guarantee whatsoever. We have seen shameful examples in the past of corporations being given fantastic hand-outs, taking their profits and running. The problem is in the structure of multinational corporations. They do not have the incentive to do that work in Canada.
With increasing prices in drugs, money will go out of the economy. Money which goes in profits to multinational corporations will result in job loss. It is money which Canadian consumers, either directly or through their health plans, will be paying. It will go into increased profits outside Canada and to the headquarters of multinational corporations. That is money that might otherwise be staying in Canada and creating jobs here. We have to expect a net job loss as a result of the adoption of the legislation before us today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the House that the period for questions and comments has now terminated. Debate. The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins).
November 24, 1986


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on this very important Bill and to express my support for Bill C-22 which the Minister has brought forward and to disagree with the amendment under debate.
I found it interesting listening to the debate and to the questions that have been asked in the 14 to 15 hours of discussion in this House on this issue because so much of it is based on either false information or what appears to be a desire to either scare or misinform the public about the real intentions and impact of this legislation.
We know that this is not a new subject. The previous speaker spoke about the history and the development of patent protection. I would like to bring Members back to 1982. In June of that year there was a debate in this House on patent protection. The then Minister of State for Science and Technology, Mr. Roberts, said:
The Government is very concerned about the over-all low level of research and development in the private sector and is actively pursuing a number of measures to improve Canada's performance in this area. We recognize the importance which a strong patent system can play in encouraging industrial investment in R and D thus creating the appropriate climate for innovation.
On that same day the former Liberal Member for Scarborough East said:
With the return of Great Britain to patent protection, Canada remains the only developed country with this unique discouragement to product innovation and manufacturing in the pharmaceutical industry.
This is not a new debate, Mr. Speaker. When the roles were reversed, our colleagues across the floor in the Liberal Party were asking for this kind of patent protection. But it was not only the members of the Official Opposition. I recall that in November, 1982-Members may check back in the records of Hansard-our colleague in the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), raised in the House the following concern:
The transfer will mean the lay-off of some 300 employees, many of them fulltime researchers at the lab.
Obviously he was referring to a situation in his own riding. He then questioned the Minister and said:
1 would like to know from the Minister what action the Government is going to take to make sure we can do this pharmaceutical research in our own country.
The then Minister for Economic Development, the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, (Mr. Johnston), replied:
1 am hopeful, as are my colleagues, that in the very near future we will have something that will enable us to retain this very important expertise in the area of science and technology.
There was a recognition of the problem and we knew that the amendments put through in 1969 had had a detrimental impact on research and development in Canada. We know that these amendments were totally unfair and inconsistent with what was happening right around the world; we knew that changes needed to be made. There were committees and commissions meeting on the subject, but basically there was no action. People were concerned about the difficult and complex
Patent Act
issue, but it is no easy task to ensure that the public understands it, so no action was taken. We remained behind not only the rest of the western world but behind countries in Asia, in the Pacific Rim and even Taiwan which have patent protection. Nevertheless, we just toddled along in our way and nothing was done until our Government, after reviewing the situation, brought forward legislation to remedy it. It is important legislation which tries to be fair to all of the parties involved.
I share the conviction of the Hon. Minister that these amendments, to the compulsory licensing provision of the Patent Act will correct the disservice which arose out of the 1969 amendments which largely ignored the role of research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. These amendments will address the situation and, in time, Canada will become one of the world's leaders in research. Not only will Canada's status as a research oriented country be enhanced, allowing it to compete on a realistic basis in the future of research and development investments, but individual Canadians will benefit, as consumers of pharmaceutical products and as a result of increased employment generated by these amendments. That is something about which we have heard a great deal in the debate. It is not just wishful thinking. The Minister has produced.
Just recently in Vancouver, in my own home province, a biomedical research institution has announced that it will be investing $40 million in research through the University of British Columbia. This will create in itself 50 technical, professional jobs, and we all know the kinds of spin-offs that come with that kind of employment as well. A new centre for biomedical research in Vancouver will be created.
A recent announcement by the University of Alberta was for $100 million. There were other announcements in central Canada, Quebec and Ontario of projects that will be going ahead as a result of these proposed changes. These will create jobs and ensure that we are to fulfil the commitment and expectation the Minister has mentioned of research and development increasing by $1.4 billion. Three thousand jobs will be created as a result of the changes. That is a lot of jobs in your riding, Mr. Speaker, in my riding and right across the country, and it is in one of the areas in which we need to concentrate.
May I digress for a moment, Mr. Speaker. At the First Ministers' Conference in Vancouver which I had the opportunity to attend, the Premier of Ontario, Mr. Peterson, was talking about the high priority that must be placed on science and technology, that we had to make this the field on which to concentrate in the future. Our Government has shown we support that kind of a priority. We are undertaking the kind of legislative changes to encourage it. But all my colleagues across the way who are members of the same Party as Mr. Peterson can utter is doom and gloom. It is complete nonsense, Mr. Speaker.
Let me refer to The Globe and Mail. Many of us on this side of the House are not totally happy with some of the articles

