1986-11-21

[Stage Direction]
35 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE TWENTY-FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1986 TO THE TWENTY-SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY, 1987_

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 21, 1986


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, Ontario Francophones had cause to rejoice this week, when Bill 8, which provides for access to French language services, was passed by the Ontario legislature and received royal assent. I would like to congratulate Premier Peterson's Liberal Government, which in making this historic gesture has advanced the cause of minority language rights in Canada.
Providing services in their own language for half a million Ontario citizens and potential access for six million Quebecers or other Francophones is no mean feat. To us, French-speaking Ontarians, Bill 8 also reflects the provincial Government's goodwill and thus augurs well for future constitutional negotiations.
I would like to emphasize that the position of the Liberal Party of Canada in these negotiations is to invite the Government of Ontario to adopt Sections 16 and 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and thus recognize in the Constitution the right of all French-speaking Canadians to use their mother tongue in Ontario.

[English)



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, Canada needs some basic reforms if we are go keep our farmers on the land. Young and middle-aged farmers are frustrated and worried about their future. Here is just one example and there are hundreds more just the same.
A third generation farmer has just completed his books for the year 1986. He had had the second largest crop in the history of the farm, which his grandfather and his father had farmed before him. Even though the price of wheat was below the cost of production, he was buoyant and happy until the crop was swathed, and then hope and cheer diminished daily as
the rains came and continued day after day. Finally, when the threshing was done, instead of number one wheat all he had was feed valued at about $2 a bushel. "I didn't even break even, and what am I going to do for groceries for another year, and what about the clothes and books for the kids?" What, indeed? Surely when we can put a man on the moon we can provide ways and means to keep our farmers on the land.



HARBOURS AND PORTS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, political patronage is undermining the smooth operation of the five-member Nanaimo Harbour Commission. The three federally appointed members have been calling for the resignation of the locally appointed commissioner who is also chairman. In turn, the chairman has been calling for an independent investigation of the commission but this has been refused by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie).
The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellen-berg) claims that the Commission is an autonomous body which must solve its own problems, this in spite of the fact that a majority of its members are federal patronage appointments, including Doug McBride, the Hon. Member's former campaign manager. McBride and the other federal appointees diverted $8,000 from the Harbour Commission to a job seminar sponsored by the Hon. Member. Whatever the merits of the seminar, this does not seem to be the best use of Nanaimo Harbour funds.
The Minister of Transport has an obligation to investigate the Commission so that it can quit playing politics and get back to its basic job of running the harbour.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am gravely concerned, along with a constituent of mine, Mr. Frank May of Arctic Bay on North Baffin Island, over the sinking of the

November 21, 1986
two Icelandic whaling ships in Reykjavik harbour, Iceland. It is imperative that we show that Canada does not approve of or support vigilante tactics of this nature. The basis of the northern economy, the fur trade, has suffered from the vigilante action of similar organizations in destroying people's livelihood.
Sealing and trapping of fur-bearing animals used to provide income, however meagre, for at least 50 per cent of the population. Now less than 10 per cent do any trapping at all. This has resulted in chronic unemployment and inactivity, with disastrous social and cultural consequences. With the pull-out of oil and gas exploration from the Beaufort Sea and closings in the mining sector, the North has been economically bombarded from all sides.
I call on the Ministers who are part of the action force on Arctic initiatives to take swift and immediate action to correct this grave injustice which was created in part by these vigilante groups.



TARIFFS


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, a high percentage of Canadians are illiterate. They have the right to learn to read in order to be able to participate in the Canadian process and be more effective in the market-place. We are concerned about their right to read and write efficiently and effectively. We are also concerned about their right to read, when they can and if they wish, books of their own choice regardless of the author and regardless of the country of origin. It is for that reason that Canadians are very angry about the improper tax on books put in place by the Government.
The Mulroney Government imposed a 10 per cent tariff on certain types of books. It is the wrong target, it is discriminatory, it has free trade implications, and is going to bring about job losses. It will cost the consumer more to buy books. It is a disincentive to reading, and I encourage the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to remove this repressive tax.
.



APARTHEID


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, as reported in today's Globe and Mail, one of the world's largest shoe-makers, Canadian-based Bata Shoe Company, has announced that it is selling its entire operations in South Africa to non-Canadian, non-South African buyers. This voluntary action flies in the face of a recent statement in the
House by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who said: "Voluntary guidelines regarding investment in South Africa are not working".
This action by the Bata Shoe Company is the latest move by a prominent Canadian company to pull out of South Africa in protest against that Government's policy of apartheid. Last month Dominion Textile Incorporated of Montreal announced that it was selling its 50 per cent interest in a South African-based textile company. I congratulate the Bata officials on this decision, and trust that other Canadian companies still doing business in South Africa will follow Bata's example.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Members in the House will be interested to know that my office and other Members' offices are being deluged by letters from Canadians who are concerned about what the Government is proposing to do to pharmaceutical drugs. To bring the Government into the real world, I am sure it would like to hear what some of these people are saying.
One of them said: "I would like to add my name to the list of supporters against the drug Bill being passed by Conservatives. I have many health problems and I find the regular price of medication is beyond our reach. The arthritic medication is out-priced and at times I have to go without because I can't afford it". Another person writes: "I strongly protest because I know what it costs my husband a year to buy the heart medication he is on, and what it will cost if the medication doubles or triples in price. It takes away a good lump sum of our yearly earnings. It does not serve a purpose to hit the low-income people in the pocketbook through such a vital element to life as health".
I could not agree with these people more. That is why we are in total opposition to what the Government is trying to do to the health care needs of Canadians.



WELFARE


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, poverty in Canada is a national tragedy. There are 3.9 million Canadians living below the poverty line. That is almost 16 per cent of our population. There are 1.2 million children in Canada being raised in families which are living below the
November 21, 1986

poverty line. The Government is not doing enough for the poor in Canada.
The fact that so many of our fellow Canadians live in poverty suggests very strongly that there is a problem with our social welfare system. Instead of helping those in need, the Government has chosen to help its affluent and rich friends on Bay Street and elsewhere.
The Conservative Government and the wife of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) take pride in opening food banks. However, we in the Liberal Opposition will not rest until every last damn food bank in Canada is closed. I call upon the Government to take immediate action to assist the millions of Canadians living in poverty.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association is very concerned with the downgrading of rates paid to growers by the companies. There seems to be a slightly higher chlorophyl content in the current crop as compared to last year's. It would appear that companies buying the seed are taking advantage of the producer to the tune of from $22 to $35 per tonne, and even more if the elevator agent buys the seed as No. 3.
Last year 57 per cent of the crop was bought as No. 1 seed while 75 per cent was loaded in Vancouver as No. 1 seed. That is a substantial loss to the producer. The grading system has not been perfected in canola purchases. The buyer simply puts 100 seeds in a receptacle and rolls the seed. The grade is established by what he thinks is green. The Canadian Grain Commission also grades, but this is time consuming.
The Canadian Grain Commission should make a policy whereby agents-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the Baha'i community of Canada has thanked successive Canadian Governments and successive Canadian Parliaments for the concern, interest, and leadership displayed in bringing to public attenion the tragic situation of the Baha'i community in Iran.
Repression, executions, torture, imprisonment, arbitrary arrest and arbitrary deprivation of property continue in Iran. This arises because of the failure of the Iranian constitution to recognize Baha'is as persons, instead labelling them as unclean infidels.
The House and all Canadians must call for the inclusion of rights for all persons in Iran in the constitution of that country.




Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, some eight months ago I stood in the House to bring to your attention the case of Kaisa Randpere.
Kaisa, who is now three years old, was being held hostage by Soviet authorities who refused permission for the child to join her parents in the West.
The world community reacted to this inhumane separation of parents and child by mounting a campaign to free Kaisa. The letter-writing campaign played an important role in bringing to bear the weight of public opinion against the Soviet Union.
We have now received the good news that Kaisa will be allowed to join her parents at last. Her case is an example to all of us of what we can accomplish if we work together, speaking out against human rights violations wherever they occur.
Let us never forget that the greatest enemy of freedom is silence and that every Member of this House has a duty and responsibility to speak out for those who cannot speak for themselves.



CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE-BOOSTER FOR HAMILTON TIGER-CATS

Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Hamilton Tiger-Cats are down but they are not out.


John V. Nunziata: Go Argos.


Sheila Maureen Copps: As a matter of fact we happen to have in the galleries today students from my old high school, Bishop Ryan High School. They will be supporting the Hamilton Tiger-Cats because I and my team have promised, just like Vince Lombardi said, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going."

November 21, 1986
Oral Questions


John V. Nunziata: Down with the Tiger-Cats!


Sheila Maureen Copps: I am perfectly willing to bet with the Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) that we will take him in the game this weekend.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In a speech given to a group of U.S. businessmen three weeks ago, the Minister for International Trade said that the U.S. decision on softwood lumber was: "An unacceptable attempt to impose U.S. views on how other Governments should manage their natural resources." Last evening the Prime Minister accepted a proposal to negotiate with the Americans, as opposed to fighting that measure. Why has the Government now reversed its policy? Why has it done this double-backward somersault? Does this not put all the other natural resource industries in this country in real danger and at real risk to similar U.S. countervail action?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to the last part of that question is no. The Prime Minister will be making a statement later today as a result of agreements that have been reached between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the provinces which, as the Hon. Member will know, have been working together on this issue since it arose.


EFFECT OF POSSIBLE PRECEDENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the reason we raise questions now is to try to determine why the Government has changed its position. Does this not set a very dangerous precident, if we accept in principle a U.S. decision that will have an application to the potash industry, the pulp and paper industry, and all other natural resource industries, and will give a signal to all the comparable U.S. industries to take similar action against these vital natural resource industries in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, as the representative of western Canada in the Liberal Party, will know about time zone differences. I think he will find it advisable to await the statement by the Prime Minister, which will be made shortly in Vancouver.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is because of the time zone difference that we are hoping that we can deflect the Prime Minister from this foolhardy position he seems to be undertaking.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-EXCHANGE VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Murphy, the U.S. chief negotiator, said yesterday that a condition of a free trade agreement must be a change in the value of the Canadian dollar. Will that not put our resource industries in double jeopardy, not only facing an increase in export tax, but also losing their competitive advantage in world markets? Is that not another good reason for pause and not to undertake this dangerous course of beginning to negotiate a deal with the Americans rather than legitimately fighting it in the U.S. courts and international tribunals?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in the course of one question the Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry has misquoted the U.S. trade negotiator and described as foolhardy a proposal that he has not seen yet.


AUTO PACT-STATEMENT ATTRIBUTED TO UNITED STATES NEGOTIATOR
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is clear from his speech yesterday that U.S. trade negotiator Murphy has not given up the idea of having the Auto Pact and its safeguards on the free trade negotiating table. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs use this Question Period to send a clear message to Ambassador Murphy that the Government will not allow the Auto Pact, or its safeguards, to be up for negotiation in these free trade discussions and thereby give reassurance in this important matter to some 700,000 Canadian workers whose jobs are linked to the preservation of the Auto Pact and its current safeguards?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the position taken by our chief negotiator, with a slight grammatical revision. Since the Auto Pact is not broken, we are not going to change it.


PROGRAMS FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IN PROVINCES- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in his speech, Ambassador Murphy also said that in the free trade talks his Governement will insist that the provinces change their purchasing and marketing policies.
Is the Government prepared to give up its important regional development programs for the provinces, or is the Government prepared to reject today this request by Ambassador Murphy?
November 21, 1986

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is an established fact that when conducting negotiations, the spokesman for one side wants to express the position taken by that side. Mr. Murphy was speaking for the American side, and it is only natural that he should wish to indicate certain requests his side would make. The fact that he can do so is no indication that the Canadian side will acceed to those requests.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday at the First Ministers' Conference many Premiers asked the Prime Minister for additional federal funds for regional economic development. The Prime Minister said he was interested in fairness but regretted there was no money left in the pot. Is it not hypocritical to talk about fairness when the Government is denying money for regional development and at the same time can find $100 million in additional funds to go to multinational drug companies to pay for increased drug costs?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, what this policy does is give Canadians an opportunity to participate in the drug and biotechnology research which is so vitally important to the health and future of this country. We have done this in a way which produces fair prices for the consumer. There are at least 3,000 direct jobs involved, and there will be more than that. If the Hon. Member wants to consider this only in the context of an economic development policy, this is an exceptionally efficient economic development policy. Thinking in terms of the health of Canadians and the future for this country not being involved in this high tech area, I do not see how anyone can responsibly criticize what we are trying to do.


Lloyd Axworthy: I have news for you.


John Edward Broadbent: No one other than the whole country is criticizing the Government for what it is doing in this area.


PROPOSED PAYMENT TO NOVA SCOTIA
John Edward Broadbent: Would the Minister try to explain to an unemployed steelworker in Cape Breton why his Premier has to ask for $25 million more to pay for additional drug costs and at the same time is being denied additional regional development money which could provide a job, perhaps, for that unemployed steel worker in Cape Breton?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I assume that unemployed steelworker,
Oral Questions
along with the Hon. Member and everyone in this House, is vitally interested in trying to find a cure for cancer. I am sure he is vitally interested in trying to find better drugs for disease.
I am sure we are all vitally interested in this important area. I am sure that hypothetical steelworker would not like us to say as a country: "We are getting out of this business. We will let the rest of the world do the research. We will opt out and simply pay for drugs from other countries which do the research, through our raw materials". I am sure that steelworker would not support that policy.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my next question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister whose major responsibility is for allocation and making priority decisions.

My question is as follows: Is it fair for a Government to reduce its budget for regional development programs and at the same time increase the price of drugs and the cost to the very same provinces that need regional development assistance?


Mr. Thacker:: Why do you hate young people so much?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs dramatically illustrated that this is a tremendously good economic development program, not only from the standpoint of jobs and the enhancement of Canada's scientific and medical research community, but that it will give Canada the opportunity to do its fair share promoting the human instinct to develop cures for many of the diseases for which a cure has not yet been found. Canada has had a proud tradition in the past. We certainly want to provide the climate for that to continue in the future.


PRICE OF DRUGS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills asks us why we hate young people. We do not hate young people. We also intend to fight for the unemployed steelworker.
Why does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs insist on saying that the prices of drugs will not increase when the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association calls this Bill a $650 million annual pill, when several Premiers at the First Ministers' Conference pointed out yesterday that the price of drugs in their provinces will be increasing, and when the Consumers' Association of Canada has quite clearly said that across the board there will be drug price increases? How can the Minister persist in telling the Canadian public that black is white?

November 21, 1986
Oral Questions
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, 1 guess probably 10 or 12 times this week I have tried to answer that question. When the Bill gets to committee we will have a chance to deal with it, perhaps in a calmer atmosphere. However, I will ask the Hon. Member a rhetorical question in return. Has the Liberal Party which, in 1983, recognized that the Patent Act had to be changed because we were penalizing Canadian researchers and not doing our fair share of medical research in the world, thereby jeopardizing the future of a great many of our young scientists, as well as perhaps not providing as good health care as would be possible if we had that research in Canada, changed its mind?


ONTARIO MINISTERS' LETTERS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about calmness. He has had over three months to respond to a letter from the Minister of Health of the province which will be most affected by this legislation. Why did the Minister not even bother to reply to an August 7 letter from the Minister of Health for the Province of Ontario who pointed out the need for discussion before any introduction of legislation? He also pointed out in his letter that the Province of Ontario is where drug prices will be increasing, where there is the highest number of consumers of any province, and where more than half of the pharamaceutical industry, including generic and brand-name industries, are located. Why would the Minister not meet with Murray Elston? Why would he not even reply to his mail?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Elston said in his letter, he wanted our officials to contact, and they have been in contact. In fact, there have been no significant changes since June 27.1 have a letter from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of Ontario, Monte Kwinter, who states in part:
-it seems only fair that research-based companies in the pharmaceutical industry who expend large amounts of money for research in developing of new drugs should be able to recoup their moneys through patent protection for at
least 12 years.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Beatty:: Supplementary, Sheila!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Beaches.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TABLE IMPACT STUDIES
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. His arguments that the unemployed are willing to subsidize the multinational companies to provide jobs for themselves reminds me of the same Government's arguments that senior citizens were willing to take a reduction in pensions to reduce the deficit.


Mr. Murphy:: Equally as ridiculous.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a number of provincial Premiers-


An Hon. Member:: Speech!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Double-talk over there.


Mr. Lewis:: Where's the question?


Neil Young: Control yourselves.
Yesterday a number of provincial Premiers indicated that the compensation the Government was offering on these legislative changes was totally inadequate. In view of this will the Minister not now agree to table in the House those cost impact studies which the Government has done on the actual cost to Canadians?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I have answered that question four or five times. In committee I am prepared to show in great detail why in fact those cost estimates the Hon. Member keeps raising are in there. The cost estimates are based on assumptions which simply have no validity and I will be able to demonstrate that to the Hon. Member in committee if he will keep an open mind.


CONFIDENTIALITY OF STUDIES
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister explain to the House why those cost-impact studies are not available to Members in the House because of cabinet confidences but somehow magically will be made available to Members in committee? Could the Minister explain that to us?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have explained that several times. I invite the Hon. Member to re-read Hansard of this week. I wonder why members of the New Democratic Party feel that it is somehow wrong for Canadians to invest in research and development. What is immoral about Canada doing its fair share of research and development?


PATENTS
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The legislation prepared by the former Minister in June contained a clause obliging the multinationals
November 21, 1986

to manufacture or purchase their active ingredients in Canada if they wanted to obtain a patent. The Ontario Minister of Health said yesterday on television that he deplored the fact that the new legislation had eliminated this provision. My question is as follows: why did the Minister give in to pressure by the multinationals?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact, on that matter we gave in to the generic companies which asked, as set out in their submission, "that compulsory licences to manufacture domestic synthetic fine chemicals be granted earlier than 10 years, as an example five or six years, in order to ensure a window of oppportunity for meaningful industrial activity". We provided a seven-year exclusivity so that generic companies will have that three-year window of opportunity and, incidentally, bring on generic competition in less time than 10 years. We did this in response to a request from the generic industry.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REINSTATE PROVISION DRAFTED IN PREVIOUS LEGISLATION
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, the June Bill gave a longer time of protection to the generic industry. This Bill will permit the multinationals to buy the ingredients outside Canada, in Puerto Rico for instance, and will not develop the Canadian fine chemicals industry. The Minister should read the Bill of last June and bring back that satisfactory provision. Will he bring it back?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that the use of such terms is inappropriate. Perhaps she could continue her question.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Will the Minister bring back the provision that was in the June Bill?


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member is asking me that we not provide for there to be generic competition after seven years for manufacturing and to restore the June provision which provided for a full 10 years. Does the Hon. Member want generic competition after seven years or only after 10 years? She should make up her mind.


POSITION OF PROVINCES
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. At the First Ministers' Conference the Prime Minister lectured the provinces on the need for keeping their deficits down, but at the same time the Government is loading millions of extra dollars of costs on the provinces so that it can give millions of dollars to multinational drug companies. Does the Minister think that Canadians are so
Oral Questions
dense that they will not be able to see through all this doubletalk and hypocrisy?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, every province in Canada will benefit from the increased medical research at universities and teaching hospitals. The provinces will benefit from having better health care for citizens, from having research being conducted in the provinces, and from the creation of jobs for those young people who are now being educated in this important area. This will give them the opportunity to have a job in Canada and we think it is very important. We have done it in a way that produces fair prices, and if the Hon. Member would keep an open mind I am sure he would agree.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Hon. Member for Cowichan- Malahat-The Islands puts his second question, I would ask him to be more careful in the phrasing of it. He is getting very close to using words that are unparliamentary.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be very careful with my words but this is a very important subject.


CREATION OF JOBS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are very concerned and want to know how the Government can go on talking about jobs in research when it has already cut back on just about every research program for which it has direct funding responsibilities. How can the Government do that and talk about research at the same time?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the restoration of patent rights will generate at least 3,000 research jobs in Canada. How can members of the New Democratic Party object to that? Is the Hon. Member saying that, for ideological reasons, the only kind of research worth doing is that done in Government laboratories paid for directly by the taxpayer?


RAILWAYS
Jack Scowen: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. What action is the Minister taking to implement the recommendations for the method of payment submitted by the Horner Report last spring?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I will respond to that question. I know there has been work going on within the Department. The recommendations of the Horner Report are being studied

November 21, 1986
Oral Questions
and I can assume that, in due course, the Minister will make an appropriate announcement.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In the light of two killings following convenience store robberies in Quebec and Alberta, I note that the Minister's Main Estimates will cut the crime prevention budget by more than 50 per cent. Convenience store robbery protection was a main emphasis of the crime prevention program. Does the Minister believe that crime prevention works, as he has said he believes? If so, why is he allowing his budget to be cut by more than 50 per cent in that important area?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that I am well aware of the cuts made to the budget of my Department. After careful review of them, we are quite satisfied that no services such as those mentioned by the Hon. Member will indeed be affected in any way that will endanger the safety of the public.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been going around the country promoting crime prevention yet his budget has been cut by more than 50 per cent. How can he say that a cut of more than 50 per cent will not make a difference in the effectiveness of the convenience store robbery prevention program?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered the question. I will repeat the answer if the Hon. Member wishes. I have carefully reviewed the cuts that have been made to this particular Ministry and I can assure the Hon. Member that public safety and that of private citizens will not in any way be endangered.


UNITED STATES DUTY ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER-U.S. PETITION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs and is about the 15 per cent countervail on Canadian softwood. Since a termination agreement must be reached prior to December 30 and a prerequisite for that under U.S. law is the withdrawal of the U.S. petition, would the Minister advise if the American petitioners have agreed in any way to withdraw their petition and negotiate an agreement, or is he
counting on the U.S. administration to arrange for that petition to be withdrawn?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my answer to that question must be along the lines of my answer to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry earlier today. There has been a federal-provincial conference in progress over the last two days and there has been a very extensive process of federal-provincial co-operation with regard to the countervail matter. The Prime Minister will be announcing the results of that consultation and that common Canadian action in a few hours Vancouver time.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as of late last night the head of the U.S. coalition, Bill Lange, knew nothing of this verbal agreement between Mr. Baldrige of the United States and the Minister for International Trade, and the key issue is whether or not they are prepared to withdraw the petition.
My supplementary question for the same Minister results from a statement made on November 5 by the Director of U.S. Trade in the Minister's Department regarding the 15 per cent duty. He said that the subsidy determination is flawed in law and logic, is inconsistent with established U.S. practice, and is based on erroneous assumptions. Is that still the position of the Government of Canada? Do we intend to continue fighting to remedy this tragic situation before the U.S. Department of Commerce and GATT?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate that some Members of the House grow impatient with the federal-provincial process. We are a federal country. There is a provincial interest in this matter. As I said earlier today, the Prime Minister will be making a statement on this matter in Vancouver where the federal-provincial conference is under way.


PETRO-CANADA SALE OF COME-BY-CHANCE OIL REFINERY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Premier Peckford of Newfoundland stated yesterday that in the sale of the refinery at Come-by-Chance, Petro-Canada placed restrictive market conditions upon the new owners. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the statements of Premier Peckford are correct, that there were restrictive market conditions placed upon the new owners?
Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry and
Mines)): Mr. Speaker, the deal that was struck was between
November 21, 1986

two companies, one which owned the particular asset, and the purchaser. As I understand, there were some conditions attached. But in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is at the First Ministers' Conference, I would prefer to bring it to his notice and he will respond in due course.


EXISTENCE OF MARKET RESTRICTIONS QUERIED
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I accept it as galling that the Government is not able to give an answer to this very important question. Restrictive market conditions are wrong. I want to know why the Government allowed Petro-Canada to put these restrictive market conditions in this sale.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, without agreeing with the premise of the question, the Acting Minister has undertaken to provide a full and comprehensive answer in an appropriate fashion. I am surprised that the Hon. Member would find that non-acceptable.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-EXCHANGE VALUE OF CANADIAN DOLLAR
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. He will know that yesterday the free trade process took an ominous turn when the chief negotiator indicated that the American Congress would likely be calling for an increase in the value of the Canadian dollar. The only way that the Government could do that would be to increase interest rates significantly. Is the Government giving any consideration at all to increasing interest rates seriously as part of the free trade process?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Miss MacDonald:: Are you advocating that?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the American trade negotiator said yesterday that these exchange rates between the two countries are generally not part of the negotiations. That is our Government's position.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION ON INTEREST RATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, that is interesting, because it was also quoted that Peter Murphy said that he did not know if he could possibly sell an agreement to the Congress if Canada does not make concessions on its exchange rate. Now, that makes it pretty clear to anybody concerned with this process that they are asking for concessions; and Congress will only sign an agreement if those concessions are likely made. My question to the Deputy Prime
Oral Questions
Minister is this. Will he say categorically that the Government of Canada will not give any consideration at all to increasing interest rates as part of these discussions?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that interest rates have declined by almost four percentage points since this Government took office. The policy of this Government is to keep interest rates going down, not up like the Liberals and the NDP did when they were in office.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: When were we in office? That's a slip.


DISASTERS
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my first question is for the Solicitor General. I have given him notice of the question. It has been almost a year and a half since the Air-India crash; a year and a half since the premeditated, planned, and deliberate mass murder of 329 individuals, most of whom were Canadians. To date criminal charges have not been laid. Can the Solicitor General explain to Canadians, and especially to the families of the victims, why charges have not been laid? Will he not agree that there is insufficient evidence to pursue a criminal prosecution?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member advised my office of this question this morning. I can advise the House and the Hon. Member that I checked with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police before coming to Question Period this morning. I am advised by them that the investigation is still being actively carried on. It is continuing. I can give no further information at this time.


REQUEST THAT ROYAL COMMISSION BE APPOINTED
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the delay is inexcusable. My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. As the Hon. Minister knows, there has been an inquiry in Cork, Ireland; another in India. Yet there has not been an inquiry in Canada, notwithstanding the fact that most of the 329 victims were Canadians.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, immediately order a Royal Commission inquiry to investigate all aspects of the Air India crash, and specifically the conduct of External Affairs, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service?


An Hon. Member:: Shame, shame!

November 21, 1986
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Aviation Safety Board did undertake a very extensive investigation into this matter. It is my recollection that the conclusions that were arrived at, both by the Canadian Aviation Safety Board and the inquiry in India, were quite similar in nature.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the Minister tell the House, when he meets with the U.S. Secretary of State, Mr. George Schultz, in what terms he plans to convey the repugnance that Canadians feel toward the continuing violation of the Charters of the United Nations and the Organization of American States by the U.S. continuing funding of terrorist Contra attacks from Honduras into Nicaragua?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Government of the United States knows that Canada differs fundamentally in our assessment of the problem in Central America, and consequently in the appropriate solutions. I have made that position clear on several occasions, and the Prime Minister has made it clear to the President. I will again be making that position clear to Secretary Schultz when I meet him later today. It is our view that our most constructive contribution to the resolution of the problems in Central America is to concentrate on the constructive, practical help that Canada can give, whether by way of development assistance, or by way of support for the Con-tadora process, rather than succumbing to the temptation of rhetoric and condemnation.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT URGE HONDURAS TO HONOUR ITS COMMITMENTS
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Minister on this statement.
Considering the substantial amount of Canadian assistance being given to Honduras, could the Minister perhaps, through his good offices, urge the Government of Honduras to observe its commitments under the UN Charter and the Charter of the Organization of American States and cease giving asylum to the Contras?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member, not only on the open attitude he has always shown with respect to political issues in Latin America but also on the competition he is giving me with respect to the use of French in this House.
I will take his question under advisement, and perhaps I could give him a more detailed answer on some other occasion.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Robert Nelson David Hicks: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It concerns an article in The Ottawa Citizen today which reported that the Leader of the Opposition refused to indicate whether he would go along with resolutions that will be presented at the Liberal Convention calling for Canada to withdraw from NATO, and also to end Cruise Missile testing in Canada. Is the Minister aware of this article? Does he feel that the Leader of the Opposition should not leave any doubt in the minds of Canadians as to where he stands?


John Edward Broadbent: That is not his ministerial responsibility.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is probably appropriate for the Chair to comment that there has been a great deal of leniency exercised in recent years in this Chamber with respect to the quoting of articles and comments from other places and using them as the basis for a question. The Chair does not want to be unfair. We have just had an example of the reaction that is engendered in the Chamber when perhaps too full use is made of such quotes. However, I would ask the Hon. Minister to respond, keeping in mind that a debate in this Chamber in Question Period as to what somebody is quoted as having said in the press is not always helpful.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to fit within the confines of your suggestion. I think I can say that since World War II NATO has stood as the most important defence of peace and freedom in the world. It has had the support of both major Governments in Canada, and any action by either major Party to indicate equivocal support for NATO will be viewed very gravely indeed by our allies.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 21, 1986


LABOUR RELATIONS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. A commissioner appointed by the Department of Labour issued a report in early October on the labour dispute between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its employees who are members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. The proposed settlement was acceptable to the union and workers are prepared to ensure labour peace on that basis. What steps is the Government willing to take to make sure that CBC implements the terms of the conciliation commissioner's report?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, seven different issues have been negotiated with regard to the disputes that have been under way. Two bargaining unions, NABET and CUPE, are in an official position to strike. However, I understand that negotiations and discussions are still going on, and I am hopeful there will be some resolution from these negotiations without having to move into a strike position.


AMOUNT OF GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR CBC
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the Minister not agree that the federal Government's cut-backs in the CBC are, in part, the cause for the problems that are being faced by the workers?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No,
Mr. Speaker, I would not agree with that. I would be glad though to elaborate on the amount of funding that has gone to the CBC over the last number of years. In fact there has been an increase of $71 million in actual dollars over the last three years.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Some provincial Premiers said that the price of drugs will increase in Canada. The Minister of Health for Ontario last night said that your proposals regarding the patent changes on pharmaceutical products-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -will increase the price of all existing drugs in Ontario and promote untold increases in the prices for new drugs. Will the Minister not admit that he is jeopardizing the
Oral Questions
health care of Canadians, and that in the end the consumer will have to pay more for these drugs?


Harvie Andre: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. What I will admit is that this will restore some patent protection to researchers in Canada. It will result in 3,000 new high-tech jobs, the kinds of jobs the Member's Party keeps calling for. It will put us at least in the game of the exciting new biotechnologies that are coming along. It will mean that Canada will be a contributor to finding cures for diseases that still menace mankind.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: After cutting right and left in Canada's research resources, university research and research budgets, it takes a lot of nerve to say that here in the House!


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COSTS AND PRICES FOR CONSUMERS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister could explain, in the language of his choice, the difference between the cost to the consumer and the consumer price. Doesn't it mean the same thing? It certainly feels the same to the consumer, who will have to pay in any case.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal Party will co-operate with us and bring this legislation to committee, we can have the kinds of discussion the Member apparently wants. We can then look at all these factors. I am sure that when the Member does that he will see that any costs involved are more than compensated by the enormous benefits that will come to Canada as a result of this legislation.


PUBLISHING INDUSTRY
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the Government caved in on the sale of Prentice-Hall book publishers to Gulf and Western on condition that Gulf would sell control to Canadians of Ginn Company, a major publisher of elementary and high school children's textbooks. My question is for the Minister of Communications. Is the Minister aware that in its recent memorandum of sale, the American conglomerate, Gulf and Western, states that it now has absolutely no intention of giving up control over the operating decisions of the board of directors of Ginn Company? What has happened to the Tory policy of recovering Canadian control in this lucrative segment of the book publishing industry?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member knows that the book

November 21, 1986
Oral Questions
publishing policy announced by my predecessor is in place. It is being followed, and applications that come before Investment Canada will be judged on the basis of that book publishing policy.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, if there is one area where words and deeds should match, it is in the book publishing area. Here we have a Canadian cultural industry that needs to be understood. I wish the Minister would read the memos.


Some Hon. Members:: Speech.