November 24, 1986
Patent Act
and editorials in The Globe and Mail. In an editorial in the November 18, 1986, issue the writer understood what the Government was doing through this legislation and was certainly supportive. It talked about international concerns and reads:
If gentle, first-world Canada opts out of patent protection for certain products, what are the prospects for the rest of the world? The new round of talks at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has identified intellectual property rights as a priority for new agreements. Canada's isolationism on pharmaceuticals is a troubling aberration among industrial states committed to fair play in international trade.
That opinion, Mr. Speaker, is also supported by comments I received last week when I attended a meeting at the Pacific Economic Co-operation Conference held in Vancouver with representatives from all of the Asian countries. One of the major priorties in addition to agriculture in discussions in the new round of talks on tariffs and trade on which we have to cooperate with the Pacific Rim countries were issues related to intellectual property. But how can Canada play a meaningful role in these kinds of meetings on these kinds of issues if we ourselves have not taken the steps to bring Canada into line in providing protection for intellectual property, something which this Bill will do? I am pleased that not only in previous incarnations were my hon. friends on the other side of the House agreeing with the principle of what we are doing, but that our country's leading newspaper, The Globe and Mail, also agrees with what we are doing.
Since Canada does not provide the same protection for intellectual property in this field as do all other industrialized countries, research and development activity by the pharmaceutical industry has stagnated. In other countries full protection for intellectual properties has generated enormous investments. Canada has missed out on investments it might have shared in had we provided a better environment and system of incentives for investing in research.
I would like to turn to another aspect of this issue which has received a great deal of attention. We know that the 1969 compulsory licensing amendments did produce savings for Canadian consumers of pharmaceutical products. The changes the Government is introducing to compulsory licensing will continue to provide Canadians with price savings while generating significant employment in research, development and manufacturing. In fact, the amendment to create a Drug Prices Review Board will provide more complete price protection for Canadians than has been possible until now. The 1969 amendments relied soley on the introduction of generic drugs to provide price competition and to lower the price of these products. If no generic drugs existed, there was no means of price competition. In effect, this means that no price competition existed from anywhere from five years to 15 years. This was the time it took for a generic product to reach the market. In addition, there are certain types of medicines which are never copied and, hence, there is no price competition.
I recommend that my colleagues look at the amendments just introduced. They help ensure fairer drug prices by providing for price reviews even before the generic products become available. Perhaps that is a point which has been missed. I emphasize that with Bill C-22 there will be price reviews for all patented drugs, not only those that are copied. This is a significant step forward in providing protection for Canadian consumers.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek your guidance, but I just noted that it is past five o'clock. Normally we would be proceeding to Private Members' Hour at this time. I understand that we are not going to Private Members' Hour today because a member of the Conservative Party is off visiting in South Africa on a private trip.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House was properly informed on Friday of what is happening here today. I do not think that was necessary. The Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) has the floor on debate.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I will continue because I think all Members of the House have a great deal of interest in this Bill. I am pleased that we have an additional hour in which to debate it.
In order to make Canadian intellectual property laws similar to those in other industrialized countries, patentees of pharmaceutical products will be provided with up to 10 years of market exclusivity. Furthermore, the commission of inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry reported that it has taken on average 11.5 years from the time the original drug is introduced on the market until the generic copy is sold. The proposed 10 years is, therefore, really not far out of line with the present situation.
Let me remind Hon. Members that generic firms will not have to wait for seven years to apply for a licence. They can apply for and receive a licence for a drug at any time. They will simply not be able to sell the drug in Canada for a specified period of time. The fact that they have the licence will help minimize any delays in getting a generic product to market once the appropriate period of protection has ended. Seven years after the drug is first introduced on the Canadian market the generic drug companies will be permitted to activate their licences to manufacture, and after 10 years they can import the drug without any restriction.
By making the period of protection shorter for manufacturing licences than for licences to import, the Government is maximizing the employment benefits for Canadians and maximizing the opportunities for the manufacture of fine chemicals industry in Canada. If these periods did not differ, there would be no incentive to actually manufacture the drug and/or its ingredients in Canada, and the benefit to Canadians would be diminished. This is an important part of the Bill to remember because it is a major improvement over what had originally been recommended.
November 24, 1986

It is important to recognize as well that the generic drug firms, in their discussions with the Minister, actually said that they felt that six years was a time period with which they could quite happily live. The protection is to be only seven years, which is not much longer than they had originally suggested was possible to live with.
The changes the Government has proposed in Bill C-22 provide incentives to generic firms to set up fine chemical manufacturing facilities in Canada to provide earlier access to the market. These provisions will increase employment for Canadians and will increase the availability of Canadian-made drugs to Canadian hospitals and pharmacies and to individual citizens.
The Government is also providing an incentive for Canadian drug research and development in Bill C-22. When a drug has been invented and developed in Canada, that is, when the drug is the product of Canadian research performed in Canada, it will be given protection from imported generic competitors for the full time of the patent. In that way we will again be encouraging the Canadian industry and the development and manufacture of Canadian drugs. To take full advantage of this protection the patentee must manufacture the drug in Canada. If that is not done, after the same seven-year period as for nonCanadian drugs, the generic firms will be able to activate their licences to manufacture the drugs themselves. The difference between the length of the periods of exclusivity for manufacturing and importing licences provides a much greater incentive for manufacturing in Canada and will maximize the employment benefits of Canada.
As I noted earlier, the Drug Prices Review Board will be headed by Dr. Harry Eastman who is, as we all know, one of the foremost outstanding authorities on this industry. This Board will provide a level of protection from excessive drug prices which is far greater than has until now been available to Canadians. The Board, which will have strong powers to call evidence and to pass judgment on the appropriateness of drug prices, will be independent. Its responsibility will be to ensure that Canadians continue to enjoy moderate and reasonable prices for patented drug products.
The provincial Governments, through their constitutional responsibility for the delivery of health care to Canadians and their involvement in drug cost reimbursement plans for their citizens, are the largest purchasers of prescription drugs. The importance of the provincial role in health care and the provision of drugs at reasonable prices is recognized in this Bill. The Drug Prices Review Board will be required to notify the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Ministers responsible for health in the provinces of any hearing which the Board is going to hold. The provinces are in fact being given a statutory right to present evidence to the Board in order to guarantee that they are heard. The Board will have the powers to compel companies to provide evidence on the prices for which they have sold the medicine in Canada and in other countries. When necessary, the Board will take into account the cost of making the medicines and determining
Patent Act
whether the price is appropriate. If the Board, after hearing and reviewing the evidence, decides that the price of a medicine is excessive, it will have the authority to compel the company to reduce the price to whatever level the Board feels is appropriate. As further punitive measures, when the Board deems it appropriate, it will also be able to revoke the exclusivity for a second patented product sold by that company.
It is intended that the Board be able to act quickly in any cases of suspected excessive prices. That is why the Board will be small, consisting of not more than five persons, and will be supported by a secretariat.
The Board will review the prices at which new drugs are introduced, the prices at which they continue to be sold, and will deal with all patent medicines. By giving the Board wide scope in terms of the drugs it can deal with, and stronger powers to call for evidence and enforce its decision, Bill C-22 both extends and solidifies the price protection available to Canadian consumers of patented products.
I am confident that these amendments to the compulsory licensing provisions of the Patent Act will strengthen Canada's position as a participant in pharmaceutical research and development, and I am confident that it will strengthen Canada's pharmaceutical manufacturing centre and continue to provide Canadians with moderate and reasonable drug prices.
My hon. friends opposite should take note of the editorial in The Globe and Mail to which I referred earlier. It states that moving toward normal patent protection for pharmaceuticals is like getting out of rent controls. Opposition Parties fulminate, consumer groups agitate and, in this case, others will add the anti-American view. Fortunately, the Government has both the cause and the powers to do the right thing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a question, Mr. Speaker.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a lot of respect for the Member you are recognizing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) rising on a point of order?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I take it that you will be asking the Member to put a very short question because the purpose of questions and comments is for the Opposition to question the Member, as has taken place during the day.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order.

November 24, 1986
Patent Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Government gets to question us, we get a chance to question it. It is not for the purpose of back scratching.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I recognize Members as I see them. I was indicating to the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) that her time had expired and I saw the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona rise.


An Hon. Member:: Nonsense.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I don't find any of these remarks necessary at this time. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
[ Translation]


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I have been here often enough during debate to know this is not the first time when a Conservative Member has the floor and we get to the period for questions and comments, another Conservative is recognized by the Chair. I think the Chair should have the courtesy to recognize Opposition Members, for comments. I think the Opposition should be shown this courtesy. This happens too often.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will repeat that questions and comments are usually for the Opposition-


Carlo Rossi: Yes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: -not always for the Opposition. Questions and comments are generally for the Opposition. Would the Hon. Member take his seat.


Carlo Rossi: Yes, they are not always for the Government.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen so many Liberals and NDP Members in the House for a long time.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member knows that he should not reflect on the attendance in the House.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member who just spoke knows that it is not in order for an Hon. Member to make a comment on the presence or absence of other Members in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I just said that. I agree with the Hon. Member.


B. Keith Penner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member who is seated behind me. Does she know of any country other than Canada that has a regime like our present regime for generic patent drugs? This includes OECD countries and others that consider themselves to be advanced industrial democracies.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I have never experienced having so many colleagues interested in questions and comments following a speech. I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to my colleague's question.
I am not personally aware of any other countries which have a regime such as ours, that does not allow protection of intellectual property rights, as in this case of patent medicines. As I said in my speech, that is why representatives of countries from the Pacific Rim who attended the Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference find it hard to understand why we have not had those kinds of protections. Of course, they encourage us to have it so that we can be seen as being fair in the international community.
Let us consider a country such as Japan which has such laws. There has been a great emphasis in that society on developing the research skills of their people, the employment of university graduates, and encouraging the development of research in this area of drugs and medicines. Canada has been left far behind because it makes no sense for anyone to make that investment knowing there is no opportunity to benefit from it. A portion of this Bill will bring us into the 20th and 21st century.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I have a question for the Hon. Member, who comes from Vancouver. Is she aware that there are numerous senior citizens' groups from the district in and around Vancouver that have been following the debate and are very concerned about this Bill? In fact, we received a telegram from several seniors groups indicating that they had sent a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) reminding him of how seniors had banded together over the deindexing, and are ready to do so again on the generic drug issue.
They also want to point out that these groups are very aware that the drugs that are on the market now will not be affected, but that seniors are always trying something new for illnesses, such as arthritis. They cannot afford the time to wait for the cheaper priced drugs to become available since many of them will not be around in 10 years. They are concerned about this, and a very broad-based group has been organized.
Has the Hon. Member talked to seniors in her riding, particularly those on low income? Perhaps she does not have many low income people in her riding?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, there are many seniors in my riding. In fact, part of my riding has perhaps the largest percentage of seniors.
Her comments disturb me because I believe there is much false information being spread about the potential impact of this Bill. It is simply not true. The Opposition is alarming
life:
November 24, 1986

people, including senior citizens. I believe that that is irresponsible and unfair. They may not have had the opportunity to listen to the full debate and understand all the issues in order to recognize the kind of protection that has been placed in this Bill, to understand that there will be no increase for existing drugs, and that it will be 10 years before the new drugs are on the market. They are being unnecessarily alarmed. As responsible Members of Parliament, I do not believe we should do that to our constituents.
I would like to refer back to the time a few years ago. It is funny how people's views change. The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) said in May, 1985: "Higher drug prices might be justified if it led to more drug research in Canada". We really hear some different perspectives depending on when the issue comes to the fore. I would caution my colleagues, and I do so very sincerely, that in the long run, I do not think the Canadian public will appreciate the false alarms that Hon. Members opposite are pursuing on this particular issue. I have confidence in the ability of Canadians to understand what we are doing and to recognize the tremendous benefits it will bring to Canadians, their children and their grandchildren, without increasing the price of the drugs they use.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify with the Hon. Member that they were senior citizens talking, not myself. I think they would like to know why the Government will not release these studies so that the people will have the facts.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already commented on that. I understand that the Hon. Member has petitions and I know what it is like to receive petitions-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Then why don't you release the study?


Mr. Young:: Give us the study.


Mary Collins: Do you want me to answer the questions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: At this point I think the time for questions and comments has now terminated. Debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here in the House listening to questions, comments and interventions by Hon. Members on the government side of the House and, frankly-


An Hon. Member:: Wait until our turn.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That is right. Wait until our turn. It will not be too long, either, until we are on the government side of the House.
Frankly, I cannot believe my ears. This is the Canadian Parliament. The last time we looked we were in Canada, it was not the American Congress and we were not bowing to the
Patent Act
American multinationals. We have here a number of mouthpieces for American multinational corporations who are prepared to sell out the rights and responsibilities of Canadians so they can bow down to the Americans.


An Hon. Member:: Shame.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It starts with the seat right across from us occupied by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), the aptly self-described head waiter to the President of the United States. Hearken back fellow Members of Parliament to the Shamrock Summit. It was the greatest moment of two Irish blarney makers getting together. They came out of that meeting with a new Accord, a new relationship between Canada and the United States. However, the sham was the sham which was perpetrated on the Canadian people because one of the things we sold out as a Government on March 17, 1985, was the Patent Act. The Prime Minister told us we were going to bring in changes to the Patent Act. When the Americans say jump, we ask how high, and here we have another classic case of a high price being paid in our hot pursuit of a so-called free trade agreement with the United States.
We heard the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) talk about the number of jobs which were going to be created, and we have already heard that story. However, let us go back to 1969 when the first legislation was introduced. At that time there was no research and development being done by the multinationals in Canada. Yet we were twinned with the United States for the highest drug prices in the western world. We had the highest drug prices in the western world. Now Members of Parliament on the Conservative side of the House want to see our drug prices follow the way of the American medical system. Do we in Canada want to see emulated in our pharmaceutical system the kind of rip-off we have seen in the American medical system?


An Hon. Member:: No.


Sheila Maureen Copps: We have built a country which is unique, where the medical system is universally accessible, as a result of Liberal legislation. Because we recognized the problem almost 20 years ago, we went from paying the highest prices for drugs to paying the lowest prices for drugs in the western industrialized nations. The cost will be $3.5 billion, which will come out of the pockets of the sick, the needy and the elderly over the next 10 years. That cost translates into a loss of 9,000 Canadian jobs. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association did not tell the truth back in 1969 when it said that this was going to cause all kinds of problems with research and development, because it never developed drugs in Canada. Even before 1969 when it was taking Canadian consumers to the cleaners, we still did not have research and development in this country.
The issue here is more than simply a question of jobs. It is an issue of sovereignty.