GULF AND WESTERN CORPORATION'S POSITION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Communications. Since Gulf and Western's decision to retain veto power at Ginn's board of directors is a direct violation of its commitment to Investment Canada, to the Baie Comeau policy, to the Prime Minister, will the Minister stop this subterfuge and direct Gulf to respect Canadian control conditions to which it had already agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: More.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister responsible for Investment Canada is charged with seeing that in any application before Investment Canada the players act in good faith. That includes Gulf and Western, and that will happen.
I also want to assure the Hon. Member that our interest in the book publishing industry is, thank goodness, better than that of the preceding Government which was represented by the Liberal Party. Just in this last few months, Sir, we announced new support for the book publishing industry in the amount of $65 million over the next five years, and that will go to assist Canadian publishers, Canadian writers, and Canadian publishing in this country.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Andrew Witer: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Canada is on record as condemning the Soviets for atrocities and gross human rights violations committed against the Afghan people, and following the invasion of Afghanistan in 1980 imposed sanctions against the Soviet Union. Last week the Minister announced his intention to lift these sanctions claiming that they were ineffective.
Will the Minister advise the House and the people of Canada why sanctions against South Africa work, while they apparently do not work against the Soviet Union, and why the Government of Canada is negotiating to re-establish cultural and scientific links with the Soviets at a time when Soviet
troops are intensifying their attack against Afghan freedom fighters?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will try to respond very briefly. The sanctions that were introduced by a Progressive Conservative Government against the Soviet Union in 1979 were successful at the time because they helped galvanize world opinion against the Soviet actions in Afghanistan. Those actions in Afghanistan continue to be deplorable and deplored by this Government. It is clear that if we want to change other aspects of the practices of the Soviet Union, particularly with regard to the freedom to move of their citizens, to family reunification, to other issues that are very close to the Hon. Member and to me, then we have to try some other instruments. We are doing that.
With regard to South Africa, I think that every day there is an indication of the increasing effectiveness of the policy that has been followed by this Government. The most recent indication was the very welcome decision announced yesterday by Bata Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River. One question, please.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, since I am restricted to one question, I too would like to ask it of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the Minister assure this House and the country with regard to the Lubicon Lake Band that he is not going to allow the use of Canada's foreign posts to distribute what, if not active disinformation, is at least a very highly coloured assessment of Canadian public opinion with regard to the Lubicon land claim?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, our view is that the Lubicon question is a question which should be resolved in Canada. There are legal processes that have not yet been exhausted by members of the Lubicon Band. We think it would be in everyone's interest, including the interest of resolving the question, if all parties would turn their attention of the resolution of that question here in Canada. Obviously, members of the Lubicon Band, as other Canadians, have the right to travel internationally and to make such representations that accord to the law of Canada and the country where they are visiting. They can expect to have the help of Canadian officials serving abroad in the legitimate activities they undertake.


LUBICON LAKE BAND-DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATION BY CANADIAN EMBASSIES
[Stage Direction]
[DOT]:Y
*

Pi
[Stage Direction]


'[DOT]V
[Stage Direction]

4X1
November 21, 1986
Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Papineau: one question, please.


TRANSPORT
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Transport and his Parliamentary Secretary, 1 would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he is aware that CN Route is to be sold to a private company for about S23 million, although CN Route's real property is now estimated at between $50 and $70 million, and also that the sale of the company will put out of a job nearly 50 per cent of those who are now working for CN Route as permanent employees.
Is the Minister aware that CN has ordered a private investigation into certain allegations about the questionable aspects of this transaction? In the circumstances, is the Deputy Prime Minister prepared to ask the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to investigate?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I would rather take that question as notice. Since the Hon. Member has outlined what might be some very serious allegations I would rather reserve any comment at this time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. Just four years after the Soviet Union signed the Helsinki Pact of 1975, the Communist army invaded Afghanistan and ruthlessly killed men, women, and children. It is still doing so. In recent trips to the UN and around the world has the Minister noticed any desire on the part of the Communists to live up to the Pact they signed in 1975 by withdrawing from Afghanistan, Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, et cetera?


Charles Joseph Clark: The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is no, I have not noted any particular interest or willingness on the part of the Soviet Union to change policies which are traditional to them and which are in many cases repugnant to Canada. It may be that there is a change in their attitude with regard to some
Privilege-Mr. Riis
questions of human contact. There is certainly a change in their rhetoric. I think we would all do well to judge them on their actions, not by their words. We should also do everything we can to encourage them to follow their words with concrete action.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: I should like to bring to the attention of Members, with respect to Private Members' business, that I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) that due to a prior commitment he is unable to be present in the House on Monday, November 24, 1986 to move his motion during the hour for Private Members' business. Accordingly, I am directing the Table to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Since that notice will thereby be removed, the hour for Private Members' business will be extended and, pursuant to Standing Order 39(2), the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.


PRIVILEGE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier in writing that I intended to rise today on a question of privilege regarding a very serious breach of the rights and privileges of this House. I would like to refer first to Citation 16 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition where it describes the privileges of the House as the rights which are:
-"absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers".
On Tuesday last the CBC program The Journal aired an interview with a Mr. C. J. Stettler, a former president of the U.S. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. In that interview, taped some time before the tabling of Bill C-22, the drug patent Bill, Mr. Stettler indicated that he knew of specific changes made in the Bill since its passage was denied last summer. Let me re-emphasize that point because it is very important. An American citizen had prior knowledge of what was in this important Bill before it was actually laid upon the Table and its contents made known to Members of this House. Citation 22 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states the following:
The power of the House to enforce its rules extends not only to Members and others admitted within the precincts of Parliament, but also to members of the general public who may interfere with the orderly conduct of parliamentary business.
Clearly this particular citizen of the United States had prior knowledge of this Bill. That constitutes an interference with

November 21, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Riis
the orderly conduct of parliamentary business. I submit that this is comparable to a leak of budget information. In other words, given prior knowledge of the contents of this Bill, those individuals with that knowledge would be able to take advantage of it and make private personal gain. If foreign nationals were aware of the contents of a Bill which would significantly alter the production and marketing of drugs in Canada, it could have obvious and profound implications for the value of certain businesses both here and in the U.S.
I would like to make special reference to the leaking of information in the past which indicate the severity of this particular instance. In 1974 in the United Kingdom the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an offhand comment to a journalist on the evening of the presentation of his Budget. Because of the timing of a certain edition of the paper for which the journalist worked, news of a particular detail of the Budget came out prior to the Budget Speech. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hugh Dalton at the time, when he recognized his indiscretion, submitted forthwith his resignation which was accepted the following day.
In 1936, also in the United Kingdom, a Minister of the Crown made certain comments about the Budget which led to certain activity on the stock market. As soon as the Chancellor of the Exchequer learned of this, and believing that there was at least a clear possibility of a leak of budgetary information, he immediately initiated an investigation. That investigation led to the disclosure that the other Minister was responsible and the Minister in question felt the obligation to resign.
We all remember the incident not long ago, and I remember it vividly because I was finance critic for the NDP at the time, on Monday, April 18, 1983, when the then Minister of Finance, while leafing through his Budget Speech before the television cameras, inadvertently revealed a number of pages of the Budget Speech. I think it would be useful for Members of the House and yourself to read for a moment from Hansard the comments made at that time by the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). On Tuesday, April 19, 1983, he had this to say:
Madam Speaker, I rise to raise a question of privilege involving a most serious budget leak which occurred yesterday. This being the first opportunity to raise that question, I take the opportunity. After hearing my submissions, no doubt you will want to seek the advice of other Hon. Members on the matter 1 raise. I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion should you find that there is a prima facie case of privilege.
He went on to say, and this is the critical part:
Budget secrecy is a basic principle of our traditions of parliamentary Government. It means that the Minister responsible for bringing down a Budget is also held responsible to see to it that the provisions of that Budget are not prematurely released. The reasons for this are many. Foreknowledge of budgetary measures has led to the acquisition of private gain and to sharp market fluctuations.
As an aside, the case I am making today would indicate that the two cases we are now discussing are not dissimilar. Individuals, in this case outside of Canada, certainly stood to
gain privately from prior knowledge of what the Bill was to include.
The Member for the Yukon went on to say:
My information is current that those fluctuations are taking place and that the Canadian dollar is indeed now falling on the markets.
It is not a principle that it is necessary to defend; it has been accepted in the parliamentary system ever since budgets existed. A breach of budget secrecy has always and invariably led to the resignation of the Minister.
It must also be regarded as a breach of the oath which the Minister takes as a member of the Privy Council.
A well known case in the United Kingdom was that involving the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hugh Dalton, who, in a casual conversation with reporters, hinted at a rise in the tax on tobacco. I will be coming back to that precedent. His resignation as a result of this imprudence took place immediately.
Showing the seriousness with which the British House regards such matters, even though Mr. Dalton resigned the matter was referred to a special committee for a full investigation. Referring to the Dalton case among others, Professor S. R. Finer in public administration says that it was a case which raised "such doubts about his personal prudence and integrity as to cause him to resign".
That is exactly the present case. This is not the first time the Minister has found himself in difficulties. He signed approval of the Gillespie contract and forgot that he had signed or seen it. It must be recalled that Mr. Gillespie was in a position to profit as a result of a measure included in the first budget presented by this Minister.
While the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was satisfied that there was nothing in the guidelines to concern him in that episode, this is not a mere matter of guidelines. This is a matter reaching into the very heart of parliamentary integrity.
What of the Minister's integrity? It would seem even redundant now to discuss it. It is a thing of rags and tatters. Prudence is a word that cannot be uttered in the same breath as the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde).
There is extant a videotape showing the previous Minister of Finance at a photo opportunity and deliberately holding the page of his budget address close because, as he explains, "The cameramen are equipped with farseeing lenses". I am referring now to the previous Minister who, when caught in the same circumstances, held his budget close. He would not open the pages because he was aware of the telephoto lenses. That was his attitude at that time.
The then Leader of the Opposition went on with the following important comments:
This Minister is entirely different. He clowned, he joked, and he talked in his interview of zoom lenses. I have a copy of that tape. He joked and said: "I hope you fellows do not have zoom lenses".
He joked about the secrecy of that document and closed it up at one stage during that photo opportunity session so that it could not be seen. But he later opened it up to the exposure of the telephoto lenses. The question might be asked: "Did he know that they were shooting the pages of the budget as he turned them? He certainly was aware of the availability of zoom lenses because he himself mentioned that fact. All the time that this was going on and he was basking in the sunshine of self-indulgent publicity, his budget was being transferred to videotape. The great video leak was in full swing.
I remember that very distinctly, Mr. Speaker, because at the time which the then Leader of the Opposition was explaining, I was discussing the situation with the then Minister of Finance. He was indeed very concerned. We had a lengthy discussion during which he recognized that if there was sufficient information to be used inappropriately, it was in fact a breach of the privileges of the House. He recognized that at that time. However, as it turned out, as you well recall, that was not deemed to be the case by the Speaker. The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) continued:

*.

rfc

<A.
[DOT]ft'':
|;

m

|p
7,7

.


November 21, 1986

As a result of this Minister's culpable indiscretion and lack of prudence, he has created a fatal flaw in the confidence of the House and the country. What was opened as a crack in the Gillespie affair is now a virtual chasm. It is a chasm that the Minister cannot cross. As a result of his clowning and desire for personal publicity, he made available across this country, to the moneymarkets and financial circles, an advance knowledge of the budget which could be used for personal gain.
Anyone with a knowledge of finance, being aware of the amount of the deficit revealed by the Minister and the amount of incentives to be raised by job creation-
Which, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, was included in that Budget.
-would be able to draw certain conclusions which might be of great interest in financial circles and make available that gain.
In other words, private gain for certain individuals who would possess prior knowledge.
He continued:
It is not incumbent upon us at this time to show that great profits have been made, or even that it was possible for such to have taken place. Nor was this a case in the episode of Mr. Dalton or Mr. Thomas.
The following is the most important of my remarks:
Their resignation took place before the investigations by a special committee were made. It was merely necessary to show that a budget leak had taken place in those precedents. The resignations followed immediately and automatically.
In other words, proof was not necessary. The possibility of such an action taking place was sufficient to result in their resignations.
The Member for Yukon continued:
In this country in 1963 Mr. Walter Gordon's resignation went to the Prime Minister when he admitted bringing in outside economic advisers.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, as a student of history, and knowing the individual personally, that he registered serious concern. The remarks continue:
No leak was shown. All that was shown in that case was that Mr. Gordon had consulted four economists in the preparation of his budget. When that was disclosed, he immediately tendered his resignation to the then Prime Minsiter, Mr. Pearson, who chose not to accept it. But nonetheless, the proper thing was done and the resignation was tendered. That does not alter the fact, Madam Speaker, that the resignation was tendered.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you would find the House very sympathetic to the position that the Chair allow Members a reasonable amount of time in which to put forth their questions of privilege in order that you can decide whether or not a prima facie case of a breach of privilege has been made. While we find the remarks of the Hon. Member for Yukon to be interesting, this is not a case in which a question of privilege is being used as an escape valve to let off steam in the House. Therefore, I wonder if the Hon. Member might come directly to his question of privilege in order that the Chair may consider this and we may get on with it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair thanks the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for his intervention. I was just about to rise to ask the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) whether he could assist the Chair in making a clear link between the situation of a leak of budget information and the
Privilege-Mr. Riis
present grievance which the Hon. Member brings to the House.
There is a convention, albeit not a rule, with respect to leaks of budget information which puts very great pressure on the Minister. Perhaps the Member could assist the Chair by showing exactly how those examples are apposite to the grievance which the Hon. Member brings which, as I understand it, briefly put, is that information as to the contents of a Bill which was going to be introduced into this Chamber somehow or other got out of the hands of the Government of Canada and was received by a stranger, if I can put it that way, before Hon. Members could see the Bill. That seems to be the grievance which the Hon. Member brings to the Chair.
I ask that he now concentrate on the link which I have asked him to establish. I do not say it is necessary to establish that link. As the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has said, Members are impressed with the erudition of the presentation, but I now ask the Hon. Member to tighten up his presentation and get to the point in order that the Chair can deal with the matter. The Chair should advise the Hon. Member that the Chair views the matter as serious.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. 1 also appreciate the intervention made by the Parliamentary Secretary. I think it was appropriate. However, I would point out that the comments of the Hon. Member for Yukon went on for many more pages than I referred to. That is just to make the point that this is a very serious issue. As you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, you concur. I appreciate the intervention and will draw my comments to a rapid conclusion, knowing that other Members will want to participate in this discussion.
To put the concern very succinctly, we learned that the former president of the U.S. Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association indicated clearly that he had prior knowledge of the contents of Bill C-22. I presume that the next number of days will determine whether will lead to significant changes in the amount of research, if any, being done in Canada, as well as the type of research. It will affect the success of Canadian drug companies and the relative success in Canada of multinational drug companies, particularly those located in the United States.
My point is that individuals having prior knowledge of the content of the Bill would obviously stand to gain financially and privately because of the implications that this information regarding these companies would have in terms of the value of their stocks on the stock-market or the value of the company operations per se.
I have attempted to relate this as being as serious a breach of privilege as that experienced when a budget leak occurs. As you have indicated, Mr. Speaker, the experience here and in the mother of parliament is very clear when it comes to budget leaks. I see a direct relationship between the two and suggest

November 21, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Riis
that they are in fact similar to an end. I believe this is a prima facie case and a breach of privilege of all Members of the House. I hope that you concur with that observation.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader for the New Democratic Party has presented a very interesting and important point. It may be argued by a representative of the Government when one rises, that what the Hon. Member is talking about is not covered within any of the existing precedents with respect to parliamentary privilege as far as they apply to the Canadian House of Commons. However, I want to draw your attention to the fact that in amending our Standing Orders we changed the language of Standing Order 1, "Public Business". While I do not have the previous Standing Order in front of me, my recollection is that it was rather narrowly drafted to limit, what the Speaker could do in ruling on these kinds of claims, to what had previously been established or is still being established in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, as well as our own Parliament. However, Standing Order 1 headed "Public Business" now reads:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other Order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker or Chairman, whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House.
Therefore, I submit that you are entitled to find that when it comes to dealing with matters of privilege, the final word has not been said and that it is possible for you to make a ruling, in effect extending what parliamentary privilege means for this House of Commons, to cover what may be new ground.
It might also be argued by a spokesperson for the Government that the tradition with respect to leaks of information about legislation has, until now, been limited to leaks of information contained in a budget statement or budgetary document. I submit if my contention is correct, that the final word has not been said on what constitutes parliamentary privilege for the Canadian House of Commons that it would be open for it to be held that this tradition should be extended to leaks of information involving legislation other than budget statements or budgetary legislation.
This is particularly a point to be considered when we are talking about something that a Government considers so serious and important as the legislation on prescription drugs now before the House. I think it is particularly important, if we are talking about information about this legislation falling into the hands of lobbyists-perhaps I should say representatives-of organizations in other countries.
If the Government is serious about respecting the paramount role of the House of Commons and its own accountability to the House of Commons, it should limit the information it gives about its intended legislation, prior to its tabling, to its own officials and the Members of the House of Commons to whom the Government is accountable. There is a tradition that some two hours or so in advance of the first reading of a Bill there is a briefing given to opposition critics about the contents
of the Bill, and a copy of the Bill is sometimes given to them as well as other explanatory material. In fact, sometimes there is no briefing but the Bill and material explaining it are given under embargo to opposition critics. No matter which party forms the Government, I think it can be said to the credit of Hon. Members that such confidentiality has always been respected.
It is quite another matter if we are talking about giving that material to people who are not Members of the Canadian House of Commons or officials in the Public Service of Canada, but to others, particularly people in other countries. Therefore, I submit that it is open to you to find in these circumstances that our approach to privilege can be extended to the matter raised by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party.
In conclusion, if what we are discussing is not a breach of privilege, it is at the very least a breach of ethics. I think the House and the Canadian people should take note of the implications of detailed information about what is in a key piece of legislation, not yet presented by the Government to Parliament, coming into the hands of someone in another country who clearly is not authorized to have that information, at least a week before the Bill is tabled in the House. If this is not a matter of breach of parliamentary privilege, it raises a very interesting and important question of ethics.
I also believe that it is open to you, sir, to decide that, when it comes to parliamentary privilege as it pertains to the Canadian House of Commons, the precedents already there for you to consider are not the final word. It is open for you to extend the definition of privilege to new areas, and the area we are discussing could well be one of them.