November 24, 1986
Patent Act

But the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) cannot overlook this. In the Liberal Party, we are all united throughout the provinces and throughout the country in our fight for the rights of the elderly. I am delighted to see the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), because frankly, Mr. Speaker, when we see how the elderly stood up against this Government on the issue of Old Age Security Pensions, we can expect the same thing to happen on the drugs issue. Mr. Speaker, what we are about to sacrifice today is not just the elderly and the sick and women who are the most frequent users of our health care system in Canada. We are about to sacrifice our sovereignty as a country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is not simply a question of the cost to senior citizens and it is not simply a question of the cost to women who are the primary users of our health care system. It is a question of Canadian sovereignty and whether we in this Parliament of Canada are going to allow our policies to be dictated by the whims of the multinational corporations south of the border. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Capilano who spoke earlier about jobs, whether the workers at Goodyear in Toronto today, who have been given their walking papers because of a plan to develop their corporation in the United States, have in fact been protected. Is the Canadian Government going to say to those workers: "It is fine and dandy you are going to lose your jobs. We are going to see 1,300 people in the Toronto area out of work but that is all right because we are getting along with our neighbours to the south"? We are getting along cap in hand. We are on our hands and knees. We hear the Prime Minister talk about this great new relationship with the United States. When the Liberals were in power and when the softwood lumber issue came to the court, the Liberal Government fought the case and we won. We did not cave in. We did not buckle down and wince and whimper, which is the kind of activity we have seen from this Government.
Unfortunately, the head waiter and the butler-the selfdescribed head waiter of the Canadian Government-is not prepared to fight on this issue. Why can he not take the same initiative that the senior citizens of the country took with respect to deindexing? Why can he not say to the Americans: "We have the lowest drug prices in the world and we want to keep it that way"? In fact, there is an indigenous, generic Canadian industry that is not only creating jobs, it is creating more jobs than we had under the pre-1969 legislation invoked by the Liberal Government as a result of the patent protection of American multinational corporations.
I do not buy the argument that all of a sudden we will see tens of thousands of jobs created by the pharmaceutical
companies. These companies, mostly multinational pharmaceutical companies, will continue to create jobs in areas in which they will receive the best bang for their buck. What we will see is that the cost to Canadian consumers will sky-rocket.
I would like to refer Hon. Members to an example of this which is so unbelievable that when I read it it boggled the mind. I refer to one particular drug sold in Canada before the Liberal Government introduced protection for consumers back in the late sixties. At the bulk level this particular drug sold for $200 per kilo. That kilo was eventually sold to the Canadian public in the form of pills for some $96,000 per kilo. That is a $95,800 profit, or roughly a 50,000 per cent mark-up. That was the type of gouging, the multinational rip-off that forced the previous Liberal Government into a position in which we had to build in some protection.
Over the last 15 years we have gone from being the people who paid the highest prices for drugs in the world to those who now pay the lowest prices. Yet we see our American counterparts across the way-that was a Freudian slip. They are not our American counterparts, although they might as well be. We see the incredible spectacle of ordinary Members on the government side of the House elected with an unprecedented majority actually standing up in the House to defend the decision of their Government to prop up American multinational drug companies at the expense of the Canadian consumer just so we can get into another fast-track free trade agreement. First it was shakes and shingles. Then it was softwood lumber. Now it is the drug question.


An Hon. Member:: Shrill Sheila!


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) says: "Shrill Sheila".


John Barry Turner: No, I did not.


Sheila Maureen Copps: If it was not the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Carleton, then it was someone else.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be shrill on this issue. I want to tell Members opposite that when I was back in my riding of Hamilton East on the weekend, people spoke to me and said: "You had better go back there and fight that drug issue as hard as you can because it is just like the senior citizens' issue".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

I make no excuses, Mr. Speaker, because I am fighting for my constituents. There is one thing those in the Conservative Party who are just starting their political career should remember. If they don't want to see that career come to an untimely end, Mr. Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: It already has. They are already finished.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -I think it would be a good idea if they would start listening to their constituents-
November 24, 1986


Mr. Fennell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among all Parties with respect to the question of extending the sitting hours of the House tonight. I wish to advise you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no intention on behalf of the Government to extend the hours of sitting. In this respect we have the agreement of the chief opposition Whip and the House Leader of the New Democratic Party. I feel this will put us all at ease and allow us to relax. We on this side of the House and Members opposite will not be calling for extended hours this evening.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. There have been discussions in this respect. Perhaps just to make it perfectly clear, Your Honour could ask for the unanimous consent of the House with respect to adjourning at six o'clock today, after which time we will go into the proceedings on the adjournment debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was suggesting to the Conservative Members who are taking the bait, as it were-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) has the floor.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think "mangent la ligne" is not a very good translation of the English. But in English, when you go fishing and a bunch of little fish eat your bait, the minnow or whatever... What the Conservative Members are doing now is, they're eating the bait, they're eating the whole thing. They are not listening to their constituents who will tell them in no uncertain terms: We want you to fight this legislation which is going to affect us as consumers and will cost us about $3.5 billion in ten years. For instance, if we consider the province of Ontario . . .

In the Province of Ontario alone in current costs there will be an increase of $43 million per year to the people who are buying current drugs. The real danger for the average consumer is not in the increased cost of current drugs. That is something which has now been accepted by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). All last week he claimed that there would be no effect. What he says now is that there will not be an increase but that the decrease which is provoked by competition by the generics will occur less quickly. That is how he now explains it.
Let us consider a new drug coming on stream, for example, Tagamet which was a wonder drug for people who suffer from ulcers. These new drugs will continue to cost consumers
Patent Act
sometimes $100, $200, even $500. In the case I just cited, there was a 50,000 per cent mark-up. This was brought about because we allow these companies carte blanche to monopolize the Canadian market-place. If our Conservative colleagues are really interested, then there will come a time when they will have to break away from the pack-and I do not mean the Rat Pack. There will come a time when they will have to break away from the Party line. I think all of us here have seen that in our own respective Parties from time to time. I humbly suggest that this is one time that those invisible masses in the Progressive Conservative Party, those Members who were elected with a huge landslide back in 1984 and from whom we have heard almost nothing since, should part company with the powers that be. This would be a good time for them to part company with the actions and political strategies of people such as Senator Atkins, and others, who desperately want to get the Prime Minister back on track but who, unfortunately, have failed to recognize the key to the Achilles' heel of the Conservative Party, that is, the question of Canadian sovereignty. That question has never been more clearly put than it is put in the Bill which is before us. Here we have a blatant, flagrant example of how the Government is prepared to sell out millions of Canadians, senior citizens, sick people and those on disability pensions. These people are not covered by provincial drug plans.
Having spoken to the Minister of Health for the Province of Ontario I can tell Hon. Members that we are putting these provincial drug plans in a strait-jacket as a result of this legislation. If a new drug comes on the market, and it may be a wonder drug, it may do for other diseases what Tagamet did for ulcers, then can Hon. Members imagine the savings to the Canadian health care system? Tagamet eliminated the need for surgery in the case of ulcers. If a new wonder drug comes on the scene because of these new monopoly provisions then, unfortunately, the cost will be so prohibitive that in most provinces a tremendous delay will occur before the drugs can be covered under the drug benefit formulary. If any Member has dealt with this issue he or she will know that if a drug is not on the drug benefit formulary then it is not covered by a provincial drug plan. I have many seniors in my own area who are forced to purchase drugs which do not currently come under the drug benefit formulary. The Minister's suggestion that the slack will be picked up by provincial Governments or insurance companies is simply not true. It is the consumer who will pay in the short term and it is the consumer who will pay in the long term.
I believe that our system has worked. It has taken Canadian drug prices from being the highest in the world to being the lowest in the world. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Here we have a classic example of over-fix. The Government is making an attempt to fix something that is not broken and in truth it is attempting to buckle down to pressure from American multinationals in the drive for a free trade agreement. The

November 24, 1986
Patent Act
Government is now prepared to sell out Canadian senior citizens and the sick, those who are the least able to pay.
I heard a Member from the government side talking about following the system in the United States. I would ask that Hon. Member to see in which kind of shambles the American health system is. Over the last couple of years, because my husband's family is from the United States, I have had a chance to visit there. Almost without exception, every time I have been to my husband's home town of Tampa, Florida, I have read in the paper accounts of at least two or three cases of suicides, people who have killed themselves because the cost of medical care is so prohibitive. The last time I was there, I heard of a murder-suicide. A young mother whose son had been in a motorcycle accident and who did not have medical insurance killed her son and herself because she simply could not face the thought of losing everything the family had worked hard for. There was no hope because of the condition of her son. I do not think we should hold up this kind of a system as one to emulate.
We know that the current Canadian pharmaceutical system was studied by experts from the United States who wanted to find a way of bringing down the escalating costs of drugs. Those experts looked to Canada for leadership. At a time when our Government should be showing leadership and telling American multinationals that we like our system and are going to keep it, why are we buckling down to pressures from multinationals? Why has the Prime Minister led us down the garden path on our merry way ever since the Shamrock Summit, a summit which really did put the sham back into the word "shamrock"?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). She made a very eloquent speech in which she attacked the Government for bringing forth this legislation which will add tens of millions of dollars each year to the costs borne either by individual Canadians or private or public pharmacare plans for prescriptions. She has lauded the legislation passed in the late 1960s by the Liberal Government which gave us the system which the Conservative Government is proposing to change in such an ill-advised manner.
If those are her views and the views of her Party, why, when the Liberals were in government, did the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who was then the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, buckle under to the pressure of multinationals by telling them he was willing to think about changing the system? Why did his successor, Mrs. Erola, appoint Prof. Eastman to look at the question if the system was working well? Why did the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) in June assure Conservative Members of Parliament that if the Government brought the Bill forward before the summer break, the Liberals would not oppose it and only members of the NDP would, so they would get it through quickly? Why do Liberal Members continue to talk on both sides of every question?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I believe the response of the previous Liberal Government to pressure from multinationals was in fact to set up the Eastman Commission. As I understand it, from discussions with members of the New Democratic Party as well as members of the Liberal Party, there is a broad range of views on how far Eastman went, how far he should have gone and what recommendations should be accepted. I believe it is common knowledge that Liberal Members were prepared to accept some of the recommendations of the Eastman Report, and that is also the case for members of the New Democratic Party. I am not quite sure what the Hon. Member is driving at.
The Liberal Party did not change the patent law. It appointed an expert who would look at the question and return to Parliament with a report, thus giving us a chance to examine the questions as he has suggested we should do. We did not get the Eastman Report in this Bill, we got a carbon copy of the message Mr. Ronald Reagan sent to the Prime Minister at the Shamrock Summit. Even though Eastman did his work and tried to find out the general feeling among the population as well as the producers, his recommendations were ignored. What we have before us is basically a regurgitation of what American multinationals wanted from the Prime Minister and got from him in the first place.
The Hamilton and District Labour Council, a member of the Canadian Labour Congress, wrote to the Prime Minister with a carbon copy to me, the Member for Hamilton East, objecting to this measure. Surely the Hon. Member is not suggesting that I should not voice to the Government my concerns and the concerns of the Hamilton and District Labour Council about the changes which will result in this kind of monopoly. Surely he does not want us to stop fighting the Government on this issue. Is that what he is suggesting?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This morning I rose to indicate my intention to serve notice that there would be an amended motion put providing for the number of additional days for debate on this issue pursuant to a notice I gave last Friday. I understand there has been some uncertainty as to the interpretation of the number of days in the motion and I wish to make it very clear that in the motion I proposed-


Sheila Maureen Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am speaking on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I had the floor. There was a question and answer period and I believe that I had-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Well, I had the floor. You can't stand up on a point of order in the middle of anything.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has the floor. I will
November 24, 1986

recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) on a point of order if she wants after the Deputy Prime Minister is finished.


Sheila Maureen Copps: But-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, it is a point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated last Friday that I would be bringing forth a motion asking that two additional days of debate be granted for the consideration of the Bill at this particular stage. This morning I rose to indicate that I would be bringing in a new Notice of Motion pursuant to the notice I gave last Friday which would provide for the substitution of one day of additional debate rather than the two days of additional debate as is presently recorded under the present government Notice of Motion. In effect, we are reducing the number of days provided from two to one.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the reason I raised my point of order is that I find it highly unusual that in the middle of a question and answer period following a debate during which the Minister was not present and in which he did not participate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. It is not unusual. It was a point of order brought by the government House Leader and Deputy Prime Minister. I recognized him and he is now Finished with his statement. I will now return to questions and comments. Are there any further questions and comments?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I was not questioning the point the Hon. Member was making in her speech opposing the Government's legislation, but she did not answer my question. Of course, once Prof. Eastman brought down his report, Members had to look at the report to see which parts of it they could accept, if any. If the system was working well, an argument she has made with which I agree, why did the former Government appoint Prof. Eastman and why did the Hon. Member for Sudbury, who is present in the House now, tell Conservative Members in June that if they brought forward the Bill at that time, the Liberals would not oppose it and it would pass quickly?


Mr. Frith:: Eastman, we'll take Eastman.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I am repeating myself, but I think the point was that the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) believed that the recommendations of the Eastman Report were the ones that would be tabled in the form of a Bill.