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the Minister, the Chair wants to thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) for his intervention. The question of ethics gives the Chair some concern. Perhaps the Hon. Member can assist the Chair and the House. I take it that when the Hon. Member raised the question of ethics, it was not an imputation against the present Minister or Members. That is the way the Chair has taken the remarks and I would want to assure all Hon. Members of that.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would be happy to confirm
that.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting discussion of the law, so to speak, of parliamentary privilege. It is, however, not based on any facts which would warrant us now to divert into this kind of discussion.
I am sure it did not escape the notice of the Chair that the House Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Riis) did not quote what Mr. Stettler said in the interview he gave to CBC Journal. The reason he did not is because Mr. Stettler did not
November 21, 1986

say he saw the Bill. Mr. Stettler said: "I think it's a better package than the draft released in June". He said: "I think it's a better package".


Mr. Benjamin:: He knew the contents.


Harvie Andre: As I indicated in the House in answer to questions on more than one occasion, I believe, we have been engaged in consultations on this legislation since the end of June. We have discussed it with the Consumers' Association of Canada, the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, the National Anti-Poverty League, the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada. My officials have been in discussion with all kinds of officials and people in my office have been in discussion. That is what consultation is all about. However, no one saw the Bill.
1 will have to check the dates because 1 cannot be sure but I think that the interview Mr. Stettler gave The Journal was before 1 presented the Bill to my Cabinet colleagues for their approval. Therefore, he could not have known what was in the package because the package, per se, might not even have been established at the particular time of the interview.
I find it a little disturbing that my ethics would be questioned, that suggestions would be made that I have been consulting or taking instructions from a foreign Government, in view of the fact I stated explicitly here that I have talked to no one in the United States, from the Trade Office, or from the American Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association. I stated that directly. In essence, what the Hon. House Leader of the New Democratic Party is doing is suggesting that I misled the House. He is saying that I did not tell the truth when I made that statement-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He didn't say that at all.


Harvie Andre: -because he is suggesting that somehow I caused the Bill to be shown to others previously.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, he didn't say that either.


Harvie Andre: The only breach under the broad definition of "ethics" which occurred is when I extended the usual courtesies and told the New Democratic Party that I was going to introduce the Bill for first reading, gave those Hon. Members a briefing, and they used that knowledge to put together a filibuster procedure to prevent me from doing so. For the first time in Canadian history we actually had the refusal of a Party to grant the right to introduce a Bill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It's not the first time.


Harvie Andre: Never has the fundamental principle of democracy been challenged in that way. Never before has that happened. If there was a breach of privilege, Mr. Speaker, that might be the breach of privilege. To attempt to deny someone to introduce a motion or a Bill attacks the very roots of democracy.
Privilege-Mr. Riis


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to cut off the Hon. Minister, but I do want to do something which I think Speakers probably do with some hesitancy. I want to mention the issue of relevancy and say that I think we should stay on point.
Second, I can advise the Hon. Minister, and I think it may be of some comfort to him, that I have not taken this point of privilege, or the remarks which have been made, as an attack on the honour and ethics of the Minister or of any Hon. Member in the Chamber.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Absolutely not.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not taken it in that way.


Harvie Andre: 1 did.


Mr. Speaker:: The reason the question of ethics did concern the Chair was that I was-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Now you are paranoid.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The reason the issue of ethics did concern the Chair was that there might be some misunderstanding in the Chamber as to the direction in which those remarks were aimed. That is why I rose a few moments ago. I hope all Hon. Members can accept that the Chair does not take anything which has been said as an attack on the personal honour of the Minister or any Hon. Member in the Chamber. I think that is the disposition. I see heads nodding in agreement on the opposition side. Will the Hon. Minister please continue?


Harvie Andre: If in fact there is no direct challenge or suggestion on the part of the New Democratic Party that I released the Bill or gave someone its contents, then why are we discussing a point of privilege? If the New Democratic Party accepts my word that in fact no such release was made by me, what can be the point of privilege? What is the use of this discussion about privilege if in fact those Hon. Members accept my word that I did not release.
I now have a copy of the transcript from the debate where Mr. Stettler said: "Some of the pricing features in that Bill were pretty bad and I think there's been some changes". He said: "I think there's been some changes". On the basis of that, that Party makes the accusation that I told the Americans before I told Canadians and have raised this, frivolous point of privilege.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, we didn't say that.


Harvie Andre: I personally find that offensive. I have been honest and courteous with that Party and it has used my courtesy in an attempt to frustrate this House from operating, and I find that offensive.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On the same point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: In the interests of perhaps keeping the discussion to the point, I just want to reiterate the point as the Chair sees it at this time, that is that, in whatever manner,

November 21, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Riis
information which was in a Bill, information as to the contents of the Bill, got into the hands of someone outside of this place before it was in the hands of Hon. Members. I understand that is the short point, the narrow point, the point I am being asked to consider.
On that basis, the question is whether I should send this matter to the appropriate committee for considertaion. If I have missed the point, I would certainly ask the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap to correct me but I think that is the point and I would ask Hon. Members to keep to it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I think you are perfectly correct, Mr. Speaker, and I believe the Minister has missed the whole point. There is absolutely no reflection on the Minister personally. My colleague's question of privilege does not allege that the Minister himself personally gave the Bill to anyone who had no right to it or any business knowing about it. That is not the point.
The breach of privilege, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), pointed out, was a breach of the privilege of all Hon. Members of the House, and you as the guardian of that privilege have to rule, even if it is a precedent-it is time we had one-on the fact that someone outside this House and, more seriously, not necessarily from Canada but someone from another country, knew of the contents. He did not see the Bill. That is not being alleged in the question of privilege. What is being alleged as a question of privilege, and being stated by my colleague, is that someone from outside of this country knew about the contents of the Bill.
You, Mr. Speaker, have sat for some years in this place, as I have, as a private Member, and I believe you understand that I personally resent someone receiving knowledge of the contents of a Bill before Members of Parliament know about its contents.
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) will appreciate, as do I, that in the course of negotiations and discussions dealing with legislation, as a matter of courtesy, a cabinet Minister will make available to a colleague in his own Party or to a colleague from this side of the House some knowledge with respect to what is in the Bill without showing him or her the Bill. That is something sacrosanct for those of us on this side of the House.
The Hon. Member's question of privilege has nothing to do with whether or not someone from outside this Chamber saw the Bill. They must have known about some of the contents of the Bill or how else could they have said that the contents are better than they were? This means that someone from outside the House, and what is worse someone from outside the country, knew about the contents of the Bill or some parts of it. Surely that is a breach of the privilege of all Members of the House, most particularly those Private Members who are not members of the Privy Council.


Mr. McDermid:: You have no proof of that whatsoever.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There is such a thing as ministerial responsibility. We accept and believe the word of the Minister that at no time did he disclose the contents of the Bill, at no time did he show the Bill to anyone outside this Chamber. We accept that and take him at his word. However, when one considers the consultations that went on between legal eagles, drafters of legislation, officials of departments and other organizations, someone somewhere in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or in the Department of Justice, or elsewhere, had to have disclosed some of the contents of the legislation to people outside the Chamber.


Mr. Malone:: Name them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You cannot name them. All we know from the evidence, which is clear in the CBC transcript, is that a person knew about some of the contents of the legislation, otherwise they could not have said something to the effect that the new legislation will be better than it was. How else could they have said that if they had not known about the contents of the Bill?


John Horton McDermid: Quote them accurately!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This means that even though something happened about which the Minister knew absolutely nothing, and in which he had absolutely no part and is totally innocent as a Minister and as a person, there is still such a thing as ministerial responsibility. He is responsible for all that goes on under his authority in his Department.
I do not think it is proper-in fact, I think it is unforgivable-that anyone outside this Chamber would have knowledge of the contents of a piece of legislation. As a Private Member I ask you, Sir, that you rule that when someone makes statements outside of Parliament in terms of the contents of a piece of legislation that that in fact is a breach of the privilege of Members of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I now call upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis).


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief points with respect to procedure which I would like to raise. First, I wish to compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), who, as everyone knows, is a well-informed Member of Parliament. Based on the fact that he is a well-informed Member of Parliament, I suggest to Your Honour that he saw this program, and I believe this is what he stated, on Tuesday evening, November 18. Citation 81 of Beauchesne's states in part:
By its nature, a question of privilege is of such importance that it may be raised at any time, and S.O. 17 makes provision for the precedence of a question of privilege over all other business of the House.
November 21, 1986

Citation 82 of Beauchesne's states:
A question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity. Even a gap of a few days may invalidate the claim for precedence in the House.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in that this program was shown on Tuesday evening and was but a momentary thing, if one wanted to bring a question of privilege related to it it should have been raised on Wednesday. 1 suggest that what we are arguing about here is a matter of debate with respect to whether and when the U.S. official had the alleged notice.
Your Honour will recall that as a result of diligent action on the part of the Government this Bill was printed on November 7. My colleague refers to a taped program shown on November 18. By my mathematics that leaves an 11-day gap during which officials would have had an opportunity to review the Bill as printed and appear on a television program.
Finally, I suggest that if this is a bona fide question of privilege which should be sent to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure, then in fact we have an interesting situation. I say that because my colleagues opposite often practise a double standard in this regard. A Government document was leaked to the NDP on November 7 concerning alleged secret negotiations between Canada and the United States on automotive trade. That document was used in Question Period with no suggestion that its leak created a breach of privilege. If a leak with respect to a Bill is alleged to be a breach of privilege, then perhaps every time there is a leaked document Your Honour will find Members on the Government side suggesting that that, too, is a breach of privilege. I think one would not want that double standard to be lost in the technical arguments which I have just made.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair wishes to thank Hon. Members for their interventions. I will reserve on this matter which, as I have said, is a serious one. I see that the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) is rising.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will keep my remarks brief. They refer primarily to the comments made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). I wish to clear the air in that respect.
At no time would I want to suggest that the Minister himself was in direct consultation or receiving direct advice from a citizen of a foreign country. I did not state that, Mr. Speaker, and I simply do not want the Minister to suggest that he is being accused of that.
The point is that in the television interview to which we are referring it was not so much the information which came about on that particular day, which I think was the eighteenth, but the comments made by Mr. Stettler reflecting comments and discussions he had had sometime prior to that, perhaps a week, a month or a year-who knows. It was simply at that point that it became, in a sense, a public issue in Canada. The reason I did not raise it earlier was because I was primarily referring to comments made in the House regarding information which occurred in the last couple of days. So my reference was not
Privilege-Mr. Riis
particularly to the television program. To clarify for the Parliamentary Secretary, it was information gleaned prior to the interview that concerns us.
As the Minister has accurately stated, he not speak directly to the principles being named here today, but simply referred to the fact that, and I think he confirmed this, Mr. Stettler, the Past President of the American Pharmaceutical Association, simply stated that it appeared to him to be a better package. Perhaps he was not absolutely certain of that, he did not say. However, it appeared to him on the information that he had received from some officials within the Minister's office or Department that it was a better package.
That is why in my earlier comments I referred to the point in the precedent set in the United Kingdom which talked about budget leaks, that it was not that individuals had seen the Budget in advance, or that they had it in their possession or that they had spoken to officials about specific clauses. At times it was something as inadvertent as the Minister involved referring in an off-handed manner to an increase in tobacco tax. That was deemed to be sufficient reason for the individual to essentially step down. That is precisely why I made that particular point.
I appreciate having an opportunity to say a word or two about the earlier statements, just to set the record very straight. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, since you have indicated that we have had adequate input to this point, that you rule on this matter. If you feel it appropriate, I look forward to pursuing this discussion in the appropriate committee upon your reference, Mr. Speaker.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the Hon. House Leader of the New Democratic Party twice and his submissions have been very helpful. I do not want to be too technical and I am sure you will be fair in your ruling, but it does seem to me that the Hon. Member has, upon having had the floor twice, failed to follow up his question of privilege with a motion, as requested in Citation 81(2) of Beauchesne's that a complaint of a breach of privilege must conclude with a motion providing the House with an opportunity to take action. This is not done upon hearing your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but upon completing one's submission. I would submit that the Hon. Member has had two opportunities to make and complete his submissions but at no time did he move a motion.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. If we check the records of the House, we will find that many Speakers have indeed listened to presentations ending with the Hon. Member saying that if the Speaker should deem it a prima facie question of privilege, the appropriate motion could or would be made. I think we are dealing with an attempt by the Government to prevent you from coming to your own decision, Mr. Speaker.
This case has been presented at some length and the precedents that do exist have been pointed out. As well, the

November 21, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Murphy
seriousness of the issue has been pointed out. For the Parliamentary Secretary to be nit-picking as he is at the present time is not helpful to the process. I believe he has been a Member of the House for the same number of years as, and perhaps a year or two longer considering his advanced years, but he does know the history of this and I do not believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At the risk of making any Hon. Member feel that we are closing off this debate prematurely, I will nonetheless advise the House that I think I have heard all the points made. Of course, as we know, Hon. Members are skilful in debate and all points that could be made for one side or the other are brought to the attention of the Chair. I am sure that was all the Parliamentary Secretary was doing. On the other hand, I must say that I am persuaded that the Chair has not been put in a position, as a consequence of anything the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) said or did not say, of not being able to deal with the matter.