David Orlikow: That wasn't the Bill.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That was not the Bill. That is the point. That is why we are here debating this issue.
Patent Act
The heavy boots of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) are now entering into the middle of this debate. The Hon. Member for Capilano said that there had been 14 hours of debate. As of this afternoon, we have had a total of two and a half hours' debate on this Bill. That means that we have had less than one hour for every billion dollars of the cost of this Bill. The Deputy Prime Minister now comes in and suggests that we cut the closure from two days to one day. I think that it is outrageous.


An Hon. Member:: I think it's childish.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. [Translation]


Mr. Gerin:: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Hon. Member should be allowed to make that kind of comment when she is discussing the Bill. To be relevant, she should stick to the Bill and give direct answers to the questions that have been asked and the many questions we want to ask as well, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to recognize another Member on questions and comments. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. Lanthier:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, a man who can count since he is an engineer, informed us here in the House of two things: first, Canadians will not be spending more on drugs. Second, if you want to discuss details, the House of Commons is not the appropriate place. This should be done in committee.
This afternoon, Mr. Weiner, who is a pharmacist, said substantially the same thing, in addition to saying that we Canadians were doomed to receive drugs-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member should know that he should not refer to the Minister by his name. He should be referred to as Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). I recognize the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis on what is, I hope, a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: I rise on a point of order. It has been three times today. Mr. Speaker, you know the rules so well that you knew as soon as I got up that it was exactly to call to order the Hon. Member and to remind him that we do not refer by name even to the Minister of State for Immigration. It is not a custom of the House. I know you have done it, so my task is very simple. I thank you very warmly for perceiving ahead of time that this is exactly the point of order that I wished to make.

November 24, 1986
Patent Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). Was there a question there, or an answer that the Hon. Member wished to give?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am not an engineer. I am not a pharmacist. But 1 was elected to represent the people in my riding. Where you represent the people is in Parliament. That is why we are elected to come here and debate issues on the floor of the House.
The Members on the government side of the House know that the reason they want to get this Bill into committee is to scuttle the type of publicity and negative reaction which we have seen on a daily basis as we hear the contradictions, the obfuscations, and the Neanderthal meanderings of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This weekend the Minister in fact contradicted his own words when he said that there would be a detrimental effect on prices, because the prices of drugs would not go up. But any new miracle drugs coming on the market would not see their prices lowered as quickly as they might be, because they would not have competition from the generic drugs. It is going to hit us in the same place, that is, in our pocket-books.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are still two short questions. One is from the Hon. Member for Surrey- White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) and the other is from the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young). I will recognize two very short questions put to the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Mr. Friesen:: I listened with care to the Hon. Member's speech. I was a little afraid that she had overdosed on gripe water there for a while.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: The purport of her remarks was that the legislation and the Government here are simply a mouthpiece for the United States. I have noticed for the past couple of years thatjthe Hon. Member has taken positions similar to the Congress of the United States on such issues as Nicaragua and South Africa. I wonder if the Hon. Member is speaking as a mouthpiece of the United States when she does that. Is it not possible to have a parallel conclusion based on what is right, without being a mouthpiece for another country?
Second, if it is right to protect Canadian intellectual property, for example, authors, the works of Margaret Atwood, or movies, why is it not right to protect other intellectual property, too?


Sheila Maureen Copps: First of all, Mr. Speaker, going back to the introduction of the legislation which protected Canadian consumers back in the 1960s, the reason it was introduced was that this so-called intellectual property which was supposed to be flourishing in Canada was non-existent. Consumers were being taken to the cleaners.
The Hon. Member states that I have patterned my views after the views of the American Congress vis-a-vis South Africa. The Hon. Member mentioned the fact that I have taken the position of other countries. Yes. I am proud of the fact that unlike a colleague on his side of the House I am not going to go on a South African propaganda trip and give up my chance to be speaking here in Parliament. His Government has been getting away with speaking out of both sides of its mouth on the South African issue. There is one Member who is running off on a propaganda trip, which the Minister of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) has said is so outrageous that he is closing down the South African tourist board. Then there is another Member coming in and stating what a great job we are doing. I will pit the record of this Party on the issue of South Africa, and on the issue of the pharmaceuticals, against any other Party bar none, Mr. Speaker, and with no apologies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Neil Young: I will try to make my question short, Mr. Speaker. Does the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) agree with what the government Members are arguing, that there is somehow going to be a Drug Prices Review Board provided in this legislation which will protect the interest of consumers? On the other hand, we know that the pharmaceuticals, the multinationals, have literally spent millions of dollars in challenging generic drug firms before the courts. Does the Hon. Member think that the multinational corporations would not alter their approach to generic drugs by indeed challenging any application that they may make before a review board? Dr. Harry Eastman expressed exactly the same fears in a report in The Globe and Mail this morning. Would the Hon. Member comment on that?


Sheila Maureen Copps: Far be it from me, Mr. Speaker, to criticize previous Liberal Governments. Some of us remember back to the mid-1970s when we had the prices review board under the very able leadership of Beryl Plumptre. There was a feeling among a lot of people that it is very easy to control wages. It is something quite different to control prices. The studies that have subsequently been done on the experience of the prices review board at that time show that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to control prices.
If you look at Clause 14, proposed Section 41.18 to proposed Section 41.25, the so-called prices review board that is being set up here is so vague that the Government chooses not even to define what is research and development. If there is no definition of research and development, how will we be able to equate the costs of the drug, and the costs that are to be borne by consumers?
Surely the issue of R and D-we have heard all this talk about intellectual property-is fundamental enough to the Bill that it should be included in the legislation, as opposed to left to the whim of some regulator who may, in fact, decide that something which is absolutely not Canadian R and D will be paid for by Canadian consumers.
November 24, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have been more than kind. Order, please. Questions and comments are now terminated.


Sheila Maureen Copps: 1 rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps).


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise this point of order. I do not mean to be frivolous. But in the course of the the questions and answers, because of the noise level at times and the number of interventions that were coming from a number of Conservatives, I am not sure whether I answered all of the questions, or whether there was at least one Member from the Conservative side of the House who had the opportunity to pose a question without my having the opportunity to respond. Generally speaking, the strategy is to have a question followed by a response. Because of the melee, I was not sure whether that objective was achieved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 think that the Hon. Member did very well today. I also think she has answered all the questions. I will vouch for that.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

David Berger: Mr. Speaker, on October 15, I raised the now infamous cuts at the National Research Council in a question in the House. On that day officials of the NRC announced at a press conference that they would be cutting $20 million from their budget and provided Canadians with a detailed list of the cuts. That $20 million cut was being made to a budget of some $400 million. The Government had previously cut the budget of the NRC by some $120 million in the two years since it took office. The cuts now total almost 30 per cent of the previous NRC budget of $520 million in November of 1984.
Also on October 15, John Polanyi, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Toronto, won the Nobel Prize. The coincidence of Dr. Polanyi winning the Nobel Prize and the Government cutting further in the area of research and development
Adjournment Debate
caused these issues to appear on the front pages of our newspapers and in the evening telecasts.
As an aside, some Tory Members several weeks later had the audacity to suggest in committee that the NRC had somehow planned to make these cuts on the very day that John Polanyi won the Nobel Prize. They indicated that there was some sort of conspiracy which the NRC had conjured up to try to make the Government look bad. How ludicrous.
I attended the press conference given by the NRC officials. They announced the $20 million in cuts at the direction and under the orders of the Government. The press conference coincided with a meeting of the executive committee of the NRC, following a meeting of the full membership of the council in September. At the end of that rather dreary press conference, I remember a member of the media saying to Larkin Kerwin, the President of the NRC: "Did you know that John Polanyi just won the Nobel Prize?" Dr. Kerwin was pleasantly surprised and somewhat taken aback. How ludicrous it is for members of the Conservative Party to suggest that there was some sort of conspiracy on the part of the NRC to announce the cuts on the same day as Dr. Polanyi won the Nobel Prize.
We know what happened thereafter. There was an outcry from all parts of the country when it was learned that the public safety office at the NRC was being sacrificed. That office had done some work in the area of detection of drugs and bombs at airports. It had done considerable work with police forces across the country. There was a protest from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. We also learned that cold weather research would be affected. Work in the area of icing of structures in the North, such as transmission lines and helicopter blades, is going down the drain. We learned that the work of the scientists who had developed the mechanism which controls the Canadarm was being cut out.
We were told by the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) that there would be no lay-offs at the NRC. Several days later he told us that there would be no lay-offs this year. After that he said he personally would try to place scientists in universities and in the private sector to prove that there would be no lay-offs. The truth is somewhat different than what we were told by the Minister. We were told by officials at NRC that all the fat had been cut out in the past several years and that it would be difficult to avoid layoffs this time around.
I could talk about the effect on morale of people at the NRC which is at all-time low, however, I would like to conclude by saying that the Minister's tactical retreat is unsatisfactory. The Minister has named a task force to review the cuts, but he has not said that it has the authority to reverse the cuts. He has not said that the Government will restore the funding of $20 million to the National Research Council. That is what I ask the Minister to do today, and I hope all Canadians will send him a message to that effect.

November 24, 1986
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to reply to the Member's question because it gives me an opportunity to set the record straight and lay to rest many of the exaggerated and unfair statements raised recently.
First, the extent of the reductions has been exaggerated. The Hon. Member said that the cut was 30 per cent when in actual fact it is only 9 per cent.


David Berger: Take a look at your estimates.


Thomas Gordon Towers: An area of gross exaggeration has been the impact on people. It has been claimed that the reductions affect some 200 positions. In actual fact, as the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) found out in the Standing Committee, only 184 people are directly affected, something like half of them will be reassigned before the end of the year and the remainder will have a minimum of 13 months more in which to find satisfactory work. NRC expects to use many innovative ways to help these people. For example, the NRC wind tunnel will be commercialized and actively marketed. This could actually result in an expansion of employment at the facility if it goes to two shifts per day.
NRC is also discussing the possibility of transferring various research teams to Canadian universities or other departments so that they can maintain their R and D activities with limited disruptions. NSERC funding may be provided to help ease the transition.
NRC has also imposed a freeze on outside hiring, and an early retirement program will be introduced. All together these actions will ensure that valuable research and technical resources remain effectively utilized, even if they are not employed by the NRC. Finally, NRC will be getting additional person-years for some programs so that by next year their person-year authorities will be expanding.
Another issue that has often been raised is the question of IRAP. In spite of everything the Opposition has said, it can now be confirmed that IRAP contributions will not be reduced. We have always recognized how important that program is and have never wanted to cut it.
Lastly, many people have raised concerns over certain specific reductions. Many problems have been raised and a variety of dangers alluded to. We have now appointed a task force with three eminent persons to review the reductions to ensure that no such problems arise. In sum, the reductions and reallocations at NRC are only part of the Government's program in science and technology. They can be seen as necessary and important redress from the situation we inherited. The NRC situation has been exaggerated out of proportion. In actual fact, the extent of the cuts is not very great, the impact on people has been contained and the NRC remains a strong and viable research facility with new resources in important areas like biotechnology and space.
I recognize that the Hon. Member did not have the courtesy to remain for the answer.


BANKS AND BANKING-ESTEY COMMISSION REPORT-NONPUBLICATION OF UNINSURED DEPOSITORS' NAMES. (B) INQUIRY CONCERNING POSSIBLE INTERIM REPORTS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, since the report of the Estey commission was released last month, I have asked a number of questions concerning the uninsured and as yet unnamed Canadian Commercial Bank and Northland Bank depositors who were fully reimbursed by the Government out of public funds. For over a year now my colleagues and I have been asking the Government to justify its refusal to release the names of those uninsured depositors who received nearly $1 billion in ex gratia payments out of the public purse. I would remind the House that these are the so-called sophisticated investors since we are talking about a wholesale bank. In fact, at least one investor on the secret list received $1 million of taxpayers' money to compensate for a lost deposit.
First the Government said that the provisions of the Bank Act precluded it from releasing the names. However, when my colleagues and I asked exactly what portion of the Bank Act and asked to see the legal opinions on which the Government was basing its interpretation of the Bank Act, we received no answers. I also asked why the Government was citing the Bank Act in the first place since the situation involved former banks then in liquidation whose affairs might reasonably be considered to be subject to the provisions of the Winding-Up Act rather than the Bank Act. Again I received no answer.
Finally, on October 1, 1985, I was told by the former Minister of State (Finance), as reported at page 7206 of Hansard:
-I am quite prepared to release the lists to the commission and have Mr. Justice Estey decide-
We now have the report of the Estey commission and, as illuminating and thorough as it is, it is completely silent on the matter of the uninsured depositors. On October 31, 1986, when I pursued this with the current Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Hockin) he said, as reported at page 950 of Hansard:
-when the commission was established the question of the names of depositors was something on which Mr. Justice Estey was to decide .... It is not now our position to challenge Justice Estey's decision since it was his decision. He received the names and he has decided not to publish them.
When I pursued this further on November 3, 1986, I received a different response from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who said, as reported at page 1007 of Hansard:
We decided it was inappropriate for us to release those names ... We know that the matter could have been considered by Mr. Justice Estey. He chose not to do so.
In fact, we now know that the matter was never referred to Mr. Justice Estey. It was never a part of his terms of reference. Finally, after 18 months, the Minster of Finance admitted that it was his decision and that of his Cabinet colleagues and was
November 24, 1986