POINT OF ORDER
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on another point of order. During the course of Question Period, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) did again quote from a document which he has not tabled in the House. In this case I am referring to a letter, from which he read at least one sentence, from the Minister of Corporate and Consumer Affairs of the Province of Ontario. I believe his name is Monte Kwinter. I believe it would be very important for the House and certainly within the rules and traditions of the House that the letter in its entirety be tabled at this time.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be pleased to do that. I will have to get a copy of it, but if we can assume that I am tabling it I will give it to the Clerk as soon as I can return after picking up a copy.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, on a similar and related point, during debate on the Question of Privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) the Minister again brought in a document of which he had possession but which was not in the possession of other Members of the House. I believe this was a transcript of the CBC program The Journal which was broadcast last Tuesday. Again, without taking too much of the time of the House, I would point out that that document should be tabled in the House and I think it would be very important, particularly in light of the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap. However, the Minister is not here to respond-


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should advise Hon. Members that the Minister had to leave the Chamber momentarily. I see the
Minister returning. Perhaps he can respond to the point made by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to get all of the facts before the House. I am being prevented from doing so by specious points of order and questions of privilege. I would be delighted to table anything and everything I can.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have just heard words that I cannot believe. The Minister told me about half an hour ago that he could not tell me about the costs and prices of drugs because he wanted to discuss, reveal and explain the matter in committee. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He should tell us now and he should not tell us that he has told us everything.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has a point. It is not a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), I rise to table in both official languages the comprehensive Government response to the First Report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights concerning sanctions against South Africa and aid to front-line states.
I move, seconded by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre):
That the House now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in reference to the motion that has just been introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). I had submitted a Notice of Motion asking for an emergency debate and 1 think the two motions are in contrary order. I think it would be proper for the House to give me the courtesy of at least having the opportunity of presenting the Notice of Motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) that the Chair is bound to deal with the motion of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) now. I can advise Hon. Members that I received notice of an application made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry under Standing Order 29 for an emergency debate with respect to the discussion that has been in the public domain relating to Canadian and U.S. discussions and disputes over softwood lumber. I know that this is a matter of importance to all Hon. Members, but I cannot deal with it
.Al
..
Jr,
m
:fcl
* -
November 21, 1986

now and I would hope that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Fort Garry would realize that I am not in a discretionary position.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Chair is in the position of now proceeding with the motion and is bound to continue.
Mr. Mazankowski moves that the House now proceed to Orders of the Day. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
	Patent Act	
	NAYS	
	Members	
Axworthy	Grondin	NicholsonBenjamin	Heap	(Trinity)Boudria	Hopkins	ParryFinestone	Isabelle	RiisGauthier	Kaplan	Young -17Gray	Manly	(Windsor West)	Murphy



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

["Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(3), this item shall be dropped to the bottom of the list of precedence on the Order Paper.\nIt being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1)."]
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 yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 20, 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).
Mr. Speaker:: It being after one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1.40 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Andre Beatty Binns Blouin Boyer Cardiff Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)
Clifford
Cote
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Crouse
Daubney
Duplessis
Fennell
Forrestall
Gerin
Gormley
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine)
(Division No. 23)
++YEAS
Members
Gurbin Halliday Hamilton Hicks Holtmann Jepson Kelleher Kempling Kindy Leblanc Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacKay Malone Marin
Mazankowski
McCain
McCuish
McDermid
McKenzie
McLean
Merrithew
Mitges
Nowlan
Peterson
Pietz
Plourde
Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Sparrow Suluk Thacker Towers Tupper Valcourt Wilson
(Swift Current-
Maple Creek)-55
Mr. Speaker:: When we last considered Bill C-22, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) had proposed to move an amendment to the amendment of the Hon. Member for Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic (Mrs. Killens). The Deputy Speaker took the proposed sub-amendment under advisement and I am now prepared to rule.
Beauchesne 5th Edition, Citation 743 states:
An established form of amendment, such as the "six months" formula used to obtain the rejection of a bill, is not capable of amendment.
For this reason I must reject the proposed sub-amendment. I advise Hon. Members that debate will resume on the motion for second reading and the amendment. The Hon. Member for Burlington.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today and speak to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act. First, I want to offer my congratulations to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) for introducing this piece of legislation which, in fact, I believe will benefit all Canadians. Bill C-22 represents a significant step toward the achievement of the Government's goals of sustained national economic growth and

November 21, 1986
Patent Act
job creation, and the continued protection of the Canadian consumer.
The proposed amendments have five principal objectives: to transform Canada's pharmaceutical sector into a world-class industry led by an unprecedented increase in investment and jobs in pharmaceutical research and development; to ensure drug prices remain reasonable throughout the creation of an independent price review board; to guarantee that the pharmaceutical industry's commitments for research and development are met; to maintain opportunities for growth in the Canadian generic industry; and finally to harmonize Canada's intellectual property laws with those of other western industrialized nations.
The protection of the consumer is an important part of this Bill. It is ensured in four different ways: a continued presence of existing generic drugs; a transitional payment to provincial drug plans; the provision for further generic competition; and the drug prices review board. This board will work in close cooperation with the provinces because of their particular interest in drug prices.
Provincial Governments will have the right to make representations directly to the board if they suspect an abuse in drug pricing. In cases of excessive prices, the board will have the authority to remove periods of protection. Not only will the board be monitoring the prices of all patented drugs, it will also have the power to review the performance of the innovative pharmaceutical industry through annual reports on research and development activities. This, together with a Cabinet review after four years and a full parliamentary review in the tenth year, will ensure that the commitments of the innovator sector to increase research and development in Canada are fulfilled.
Changes to the Patent Act to encourage investment in research and development in the pharmaceutical industry in Canada have long been sought by numerous scientific, medical, pharmacological, and research groups. The Government has received a firm commitment from the innovative drug sector to double the R and D to sales ratio from the prepolicy level. This represents a move from 4.9 per cent to 8 per cent in 1990, then to 10 per cent in 1995. That level is enjoyed by most other industrial countries. This amounts to a total of $1.4 billion in incremental research and development outlays above and beyond the normal expected growth.
The increase in research and development activities generated by Bill C-22 will result in the creation of about 3,000 scientific and research-related jobs in the innovative sector. This means that Canadian university graduates will have an excellent opportunity for employment here in Canada and that we will continue to benefit from their technological and scientific expertise. The new policy provides for research and development investment by the innovative sector by ensuring compensation for the risks associated with the research and development of new health-care products.
Bill C-22 will also provide for continued opportunities for the generic companies to grow and proper. First, it is important to remember that all generic drugs that have a compulsory licence and have received a notice of compliance from the Department of Health and Welfare are unaffected by this policy, and will continue to be available. Furthermore, there are new opportunities for fine chemical manufacturing by generic companies. All existing brand name drugs now on the market are available immediately to a generic firm if it manufactures the fine chemical ingredients in Canada instead of simply importing the chemicals, thereby creating additional jobs.
To allow for the immediate manufacture of a product in Canada by generic firms, all existing licences to import that have been granted to generic companies will automatically be extended to a licence to manufacture. One should also remember that the generic firms are not entirely dependent on products covered by compulsory licences to import.
The sale of drugs via compulsory licence, on average, amounts to less than 50 per cent of the revenues of generic firms. Therefore, the existence of a flourishing generic industry does not, and should not, depend upon compulsory licencing. Nevertheless, seven years after the first notice of compliance, or NOC, is granted for a new drug, a generic company will be able to manufacture the chemicals in Canada and sell the drugs in direct competition with the innovative company.
Opportunities for generic firms also exist through the sanctions available to the drug prices review board. If excessive pricing has been determined, the board could remove the period of patent protection to allow for generic competition.
In the case of the innovative sector, the law will include a Cabinet review of research and development commitments of the industry after four years. If the industry has not met its commitments, the Government will either reduce or remove the period of protection.
Consumer protection is ensured through generic competition of drugs now on the market, and in the future through a transitional payment to provincial drug plans by the drug prices review board. Canada's patent law will also be harmonized with the rest of the world resulting in increased investment, not only in the pharmaceutical industry but in other industries as well.
By promoting new investment, Canada will enter the same league as Japan, Italy and the United States in terms of R and D expenditures as a proportion of sales. The Canadian pharmaceutical sector will become a world class innovative industry led by a significant increase in investment and jobs and in research and development. In short, Bill C-22 will bring positive economic benefits to Canada while protecting Canadian consumers.
November 21, 1986

I might just say as well that I have been here for a few years and this subject has been on the table many times. I can recall many years ago sitting in the House when a Bill in draft form was brought forward and it was suggested that patents be eliminated. That came about as a result of an item which appeared in the report of the Economic Council of Canada. Someone had come to the conclusion that patents were the cause of inflation so the Liberal Government of the day, now the official Opposition, decided it was going to bring forward draft legislation and hope to have it accepted.
The object of the legislation was to eliminate patents altogether over a period of 10 years, which would then place us in the same position as the Soviet Union, the only other country in the world which does not recognize patents. In fact, our inventors and scientists were going to be issued a certificate of achievement rather than a patent. I recall travelling across the country speaking against that proposal.
Through the years we have seen other initiatives brought forth which were not accepted. We have watched the development of new drugs in other countries. I feel the Bill before us today is a move in the right direction. I want to see it moved forward in debate and into committee as quickly as possible. In view of that, I now move that the previous question be now put.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling) that the motion he has placed before the House is out of order. I cite Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, page 158, Citation 459, and May, page 379. As a consequence, debate will continue.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that I am shocked and amazed that a distinguished Member of the House, the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), who has long proclaimed his interest in the freedom of speech and debate in the House, would resort to a subterfuge of parliamentary tactics to try to suppress and expunge the free expression of opinion on a matter which affects so many Canadians. It is a great disappointment, not only to Hon. Members on this side of the House but, I am sure, to his constituents, that he would make such an effort to try to close off and snuff out the opportunity of the House of Commons of Canada to at least have a preliminary examination in second reading of this Bill.
However, Mr. Speaker, once again the wisdom of the Speaker has prevailed and we can now proceed to look more seriously at the pretensions and protestations we have heard from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) who, in his activities in the House, in trying to justify the rationale for this particular piece of legislation, has looked so much like a person suffering from an extreme case of summer heat rash, uncomfortable, irritable and totally out of sorts with himself and with what he is trying to do.
The fact is that in trying to find the slightest shred of reasonable and rational justification, he has resorted to what is commonly known in the language of communications as the
Patent Act
"big lie", the fabrication or setting up a whole series of straw arguments which do not hold any weight or substance. If I might, I would like to spend a moment or two examining some of the positions put forward by the Minister and refute and challenge them so that we can once again get back to the real issue, which is why do we have this Bill in front of us?
The first argument of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is that really this is not going to have any impact upon price. He said it may increase the cost but will not affect the price. That is one of those interesting forms of what one can only call "Tory logic" that somehow the increase in cost has no impact upon the price.
The fact of the matter is that under the present system when a pharmaceutical manufacturer introduces a new drug it comes in at an artificially high price. It is only when the generic drug is introduced that the competitive dynamic forces the price down. So when the Minister says that this measure will not affect the price in any way he is talking about the original set price when a new drug is introduced. He is not talking about the type of price that would be in consequence of a competitive dynamic at work. He has neglected to explain what is the fundamental, rudimentary element of a market economy. That is surprising coming from a Conservative Minister since such Ministers love to wave the flag of the market economy.
In this case they are denying in no uncertain terms the workings of a market economy. They are saying that we are breaking the monopoly position established through the patent right and that through compulsory licensing we will change that. They are saying that we will eliminate the force of competition upon a particular drug, therefore eliminating the downward push and pressure on prices. That was clearly the import of the Eastman recommendation.
Dr. Eastman said that the compulsory licensing procedure had to be maintained at a reasonable rate for four years in order to maintain the competitive pressure on prices. When the Minister resorts to the form of dissembling information which states that, well, back in 1983 the Liberals said they would do the same as we are doing now, it is an unadulterated case of hog-wash. What was set up was the Eastman Commission which made recommendations to keep compulsory licensing and to increase royalties, but only somewhat for a four-year period. If that had been the prescription put forward by the Government then maybe we would be having a different type of debate today. The fact is that the Government has exceeded the impacts of the Eastman recommendation. In fact, by going to the 10-year patent protection the type of competitive force that we had has been eliminated.
What is interesting to consider is that if we look at the way in which the system will now work we will see that as pharmaceutical manufacturers introduce drugs they do so giving those drugs an eight or ten-year shelf life, at which time the generic drug manufacturers are prepared to come in to start

November 21, 1986
Patent Act
competing with the drug. At that time the original manufacturer will introduce a modified version of the drug, perhaps with a slight improvement or a change in packaging, or perhaps it will even throw in another small ingredient thus starting a new cycle of drugs. Through its massive marketing machinery it will be able to reintroduce this drug into doctors' offices and hospitals. This will prevent the generic drug producers from providing competitive pressure. In fact, what we will be faced with is a perpetual monopolistic situation.
It would have been more honest of the Minister if he had explained the working of such a system. However, he has totally ignored it. He has totally ignored the fact that we are now debating not some small modification but a major restructuring of the drug industry in Canada, along with the basic elimination of generic drug manufacturers.
That leads me to my second point. The Minister loves to stand up and say that this move will create 3,000 new jobs, new investment and new R and D. Where is the proof and substance for that? First, in the commentary of the 1983 Economic Council of Canada report it was clearly indicated that prior to the imposition of compulsory licensing in 1969 there was no higher rate of R and D investment. It was indicated that there was no higher rate of research and development in terms of cures for cancer and all the other things mentioned by the Minister. In fact, the level of R and D investment by the major pharmaceutical manufacturers was the same after 1969 as it was before 1969 when full patent protection was in place. Based upon this history there is no confidence that there will be any increase in investment.
What we will find is that there may even be less commitment since one of the changes that has taken place between June and October-a strange interlude of time in which the American drug manufacturers apparently had far more knowledge than Canadians did as to what was going on-is that the Government eliminated one of the few safeguards that was in the June legislation, a guarantee for manufacturers on investment in Canada. The one thing that the Government had said in June that would require foreign manufacturers to guarantee manufacturing in Canada has now been eliminated.
The question that will be raised in everyone's mind is, why did the Government cave in once again to the PMAC lobbyists south of the border? We know why. Once again, we know that the Government is selling out in order to try to appease its partners in the negotiation on free trade. Once again another price is being paid. Once again there is another surrender, another sacrifice. So far these negotations have cost Canadians far more than we could ever calculate. We have already paid incredible prices for the negotation, and we are paying it once again. Once again we are finding that the Canadian Government has found itself in a position in which another item on the American shopping list has been ticked off. Now that the issue of pharmaceuticals is out of the way it moves on to natural resources and the Auto-Pact. It is a weekly adventure to see what the next item on the American wish list will be. What we do know is that the wish list of last week will be the
Government's surrender of this week. In fact, that is the history with respect to what has taken place.
I point out that another part of the fabrication we have heard in the House is with respect to the Minister's projection of new R and D and investment that will occur. In any account has the Minister made reference to the fact that the generic manufacturers themselves were beginning to provide more research and development and more investment? In fact, we are at the stage of reaching a critical point. There was a grant advanced under the IRAP by a Tory Government to a drug manufacturer in Ontario in developing new facilities for the development of chemical ingredients.
The Minister talks about the jobs that will be gained. He does not talk about the jobs that will be lost. The Minister talks about the potential for R and D, not about that R and D which will be lost. If one wants to do a fair and proper calculation with respect to what is the net benefit, if there is any in this Bill, then it is only proper that all the facts are placed on the table.
What is interesting is that when it comes down to the question of how does Canada begin to develop its own industrial base we once again find ourselves in a situation in which 90 per cent of all drugs manufactured in Canada are manufactured through foreign subsidiaries. The only area in which we were beginning to develop a Canadian-based industry was in the area of generic drugs. The industry was beginning to develop a capacity for R and D and for manufacturing.
What will be the end result of the legislation the Government is bringing forward? It will wipe out the Canadian-based drug industry. Once again it will ensure that we are totally dependent upon the decisions made in boardrooms beyond our borders. That is one of the end results and one of the prices that we will end up paying.
I believe the Minister said today in Question Period that this is a cost-free incentive in terms of R and D. He is saying that this is a wonderful industrial strategy, that we can get all sorts of R and D moneys from these foreign corporations because we are changing the patent legislation. As I pointed out in my earlier remarks, the big foreign multinationals were in no hurry to invest in Canada prior to 1969. They have certainly not invested at any higher rate since 1969. I know they are making announcements now because they have been saving them up. They have been playing skilled lobbyist games.
Again, I would like to refer back to the Economic Council studies. In the long run, major incentive for developing R and D in competition with other countries has little to do with patent legislation. It has far more to do with direct incentives and support for R and D.
Of course, we know what the Conservative Government has done with research and development. It has slashed every single research and development budget of every single Crown
November 21, 1986

corporation and every single department. What is more, we are discovering that certain countries like Ireland and Puerto Rico give enormous tax-free benefits and front-loaded incentive grants for R and D. Will we find ourselves having to compete with those countries to get the R and D? The big guys will come along and say: "They have taken off the patent legislation but now we have received an interesting offer from the Irish to set up R and D facilities there". How are we going to match those grants? Will we find ourselves once again playing this game of industrial blackmail?
All of this massive support the Minister says will be pouring into Canada will be subject to some very interesting new conditions. Once again there will be a different kind of competition for investment than there had been before. Not only are we providing a major deterrent to the development of Canadian-based industries, we will find ourselves without any particular advantage in the competition for large multinationals. Therefore, the expectation of new jobs and investment will have to be seriously questioned and challenged.
Ultimately, we have to return to the evidence that is before us. If this evidence were to be presented in a courtroom, one would say that by far the circumstances weigh against the arguments made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What the Minister has forgotten is the basic fact that from 1969 on drug prices in Canada were the lowest of any other country in the industrialized world. That is a fact, and that meant that for people who were subject to illnesses and increasing costs of medical care Canada was taking the lead in one clear area. In fact, our system was being studied for implementation by many other countries.
The cost estimates of this are anywhere from Eastman's figure of $200 million to the figures provided yesterday by the generic drug manufacturers of close to over $600 million. In very simple terms, that translates to the kind of correspondence I have received from my constituents. For example, I heard from an older woman who pays $40 or $50 per month for prescriptions. That cost could potentially be $60 or $70 per month. When one relies upon a fixed pension plan for one's sole source of income, an extra $10 or $20 per month makes a very big difference in the lifestyle one can afford and creates a much higher level of anxiety.
The most desperate form of sophistry I have heard from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is his statement that somehow, by voicing the concerns of Canadians in the House of Commons, we are causing fear among Canadians. It is not our legislation. We did not bring this Bill into the House. If there is any cause for fear and anxiety among the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who know what their medical bills and prescription costs will be, the responsibility for it rests squarely upon a Government that made a decision that had nothing to do with the question of health and medical care and everything to do with its benighted quest for the great blueprint of a free trade deal with the United States.
Everything is put at the altar of a quick fix and a deal before the end of 1987. Everything else has been washed out by the
Patent Act
Prime Minister's quixotic quest to fulfil his historic mandate. The people who will pay the price for that are the people who will have to buy prescription drugs, and those are the people least able to bear that burden. That is the real reason for debating this Bill and the reason the Government brought it in.
The Government was under the most exorbitant and incredible pressure from the Reagan administration and major multinational drug lobbies exercising a combination of economic and political power to change the law, and it caved in. It gave up. This comes as no surprise because the record of the Government since 1984 has been one of caving in and giving up. Surely on an issue that goes so much to the heart of the well-being and quality of life of so many Canadians, the Government might have been able to say no and to stand up to that kind of pressure in this one instance, but it did not. As a result, the vast Government majority will attempt to steamroll in this legislation. The end result will be questionable jobs, virtually no research and development and a much higher level of pain and suffering for ordinary Canadians.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) is on side in this issue and is fighting against these changes to the Patent Act. However, I would like to ask him where the Liberal Party was in 1983 when the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who was at that time the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, appointed Martin O'Connell, a former cabinet Minister and former consultant to a multinational drug company, to head up a study on this issue. Mr. O'Connell brought in a report recommending legislation substantially similar to that which the Conservative Government brought in today. Why was the Liberal Government following the same track back in 1983?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than pleased-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Try to get out of that one.


Lloyd Axworthy: I will. First I will remind the Hon. Member of the real history behind this matter. Back in 1969 I had the privilege of being an executive assistant to the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the man who is now the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner). It was that Minister with whom I worked who initiated the development of the compulsory licensing legislation for Canada. It was the present Leader of the Official Opposition who authored and initiated that legislation, and I consider that to be one of the finer moments I have enjoyed in public life.
In 1983, the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said that we wanted to examine the application of the compulsory licensing system, and I think that was legitimate since it had been in operation for over 15 years. The report that was prepared on the matter outlined three options. It [DOT]recommended legislation, some revisions to the compulsory licensing provisions or a change in the royalty system. What was also clear to me as a member of the Government was that

November 21, 1986
Patent Act
none of those recommendations was accepted by the Cabinet. We did not bring in legislation like this Government did. In fact, the matter was re-examined by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the end result was that the then Minister, Mrs. Erola, provided for the inquiry under Dr. Eastman. He came forward with his modified version of the compulsory licencing. That was the step the Liberal Government took at that time. In 1983 we rejected full square anything that had the type of demonic and destructive impact of this legislation.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) for saying those were...
-the finer moments in Government. Without due recourse, I hope that he has enjoyed his finer moments, because I would suggest that they are coming to an end.
As a new Member of Parliament and working as a Canadian, the thing that amazes me about the new pharmaceutical Bill is why the Liberal Party would be against the advancement of new jobs, new technology, and keeping our technology here in Canada. Can you refute that?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I thought that I did. But I am glad to have the opportunity to repeat my argument, because obviously repetition would be of some assistance to the Member.
First, there is no evidence whatsoever that there will be increased investment as a result of this legislation. When there was full patent protection, the investment of multinational drug companies was no better and no higher than it was when we had compulsory licencing. There was full protection at that time. That was at a time when there was lots of money, lots of opportunity, lots of freedom, and they did not do it. They were investing in R and D somewhere else.
Second, at the present time under compulsory licencing the pharmaceutical industry in Canada has one of the highest rates of return of any industry in Canada. It is not a matter of it being short of cash that is preventing it from doing it. They have all the cash in the world. In The Globe and Mail a few days ago it was stated that the Merrick Company had profits of $300 million. If they wanted to do it, they could be doing it right now. They are playing a game of industrial blackmail upon this country. They want to maintain control and monopoly-
I would also point out to the Hon. Member, and he should take this under advisement, that what was beginning to emerge under the compulsory licencing regime was the development of a Canadian-based drug industry, based upon the generic drug manufacturers. After a period of years they were reaching a point of development where they were beginning to establish
their own operations on chemical ingredients. There was an IRAP grant given last year to initiate that. The end result of this legislation will be to wipe out those generic drug manufacturers. We are saying that once again we are prepared to let all the drug manufacturing, and the decisions be made in the boardrooms of foreign owned companies, rather than encouraging and giving incentive to Canadian-based and owned industries.
I suggest to the Hon. Member that what he will probably find in the course of time is that the consequence of his supporting this bad piece of legislation will be working to the detriment of the development of an effective Canadian drug industry.
Mr. Gray	(Bonaventure

Iles-de-la-Madeleine):	Mr. Speaker, just a short supplementary on the question of pharmaceuticals.
Whereas the Liberal Party in the past was not willing to take a positive position on pharmaceuticals with the Patent Act, and in view of the fact that we will have an increase of 3,000 jobs-unfortunately the Opposition does not want to recognize that there will be in excess of 3,000 jobs created in our country-why should they go against us with their official Liberal policy, working against us to the detriment of Canada? At some point in time they should take a firm stand, and be proud of what we are doing for Canada.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is simple. We are protesting the fact that this legislation will substantially increase the cost of prescription drugs for hundreds of thousands of Canadians who cannot afford it. That is the reason we feel this legislation is so bad. The Government is not defending the interest of Canadians. What it is doing is simply submitting, on its knees, to a lobbyist pressure of a major industrial group, without any consideration whatsoever to the basic interest of Canadians who need to have proper prescription drugs. That is what the legislation is all about. All this talk of new jobs and R and D is simply peripheral to that central, fundamental fact.
In the last 20 minutes I have challenged the Government to prove where the jobs will come from. I challenge the Government to show that it will gain more jobs than the jobs it will lose by wiping out the Canadian drug industry. I challenge the Government to show how it can assure the guarantee of manufacturing when between the legislation in June and October this Government took off whatever safeguards were there. It made the legislation even worse than it was in June by eliminating the type of guarantee and safeguards that should have been there to require those foreign multinationals to at least put some investment into this country and make sure the manufacturing is here. We will end up with decisions being made in Switzerland, New York, and everywhere else but a place called Canada. When the battle has been won, we will see how quickly those promises are forgotten.
November 21, 1986


Mr. Daubney:: Mr. Speaker, as a Member concerned about research and technology, and research and development in this country, I find it very disconcerting to hear from the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), whose only contribution to R and D in the past was as a member of a Cabinet which introduced one of the greatest political boondoggles and scams in Canadian political history, namely, the SRTC. That cost this country billions of dollars in revenue and in lost R and D opportunities. The Hon. Member's personal commitment to R and D was to erect the Lloyd Axworthy memorial building in downtown Winnipeg which is now an empty shell. There again, millions of dollars of taxpayers' money down the chute for his own political glorification prior to the last election.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That's what you get for trusting private enterprise.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 would like to pose this question to the Hon. Member who says that he is interested in R and D. The Hon. Member states that there is an empty building in downtown Winnipeg. I wish to tell him what the building was going to do. It was going to be a world class national research centre on robotics and artificial intelligence machines. There is no such institute in this country at the present time. There are four or five in the United States, several in Japan, and several in Europe. There are none in Canada. We decided to put it in Winnipeg, and I know it runs against all Tory principles to have anything of technology going on in Manitoba. We have seen that kind of decision in the past two weeks. We know what their attitude is about having western Canadians undertake research and technology. The fact is that a decision by the Hon. Member's Government to eliminate the funding for that building has left it empty. That is the reason it is empty. If it had been left to a Liberal Government, right now there would be 170 engineers and scientists working with private industry and attracting investment from across the world into Canada. For the first time we would have had a major centre undertaking basic research into that technology. That shows my commitment.
I find it exceedingly strange that a Member who comes from Ottawa has the nerve to stand up and talk about what his Governnment has done when we see the rape that is going on in the NRC, and the total desecration of research budgets in every department and Crown corporation. Fortunately, when it comes to 1988 and this Member puts his commitment to research on the line, we know what the people of Ottawa will say to him.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Plague on both your houses.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Ottawa West is rising. Is this question and comment, or debate?


David Bruce Daubney: Question and comment, Mr. Speaker.
Patent Act


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that the time for question and comment has expired. On debate, the Hon. Member for Regina West.


Mr. Dick:: You don't know anything about this.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member suggests that I don't know anything about this. He might be right.


Philip Derek Lewis: That never stopped you before.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What I have forgotten will far surpass what he knows, or what he thinks he does.
Both yesterday and today I listened carefully to speeches by Hon. Members on both sides of the argument. I wish to say, Sir, that I am reminded of something in the opening statement of the Winnipeg declaration of 1956 at a CCF national convention during which we spent many hours examining the Canadian economy and society. We said in that declaration that a society motivated only by a desire for profit was basically immoral. I happen to be one of those who believes personally that those in an area such as drugs who would profit from the misfortunes of others are also basically immoral. Those who would profit from picking the pockets of the sick, the poor and the old have to be accused of having minimal social consciences.
I am not one of those socialists who believes that the Government should own, operate and run everything. I never have believed that. I have always believed in a mixed economy of the private sector, the public sector, the co-operative sector and the voluntary sector. There are some few areas though in which I submit private enterprise has no business. For example, the area of research and development, testing, distribution and sale of drugs for sick people.
We hear about recovery costs for research and development. I agree that that recovery could go on for many years. It could cost millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions before some new development is arrived at, tested and available to the people who desperately need it.
How do you find out what the costs are of research and development no matter how many years it takes? We would need a system to monitor and make those doing the research and development accountable for every single item and every single hour of expense. But what we will be doing is giving them a blank cheque to recover what they claim to be their costs plus a mark-up, plus a profit for 10 years. We have no way of knowing whether they spent $10 million or $100 million. If they claim $200 million plus their profit, plus their return on investment et cetera, they could recover $200 million, $300 million, $400 million, a billion dollars in 10 years by the kind of price mechanism they will have on a patent protected product.

November 21, 1986
Patent Act
I happen to be one of those who believes that research and development, testing, distribution and the sale of drugs should remain in the public domain. That is where it should be. That is where it can be done the best and the most economically for the benefit of those who desperately need drugs. I think that the whole area of research and development should be in the hands of medical schools, university research facilities and the Department of National Health and Welfare because, as I said earlier, private companies, and especially those from outside our borders, have no business in the business of drugs for our old and our sick.
There is no problem about investment in Canada because this kind of investment out of both the public and private purse is the most civilized and humane kind of investment we can make. It is not because we want to make fast bucks, but rather how well and how civilized our society functions. The test of any society is how well it treats its old, its poor, its sick and its young. In this area, Sir, I profoundly believe that Canadians would support public and private investment in research, development, testing, distribution and sale of drugs on, at worst, actual cost recovery. There should be no profit made from those who are sick.
The Minister has repeatedly said in the House that this Bill will only apply to new developments in drugs. He implies that if we did not have this Bill we could prevent the development of a drug for some form of cancer or some other disease that mankind is trying so hard to find a cure, or we could prevent the development of a drug to ease a terrible disease.
Can you imagine what would have happened had this legislation been in place in France when Dr. Pierre Curie and Madam Curie were doing their research? What would have happened had there been a 10-year locked-in patent, a 10-year monopoly, when Drs. Banting and Best discovered insulin which relieved millions of people all over the globe? Nobody was making large profits and fast bucks out of that one. What if there had been this kind of legislation when Dr. Jonas Salk came up with his vaccine for polio, which was a plague on mankind around the globe? We did not have that kind of legislation in place in Canada. Thank God for that. There was nobody making big profits and fast bucks off the Salk polio vaccine.
Many efforst are being made to provide drugs for any kind of cancer, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease and a host of things to which we are still trying to find solutions or to alleviate many other terrible afflictions, but let me tell the Minister that nobody needs or should have a 10 year guarantee recovery cost when we have no way of knowing how much the costs actually are.
I suppose if I force myself I could live with the Eastman report recommending a four year patent protection, and generic drug manufacturers paying a 14 per cent royalty, although I would like to see a limit on that. How long do you pay and pay and pay? All costs get passed on to the consumers of drugs. Drug developments should be and remain in the public domain.
We had a world leader in research and development, the testing and distribution of drugs in Connaught Laboratories which was part of the Canada Investment Development Corporation. It was a winner, not necessarily a winner in dollars in profits, but it was a winner for people. It was the finest example of public endeavour for the public good. Only the Tories would attempt to sell a winner, and I guess they have. To whom? I do not know. It was something that the people of Canada had put their wealth into, it was a world leader, and the Tories said, get rid of it. However, under the aegis of National Health and Welfare, the Connaught Laboratories, our universities and medical schools, we can still have the best research and development, testing, distribution and sale at the lowest possible price because this is in the public domain.
I have had occasion over the last several years to require medical treatment, so I have some personal experience. People in the medical profession, including some hon. colleagues of mine in this House, have been good friends and have been good advisers to me on more than one occasion. I wish the drug industry had as good a conscience, as good an attitude, as they have had about how drugs are dispensed, used, and priced.
The other thing I find totally unacceptable is that people from outside our borders make demands upon us concerning how we govern ourselves. In this instance, the demands concern our methods of research and development, testing, distribution and sale of drugs. This is another of many examples of blatant interference with our sovereignty and independence. No self-respecting country of any kind would hold still for that. I, as one Member of Parliament and a proud Canadian, am not going to hold still for that. I am sick and tired of our crawling on our hands and knees to Washington and asking how high when they holler at us to jump.