not particularly based on a legal opinion or on Mr. Justice Estey or anyone else behind whom they had tried to hide.
I do not think that Canadian taxpayers, who surely have the right to know where their tax dollars are going, will accept that the matter rests there. We in the Official Opposition have always taken the position that taxpayers have the right to know and we agree with the former Deputy Prime Minister who said in this House on October 4, 1985, as reported at page 7332 of Hansard-.
-public funds are at all times subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. That is what this place is all about.
However, the Government has been less than forthcoming and has contradicted itself in the little that has been said. First we were told that there was a decision on the part of the Estey Commission not to release the names of the uninsured depositors. Then we were told that in fact it was the Government's decision and that the matter was not considered by the commission and was never part of its terms of reference.
It is not acceptable for the Minister of Finance to say, as he did on November 3, that it was the Government's decision not to release the names and to attempt to close the book on it without any reasonable explanation. A secret list of people who got $875 million from the taxpayers' pockets requires a very full explanation.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has raised the question of the publication of the list of uninsured depositors of the CCB and Northland Bank who were compensated under Bill C-79.
As was indicated in the House last fall, and reiterated this month, the Government felt it would be inappropriate to release the names of the uninsured depositors of the two banks because it holds as an important principle respect for the privacy rights of individuals. Protection of this privacy is consistent with the intent of the Bank Act and the Access to Information Act. The private financial information given by a depositor to a bank is given in confidence and treated with confidence from that moment forward under the privacy provisions of the Bank Act. Such protection of the privacy of individuals continues to be the position of the Government.
While the Government protected the names of depositors, it did table in the House a detailed breakdown of the categories of depositors compensated under Bill C-79. These lists were organized into more than 40 categories for each institution, representing a very clear and concise picture of the individuals and types of organizations who received compensation under the Bill. The breakdown clearly demonstrated therefore where and to what major groups in society the funds were to be paid. By doing so, the Government acted responsibly in providing as much information as possible, and at the same time did not violate the right to privacy of uninsured depositors.
Adjournment Debate
The Government, while it did not feel entitled to release the names of uninsured depositors, did send the list of these individuals to Mr. Justice Estey. I want to clarify to the House, however, that the list was provided to the commission as part of a package of background information regarding events related to the Canadian Commercial Bank and Northland Bank failures. Mr. Estey was not asked to decide whether or not the list of uninsured depositors should be made public.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO UNITED STATES TRADE NEGOTIATOR. (B) CONSUMER ASSOCIATION'S POSITION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on November 19 I put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) with regard to a statement by the U.S. special trade representative on whether drug prices will rise as the result of the Government's legislation. Of course, the answer is that Mr. Yeutter said drug prices will rise. According to the transcript of the program, he said:
Any improvements in this area are clearly in the best interest of Canada as a nation. Now in some cases maybe this will raise the price at the retail level of some of these products, but if we're going to have low retail prices based upon piracy it seems to me that's not a sound way to run a country.
My point was simply that if Clayton Yeutter said drug prices will rise and if Professor Eastman and the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association said drug prices will rise, then there is not much doubt.
I realize that the Minister valiantly held out by insisting that the savings Canadians would make would come in the form of lower prices rather than higher prices, but he too finally conceded the point on Friday when he said his "worst case scenario" meant that drug prices could rise. I wonder if this could be confirmed tonight? I asked again in Question Period this afternoon, and I did not get any real answer, as to how much prices will rise as a result of this Bill.
The second part of Mr. Yeutter's comments was the reference to Canadian policy being based on piracy. Canadian patent rules are based on our national needs within recognized international conventions. They have withstood the many challenges which the multinational companies have made, the most recent being the Federal Court decision of 1985 which found that Canada's drug patent law was not an abridgement of the freedoms granted under the Canadian Charter of Rights, and further had not stopped the companies from earning substantial profits.
Compulsory licences, which authorized generics in this country, are a well-known patent device. They are recognized as such and the only reason they are being restricted, as proposed in this Bill, is not because they are theft, piracy, or that the people who apply for them are scavengers, but that the United States does not like them.
To change the present policy is to say that we must act like the big boys who are our trading partners. It ignores the fact that Canada is a very small minnow in the world drug market.

November 24, 1986
Adjournment Debate
We are 2 per cent of that market. There are no multinationals with headquarters in Canada. All the indigenous Canadian drug companies have largely been bought up by multinationals and often had their research transferred to the United States.
Faced with this situation, the Government made the right choice in 1969. It said that we will not get much in the way of research and employment in an industry that is not employment intensive, so we have opted for lower prices and a smaller indigenous generic industry.
It is another form of the Auto Pact where we have recognized international reality and made the best deal for ourselves. The Government's legislation will now sacrifice both these aspects of a successful drug policy. I invite the Member who replies on behalf of the Government to confirm that we will no longer have low prices as our policy goal in prescription drugs, that we will have a generic drug industry which will be stalled for at least seven years before it has new drugs to produce and we will have a system which is essentially like that of the United States. Certainly Clayton Yeutter will be happy, but most Canadians will not be. I invite the Government to recognize why Canadians are not happy and why the majority is so opposed to this Bill.


Gabrielle Bertrand: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who has quoted Mr. Yeutter, I would like to say that perhaps there is some misunderstanding about the contents of this bill and about the role and functions of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. As the Minister has said on numerous occasions, this Bill will not affect drugs now sold in Canada and will not cause any increase in their price. The drugs which now have generic equivalents will continue to have them and competition between the manufacturer of innovative products and the generic company will continue to guarantee low prices for these products.
In the case of all existing drugs for which there is no generic equivalent at this time and of new drugs marketed in the future, the Prices Review Board is empowered to guarantee that the prices are reasonable and that any increase corresponds to the Consumer Price Index.
The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board is also empowered to compare the prices asked for a drug in Canada with those asked in other countries and to ensure that prices in Canada are reasonable and fair to Canadians. When the Board identifies an unreasonable price, it will have the power to revoke the exclusivity period for the product involved, and in extreme cases, to remove the exclusivity of another product of the same manufacturer.
Mr. Yeutter used the word piracy. I strongly oppose any allegation that our compulsory licensing system is an illegal counterfeiting scheme. The changes which will be made under Bill C-22 had long been suggested by other OECD countries. The previous Government had started a review process and corrections are now being made to our compulsory licensing policy, not as a response to these accusations, but because the Government wants to encourage investment in pharmaceutical research and development in this country. The Government wants also to stimulate the growth of a high quality chemical product branch in the pharmaceutical industry. The current policy has made very little progress on either of these fronts and the changes Bill C-22 will bring about will help remedy the situation. This initiative will create at least 3,000 new jobs for Canadians and will attract huge investments in research, development and manufacturing in the pharmaceutical industry in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.24 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, November 25, 1986