Mr. Gormley:: Do you really believe that, Les?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I certainly do. This is not the first time we have had blatant interference with our independence and sovereignty from the U.S. It certainly will not be the last so long as we have a Tory Government more concerned about getting a pat on the head and approval from the U.S.
This legislation is obscene. It is brought forward in the name of so-called free and open market competition. I say that drugs for the sick, the old, the poor should not be subject to competition in the free and open market. It is because of that kind of obscenity that I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House do now adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
November 21, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Patent Act
to the provisions of Standing Orders 115 and 116. It is quite obvious that the Opposition does not want to debate this Bill. There have been several dilatory motions-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: One by you!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -frustration in terms of trying to introduce the Bill, points of order and questions of privilege, all of which have been rather phoney and extraordinary-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Cassidy:: Where is the sweetness and light?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) on a point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I regret to advise the House that I have not been able to come to an agreement with my opposition colleagues pursuant


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is quite obvious-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If it is indeed obvious, then perhaps a long speech is not required.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. It is quite obvious that the substance of the Bill on which we had hoped to have an enlightened debate does not interest members of the Opposition. Rather, they are interested in frustrating the process. Therefore, I wish to inform the House that next Monday I will be bringing forward a motion asking that two additional days of debate be granted for the consideration of the Bill at this stage.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Democracy is dead.


Mr. Speaker:: Debate.


John V. Nunziata: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Due to a situation beyond my control, I was unable to attend the taking of the vote which took place at approximately 1.30 p.m. I wish to indicate to the House that had I been here I would have voted with my Party.


Mr. Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) has just boot-legged a warning of closure in his alleged point of order, I would like to boot-leg a warning on the part of this side of the House that we will fight this closure as long as we can. We will continue to fight it in the House of Commons and outside.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Good for you.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You have two hours, Sheila.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper) on debate.


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon on behalf of my constituents in Nepean-Carleton and share with them and Members of the House some of my thoughts with respect to Bill C-22 and its amendments. One of the intriguing things to a person who is in relative terms a newcomer to the House of Commons is how difficult it has been to bring this piece of legislation on to the
1422

November 21, 1986
Patent Act
floor of the House of Commons for debate. I say this because it is a piece of legislation that has received a great deal of attention, not only in the House but across the nation. It is an important Bill. It deals with an issue that clearly needs to be debated by all Members of the House. It needs to be thought through carefully by all Canadians. All Canadians require an opportunity to be as fully informed as they can about the pros and cons of this Bill, those things that might relate to potential increases in drug prices and so on, and to have those things really established in this forum. I think we should move on with the debate and send the Bill to committee as quickly as we can.
The changes that Bill C-22 bring forward are based on respect for intellectual property, incentives to Canadian industry and continued consumer protection. I think all Members of the House would recognize, knowing something about my background in science and my interest in research, that I have a dramatic interest in any legislation that would affect research or potential research and development in Canada.
As we look at this legislation, the cornerstone of the policy that we are addressing is a return to patent protection for those who discover and develop new drugs. Our Government believes in the principle that intellectual property rights must be respected and protected. Canada is the only industrialized country in which patent rights for new drugs can be assessed at any time by a compulsory licensing procedure. In fact, if all countries had such regressive laws no new drugs would be discovered anywhere in the world.
It is time that we brought our patent law into line with the rest of the world. This legislation will transform Canada's pharmaceutical sector into a world-class innovative industry led by a significant increase in investment and jobs in research and development. Upgrading Canada's Patent Act will also give us access to the Patent Co-operation Treaty, facilitate the dissemination of new technology, especially to small and medium-sized businesses, and decrease costs and increase productivity by eliminating much of the duplication that currently takes place. The goal, then, in amending the Patent Act, is to create an inviting climate for research and development in Canada's pharmaceutical industry. This is vital to our Government's goal of economic renewal and industrial growth.
There is much less pharmaceutical research and development being done in Canada than the Government and the Canadian research and development community would like, particularly the Canadian university community. This is because Canada has been regarded as a country with a hostile climate toward the protection of information such as that to which we are addressing ourselves this afternoon. Innovative drug companies doing basic research do not want to invest here because Canada has refused to protect their discoveries. Drug research in Canada is now almost totally oriented toward the clinical research and trials necessary to obtain permission from the Department of National Health and Welfare to market a drug in this country. The basic research that should provide
employment for our university science graduates is being done in other countries, at Canada's loss.
Bill C-22 attempts to correct this inequity for Canadian pharmaceutical research. It will lay the groundwork for employment in Canada for Canadian universities and for Canadian science, in particular for graduates and postgraduate students in chemistry, biochemistry, biotechnology and in our medical schools. It is important to note that very little commercialization of the products and ideas of Canadian university and other pharmaceutical research organizations now happens in Canada. This is partly because there is no real manufacturing capability in Canada that could commercialize these products and ideas. By providing an incentive for firms to manufacture fine chemicals, the basic ingredient in drugs, rather than to simply process imported materials into dosage form, the Government is laying a second part of the foundation required for the Canadian pharmaceutical industry to become a significant player on the world scene.
Bill C-22 will generate more products and more ideas from the Canadian pharmaceutical research and development establishments. In order to get the maximum benefit from these products and ideas, however, it is necessary to have a productive and adequate manufacturing base available. Otherwise, the commercialization of Canadian research products and ideas will be done elsewhere and Canada will not benefit from the employment and further investment opportunities this process could generate.
I believe the steps being taken in this Bill and the new investment in research and development that will result are major steps forward in the support of a truly significant pharmaceutical industry. The investments resulting from Bill C-22 will benefit all of Canada. Research centres capable of performing pharmaceutical research will benefit from this increase in investment because a greater proportion of the extramural research expenditures of the pharmaceutical companies will be made outside Quebec and Ontario.
Last weekend, I spent a considerable amount of time in Alberta. I met with representatives of the pharmaceutical community there and found that they were anxious to establish a pharmaceutical research capability in that province. They encouraged us to proceed with this legislation so that they could participate by having research facilities established in Alberta, particularly in association with medical schools.
The changes this Bill will bring about have long been called for by the Canadian scientific and research community and particularly by the university community. Bill C-22 will result in a significant amount of new research and development expenditures going to Canadian universities, hospitals and private research institutions.
The June 1983 discussion paper released by the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), called for a rebalancing
November 21, 1986

of the 1969 policy. This was because there was a need, the paper said, to generate more investment in research and development in Canada. In September of that year, the present Liberal critic for science and technology in the House, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, said that the Government's objective is to maintain low prices for consumers and to create a business climate that will support development of the industry with an emphasis on the growth of return, the development of exports and an active ingredient manufacturing in Canada. The Eastman Commission, in its report, confirmed the need to rebalance existing patent policy by providing a guaranteed period of protection to innovative companies.
Many scientific, medical, pharmacological and other research groups across Canada have also called for amendments to the Patent Act to promote more pharmaceutical research in Canada. These groups have included the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies, the Canadian Society for Clinical Pharmacology, the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists, the Research Institute of Montreal, l'lndustrie du Medicament, the Deans of Pharmacy of Canada, the Medical Federation of Quebec and many others. We have heard from these groups as recently as this past week.
Bill C-22 answers these calls for the promotion of pharmaceutical research and development in Canada. The Government anticipates that the new investment will total some $1.4 billion and that these investments will create some 3,000 high quality research and technology jobs in the pharmaceutical industry across Canada. Other estimates of the number of jobs that will be created are even higher. According to an October 1986 article in Le Devoir economique, the former Dean of the University of Montreal said that the number will increase from the present 17,000 to 25,000. These are the jobs for which the pharmaceutical and medical research groups have been calling.
I think it is absolutely essential that as the House moves forward with this debate, we as parliamentarians do whatever we can to promote research and development in Canada. In thinking about this Bill, it is essential that we ask ourselves what our track record in drug research has been over the last 10, 20 or even 50 years. We would be disappointed to learn that our creativity in the bringing forward of new drugs to protect the health of Canadians and other men and women around the world has not been as productive as we would have like it to have been.
Thinking about this further, and accepting that philosophy, we are in large part on an ongoing and continuous basis putting ourselves in the position of having to rely on research being done in other countries for many of our health care needs. If we are to do that, we will then have to pay what might be called the international price for new drugs. If that will be the case, we will have no protection whatsoever because we will not be able to establish in our own domain the method of controlling prices of drugs that are so important to the poor, the elderly, the needy and indeed all Canadians.
Right to Life
New drugs are expensive. Recently, I have read a little bit about the new drug cyclosporin, a drug that has revolutionized the entire approach to the transplanting of organs. This drug has been able to overcome the rejection phenomena we have been until now unable to accommodate. This has been a marvellous new development in scientific research and in human health. However, for those who have to use it, the drug is expensive. I understand that its use costs between $2,000 and $4,000 a year. However, that is the price of progress. I am sure that those who live with new organs find that a small price to pay.
There is another dimension to this. There is an entire generation of young scientists who are interested in biochemistry, biotechnology and medical research who are denied access to research laboratories because of our lack of encouragement and the lack of the appropriate economic and protective climate needed to allow pharmaceutical research in Canada. If these young men and women graduates of our universities want to pursue careers in this area, they usually have to go elsewhere.
It is expected that as much as 30 per cent or perhaps $400 million of the new research and development expenditures will go directly to Canadian universities, hospitals and other private research groups. Medical schools and research institutes will all benefit from the increase in basic and clinical research and development that will occur as a result of this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982
[Stage Direction]
RIGHT TO LIFE OF UNBORN HUMAN PERSONS Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Constitution Act, 1982, to include unborn human persons, and that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights so that it reads as follows:
"7. Everyone including a human foetus or unborn being has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
He said: There is no question, Madam Speaker, that this country of ours has split into two decidedly hostile factions since the Criminal Code was amended in 1969 to exclude from prosecution those abortions performed in hospitals which have therapeutic abortion committees.
[Stage Direction]
November 21, 1986
Right to Life
Those who feel that easy access to abortion is necessary to protect women who are unwillingly pregnant state that a woman should be able to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and that abortion should be available to all women regardless of age, marital status, or income level.
Those who disagree base their reasoning on the definition of human life given by members of a scientific group in Washington, D.C., and I quote:
The majority of our group could find no point in time between the union of sperm and egg and the birth of the infant at which point we could say that this is not a human life. The changes occurring between implantation, a six-week embryo, a six-month fetus, a one-week child, or a mature adult, are merely at stages of development and maturation.
It is difficult for those who accept this concept of life to find a common ground on which to meet those who desire abortion as a means of enduring childbirth by choice.
We who oppose abortion do so because we believe in the right to life. We are falsely depicted by those who are proabortion as unconcerned with the reality of the 15-year-old girl who is pregnant because she does not know any better, or the mother of five who can see no way to support another child, or the woman who is carrying a defective child. We are seen as forcing a theory of life on a world that is torn by suffering and personal torment. Individual liberty and freedom of choice are catch phrases that are fast gaining control of our society.
People's feelings are for what they can see, not what someone has told them exists. Their eyes and minds focus on the woman, not the child she carries. Their sympathy is for the suffering of those already born, not for the one who is waiting to be born. They care not for the right to life, but only for the lives that are apparent. They seem to infer that to fight abortion is to put women into a state of perpetual pregnancy.
I am against abortion, but I do believe in birth control and the education of the public regarding various means of preventing conception. The public has become confused by the fact that those who favour abortion state that every woman should have the right to decided whether or not to carry a child. To them abortion is a matter of personal conscience and no woman should be forced to carry a child, or terminate her pregnancy. Aside from the fact that women can and have been frightened or manoeuvered into having abortions, the destruction of the child is the main issue.
The Canadian Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Law states that Canada must be willing to join other countries where legal abortion is readily available. Their reasoning for this is that it prevents illegal abortion and that it faces the reality of abortion as a major health issue. It preserves the physical, mental, social, and economic well-being of the women concerned. If it does those things, it is a hypothesis which has not yet been proved.
The ends envisaged can be met through other means. Proper education solves many problems, especially when the education gives complete understanding of birth control methods available, and a thorough understanding of the value of human life. Man must learn that the preservation and continued
growth of the human race demands that the weak must be protected from the strong, and the unborn must be protected from the mature. The concept of equality before the law demands that all participants be included, not just those who can yell the loudest.
Many doctors today now admit that there is no medical reason for abortion. Even the late Dr. Guttmacha, who was one of the strongest allies of the abortion movement stated:
Today in our modern society it is possible to take almost any woman safely through her pregnancy except if she has cancer or leukemia, in which case an abortion would not save her life much less prolong it.
One of the big problems for those fighting abortion and the destruction of innocent life, is that while there is proof that life begins at conception, people are willing to destroy that life and make the social and economic status of the mother more important than the right to life of those who cannot speak for themselves. We are fast losing sight of the traditional western ethic which has always placed emphasis on the basic worth and equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition. By destroying another life to ensure one's economic and social success, the human race is losing whatever dignity and honour it has worked to build for itself over the centuries. It is only right and proper that the individual be protected, that he or she be granted the God given life and the right to grow and learn at his or her own rate.
Unfortunately, all individuals are not granted the same rights. The legalization of abortion implies that the end justifies the means, that destruction is allowable if a certain quality of life is preserved for those who remain. Self-interest then is held to be more important than the common good. Truth becomes lost as man learns to define himself in terms of what he thinks is useful and convenient.
To place a utilitarian value on human life, to see each person only in terms of his economic worth, can and will lead to the destruction of human life. It will lead to the murder of those already born who through mental or physical incapacity are not able to contribute to society what may be demanded of them by extremists. These and any other attempts to negate life, to state that it has no value in itself must never be tolerated.
Life is an automatic value, and the handicapped child has the same right as any other person to develop his or her full potential as a human being. Abortion, infanticide, and mercy killing have a tendency to follow one upon the other. To destroy life on any level is to accept that all life has only a relative value.
Can those who propose the complete legalization of abortion guarantee that it will end there? Can they guarantee that the legal murder of the unborn will not lead society to other forms of murder? I think not.
Statistics show that the number of abortions have increased by leaps and bounds, which creates a situation where those hospitals which choose a lax interpretation of the law are now experiencing difficulty dealing with the backlog. Needed
November 21, 1986
[Stage Direction]
elective surgery is backed up and operating theatres are constantly tied up. Abortionists would like to force the other hospitals and doctors into accepting the backlog. That must be prevented at all costs. Never do I want to see individuals and institutions forced into the taking of life of those who are classified as unwanted by a society that cannot be bothered with the question, let alone try to find an answer.
In most of the disagreements and arguments that have taken place between pro-lifers and pro-abortionists, the focal point has been the issue of contraception. Those who favour abortion state that pro-lifers want to put women into a state of continual pregnancy. I have said before and I must stress again that proper birth control methods must be made readily available to all. Sex education must be taught in such a way as to make all people understand those methods. Money can and should be spent on the education of all people, not just those attending high school or college. Once that is done, people will be able to make the choice concerning the birth of children.
As it stands now, abortion is becoming a means of contraception. Many women and men are choosing not to make full use of contraceptives. It has become much easier to terminate an unwanted pregnancy than to take the time to use proper birth control methods. Destruction of the unborn child has become the accepted means of ensuring that a sexual relationship is not based on artificial means.
Even the Badgley Commission agrees that the number of abortions will continue to rise if some means is not found to ensure that women have contraceptive protection.
For those who do not wish children, contraception is proper and necessary. Once conception takes place there can be no more contraception. Once a life has begun it has the same right to reach its natural end. That life has the same right to protection under the law as has its mother or any other member of society. The Right to Life movement must be willing to show the people of this country that it does care. It must show that it is aware of the problems of illegal abortions, of the pregnant women who need assistance and guidance before, during and after pregnancy. The public must learn what the Right to Life movement is really trying to do, not what pro-abortionists say it is trying to do.
Governments and the medical profession must be willing to offer assistance and to explain what that assistance is to women who are pregnant. Men cannot be forgotten either. The development of women's rights does not demand the end of male responsibility. Sexual relationship demands responsibility on both sides in the understanding and use of contraceptives, and in the care of any child which may result from that relationship. The legalization of abortion must be averted and the type of abortion available must now be ended before there will be any change in the values of Canadian society.
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this subject. It is one that has concerned me for a
Right to Life
good many years as it has many other people. I take it very seriously. The motion is:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Constitution Act, 1982, to include unborn human persons-
I want to come back to that phrase, Madam Speaker:
-and that the Governor General issue a Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada to amend section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights so that it reads as follows:
7. Everyone including a human foetus or unborn being-
I will come back to that phrase also:
-has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Although the motion itself does not mention abortion, it is of course not produced for the purpose of a philosophical discussion only, but as the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) has illustrated it is a part of the discussion on the laws relating to abortion.
I do not consider this an easy subject, Madam Speaker. I have struggled a lot with it. I think perhaps the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe does not consider it easy. He does not want to be stereotyped as somebody who is out of sympathy with women who are pregnant, troubled with other circumstances. I think he is quite right not to want to be stereotyped and put down as being unsympathetic. I have many good friends who take the same position as the previous speaker has. I also would not want to be put down as somebody not concerned for the foetus.
As a father of some children and a grandfather of some children and as one who had some minimal familiarity with disappointments relating to miscarriage, although no experience directly with the choice of abortion, either by my wife or anyone else, I have great respect for the foetus which is the subject of this motion. I do not understand it yet, at least in quite the same way as the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe does. To say that this is a human being, a human person or a unborn being with the right to life, liberty and security of the person is farther than I am conscientiously able to go at this time, farther than many people quite serious, quite compassionate of both the mother and the foetus are able to go at this time.
The peculiar situation that does not exist anywhere else in our law is that if we talk about the foetus as a person and we talk about protecting the rights of that person, we must protect a person inside another person. That is obvious, but I think the point may have escaped some. I cannot force a woman to protect a life that is inside her. I may encourage her, persuade her, help her or whatever, but without risk of serious damage to one or both-the person outside and the alleged person inside-I cannot compel her. The attempts to do so have been very unhappy with very poor results in public experience.
I think the decision the Member for Grey-Simcoe has asked us to make is at best premature. It may be that society will arrive at a point where that is the view, but it has not yet

November 21, 1986
Right to Life
arrived in Canada and in many other countries. Certainly that view was not arrived at among the people who wrote The Bible. There is no foundation for the speaker's view in the teachings found there. If there were more time I could go into one of the few examples which shows a different attitude in the Old Testament, the laws of Moses, that rated the life of the foetus distinctly lower than the life of the pregnant woman, distinctly lower, not only the life, but the well-being of the pregnant woman. If the Member wants to check on that he can look up Exodus XXI and XXII.
We should not rush to a decision on this while people of good will are so strongly and, roughly speaking, so evenly divided on it. If we were to go by polls we might notice that 70 per cent of Canadians, according to polls, support the right to choice, as it is called. It is perfectly possible for a person to be opposed to abortion but in favour of the right of choice. It is perfectly possible to say that I wish women would not choose abortion. Because I wish that, I would do whatever I can to encourage that choice and to encourage the consequences of that choice rather than the consequences of the other choice. It is perfectly possible to take that view and yet to take the view that if she disagrees then my obligation is not to punish her in some way, because that is really what is at stake here-we can talk about the doctor but it is the pregnant woman who is the focus of concern when we talk about legal action-by perhaps delaying an abortion that she still seeks or preventing her or penalizing her for having it. We have to say that for the sake of that woman's life, even if we disagree with what she is doing, for the sake of the foetus which perhaps will be born and be clearly a person or perhaps will not, for the sake of both we have to make sure that the medical conditions are satisfactory. If she insists on the abortion, that means medical conditions of a sound abortion procedure.
I have just read a very interesting speech which was delivered in 1984 by Mario Cuomo, Governor of New York. I do not know whether he still is the Governor but I hope he is. He speaks as a Catholic layman to the Department of Theology at the University of Notre Dame. He speaks of himself as a graduate of the university. He says that as a Catholic he is obliged to protect the right of non-Catholics to do things that he would disagree with because that right is reciprocal.
As a legislator, both as a member of city council and here, as someone responsible for making laws, that responsibility being given to me by a plurality of voters, I will not choose to enforce the sort of law implied by this motion on the foetus or even on people who I think may do something I wish they would not do. I do not believe enforcement of the law in that way will help life, either the life of the pregnant woman or the life of the foetus. Therefore, I urge the Hon. Member and other Hon. Members to consider that this is a matter for much further and deeper public soul-searching. We should not be attempting to coerce by legislation.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Anne Blouin (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) on his concern for the rights of the foetus. I realize the matter is very important to him, and I respect his views and praise his courage.
Madam Speaker, the issue is one of the most serious ones facing Canadian society today: What legal protection should be given the human foetus? We must not lose sight of the fact that if this motion were adopted, it would have a major impact on our abortion legislation. Agreed, many Canadians would applaud this kind of change. And many would be appalled.
It is an extremely controversial issue, on which Canadians are divided. And because this is such a burning issue, I have some reservations about the avenue chosen by the Hon. Member to amend the relevant legislation. Is a five-hour debate the right way to amend this country's fundamental laws? Hon. Members will no doubt recall the long and impassioned debate that followed the proposal to amend the Criminal Code in 1969. I am not at all convinced that a five-hour debate will be sufficient to give thorough consideration to the many aspects of this issue. I do not believe that five hours will be enough to examine the various interests at stake.
The Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe is proposing to have Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms amended so that a foetus, like a person, has the right to life, liberty and security and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
The Hon. Member is no doubt aware that amending the Constitution is a serious matter. Remember how long it took to develop an amending formula for the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, experience has shown how difficult it is to obtain a consensus among the provinces and the people of Canada.
We must not forget there is a set procedure for amending the Constitution. Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment, in addition to being approved by the House of Commons and the Senate, must also be approved by two-thirds of the provinces that represent 50 per cent of the population.
The amending procedure involves consultation with the provinces on the impact of the proposed changes. Any change in Section 7 can have major implications for the provinces.
Before we start consideration of an amendment to Section 7, I would like to know how this will affect family law.
I think it would be advisable to continue consultations that have already begun on amendments to the Constitution. Madam Speaker, we must keep encouraging co-operation between the provinces and open up the fullest possible debate on the issue. It is imperative that we obtain a national consensus on this fundamental issue.
November 21, 1986

Madam Speaker, it is also of the utmost importance to allow Canadians to express their views on whether protection of the foetus should be guaranteed by the Constitution. Our Gover-ment sees it as its duty to consult before making such a fundamental change in our legislation. Indeed, what could be more fundamental than an amendment to the Constitution?
We have always consulted Canadians about social benefits and issues involving equality. We cannot amend our laws on abortion and entrench the rights of foetuses in the Constitution without consulting the various groups concerned.
This matter is too important for us not to try to achieve the highest degree of consensus.
I do not believe that we can resolve such a complex issue in so short a debate. Before bringing in laws on abortion, we must ensure that we know all their implications, and most important, that we have the support of the greatest number of people, otherwise, we might be creating more problems than we would solve.
Again, Madam Speaker, 1 repeat that a five-hour debate would not be sufficient for a thorough and complete review of all the consequences of constitutionally guaranteeing the rights of the foetus. Consultation with the provinces on the possible impact of such an amendment is imperative.
I urge the Hon. Members of this House in favour of enshrining the rights of the foetus to realize that amending the Constitution is no simple matter. We would first have to examine thoroughly the consequences such a step might have, and consultation, in particular, would have to be extensive. Finally, Madam Speaker, may I say that the debate on abortion has already been a very divisive factor among Canadian men and women that I feel it would be much too dangerous to proceed with the very significant amendment proposed by my hon. colleague.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on an issue which is important to all Members of this House and all Canadians. Basically I see this as another back-bench Conservative attempt to make it more difficult for Canadian women to obtain safe, legal abortions. At the same time the motion, if it were adopted, would distort the whole concept of human rights in Canada. It calls on the Government to extend to the human foetus the basic legal rights we have under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The implications are staggering. It moves the entire debate about abortion away from the medical sphere where it properly belongs, and into the legal sphere.
We can all accept that abortion has some very important moral elements which both individuals and society have to deal with. However, the medical questions are most properly addressed by the woman and her doctor. The moral questions must be addressed by the woman and her own conscience, perhaps with the help of a priest or some other counsellor. We have to recognize the need for more counselling facilities for
Right to Life
women in this situation. I therefore particularly urge upon the Government and government Members the necessity for more funding for women's centres so they can receive the kind of counselling they need to reach their own decisions.
I am concerned that if this motion is adopted the procedure I have just outlined will be completely derailed by a very complex legal process. We all know the difficulty women face under the present legislation. Hospitals lack the required therapeutic abortion committees in order to approve abortions being performed in those hospitals. This is particularly the case in rural areas. Women in rural areas often have to travel long distances to major centres to get safe and legal abortions. At present the Provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have no hospitals with therapeutic abortion committees.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the answers to our concerns about abortion do not lie in banning abortion, but rather in safer methods of birth control and proper education. The Member who sponsored the motion says he is not opposed to birth control. I am pleased to hear that. However, we must recognize that safe and effective methods of birth control do not exist in our society. They still need to be found. We know the health problems which women are having due to the pill, the IUD, the Daikon shield and now with Depo Provera. Yet, research funding for safe contraceptive methods has been cut in Canada and the United States.
A study was done for International Family Planning Perspectives, a publication in New York. The authors asked 62 pharmaceutical manufacturers whether they were doing research and development on birth control. Of the 42 American companies which responded, 33 said they had abandoned such projects. This is the model of research which was held up this afternoon by government speakers saying we need more research in various areas. However, in this area in which we desperately need research, the pharmaceutical companies are cutting back. This is obviously an area in which the Government should be getting involved. Instead, it is cutting back in this field.
In a July 22, 1985, news release of the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, Nancy Sunderland, the Treasurer, pointed out that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has "contradicted himself by not treating all organizations funded under the family planning program in the same manner". While cutting the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada by 12.5 per cent and the Canadian Committee on Fertility Research by 75 per cent, Serena, an organization that promotes natural family planning methods, received a 12 per cent increase in its funding.
The need for research into adequate contraceptive methods is being completely ignored by the Government. In addition to adequate contraceptive methods, there is a need for education. Education does work. Planned Parenthood of Ontario has pointed out that there has been a decline in the adolescent

November 21, 1986
Right to Life
pregnancy rate in Ontario. In 1983 there were 42.3 pregnancies per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 19 as compared to 60.4 pregnancies in 1959.
The nine-year overview proves that prevention works. It demonstrates that public prevention programs of sexuality education in school and family planning services in public health units have not caused adolescent pregnancy rates to rise. Furthermore, access to abortion services have not increased sexual irresponsibility that would cause adolescent pregnancy rates to rise. The study goes on to point out that young people who live in rural areas and poorer areas lack access to such family planning education in their schools. This is something which must be corrected.
In conclusion, I would like to make it very clear that I cannot support this motion. I think it would run counter to the best interests of the Canadian people. Instead, I call upon the Government to remove all references to abortion from the Criminal Code.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, the topic which we are discussing this afternoon is not one on which one can be a political winner. It is not a votegetting issue or a partisan issue. However, it is certainly a complex issue. The easiest thing for any Member to do would be not to speak at all. However, I do not believe that is what the people of our constituencies sent us here for. I was in the lobby earlier making telephone calls to constituents. I heard the debate taking place in the House and deliberately chose to come in and participate in it. This is at the same time a religious issue, a moral issue and a social issue.

Above all, Madam Speaker, it is more than a simple constitutional issue. I am sure the Hon. Member who is sponsoring the motion to amend the Canadian Constitution means well. Unfortunately I believe he is taking the wrong approach to make his point. Should a Member feel that the legislation respecting abortion ought to be changed, then I think this should be done through a Criminal Code provision rather than a constitutional amendment because, as I said earlier, we may be debating a number of issues this afternoon but honestly I do not believe we are now talking about a constitutional matter. We may be talking about many other things, but certainly not that one. If I may elaborate briefly on the constitutional aspect, it has been pointed out a moment ago that any amendment to the Constitution calls for consensus and agreement between the federal Government and a number of Canadian provinces-two-thirds of the provinces representing at least 50 per cent of all Canadians-plus a resolution of the House of Commons.
There is another aspect to be taken under consideration, Madam Speaker, namely that if we amend the Constitution, which then becomes subject to interpretation, I have serious reservations about the manner in which the motion or the constitutional amendment is worded. Members might seriously wonder what would be the consequences and the legal
implications. When for instance I see in this proposal the words "unborn human persons", I ask myself, not knowing the answer, whether there is such a thing as an unborn human person, if it is even possible to write such a self-contradictory thing. People might say that someone who is not yet born is not a human being, it is a human foetus, etc. Some may debate that point at some other time, but the fact remains that enacting a constitutional amendment and trying to see later how the courts will interpret it, would be an extremely dangerous way to go about it, according to the Hon. Member's intent. If the Hon. Member simply wants to ban abortion, this may be his choice-and I am not suggesting it is although I have a feeling this is probably what he intented-he might introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code. I must add that I would not agree to support such an amendment had he proposed it, but anyway such is not the situation now, judging from his speech.
It is also difficult to discuss this issue for religious reasons because some of us are of certain religious persuasions in which abortions are not permitted. I happen to belong to such a group. As a practising Roman Catholic, as a married person and a father, I am very concerned about the debate on this issue. On the one hand, I find it unusual that this afternoon, all Members except one who have spoken so far have been men who, of course, will never bear children. Women have had the opportunity to participate in this debate in the House this afternoon, but only one has done so.
The argument that has been made by others is that while it is true that only women bear children, the responsibility for those children does not lie with women alone, but rests with society collectively. Therefore, as legislators, be it men or women, we must state our views on this very difficult issue and others like it. Notwithstanding the fact that I would have appreciated hearing more contribution in the debate from some women Members of the House, I decided to speak because I feel very strongly that this motion should not proceed.
The current law as it pertains to abortions has attempted to cover the middle ground. There is the position that abortions should never occur, which is historically incorrect. Abortions have always taken place in spite of attempts to hide that fact.
The other position is that abortions should always be available and the decision should be left to the woman and her doctor. I have already explained why I disagree with that position.
I suggest that the present law is probably a just middle ground, although I do not believe it has always been administered according to its original intent. I suggest that the law is not administered uniformly. While this is not the only reason, it is a major cause of what is wrong with the present legislation. The law is interpreted differently in some provinces, some jurisdictions and even within some cities.
November 21, 1986

This does not mean that the spirit behind the legislation is wrong or that even the law itself is wrong, but, rather, that it needs to be administered uniformly. Obviously, legislation such as this cannot be applied on the basis of geography. What is wrong in Hawkesbury in my riding cannot be right in Ottawa; and what is right in Ottawa cannot be wrong in Montreal. It is either correct or incorrect, and the same criteria in identical circumstances, in whatever city or community in Canada, should give an identical result.
As the Member opposite pointed out in his speech earlier, that is not the case right now. The laws are obviously applied very differently in some cities than in others. 1 do not believe that society wants, should advocate or in any other way state that abortions are an accepted means of birth control. That would be wrong. On the other hand, to pretend that they have not occurred in the past and shall not occur in the future, notwithstanding any law, would also be unrealistic. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak on this very difficult subject.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, abortion is a subject on which many Canadians have views that are diametrically opposed. I understand the motives and the feelings underlying the decision by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) to move this motion to amend the Constitution. Some people may think that the hour set aside for Private Members' Business is not necessarily the right time to consider an amendment to the Constitution on such an important issue. It is, however, an opportunity for us today to discuss the matter and to have some exchanges with Members on this important subject. We must ensure that any decision to amend the Constitution is taken only after examining all relevant aspects, once we have fully grasped the scope of the issue.
Madam Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to examine this very delicate and polarizing question. I will concentrate on the medical aspects. Medically speaking the physician is inextricably bound up with the question of abortion. His patients and the community ask him certain things and even go so far as to demand them. Like all citizens, the physician is governed by the laws of the land. He works in a hospital that either regulates abortion or prohibits it entirely. The physician's conduct is also governed by his own moral principles and by the ethical approach he takes to this situation. The order of physicians constantly monitors the ethical aspects from the medical point of view. Furthermore, the provinces each have a health insurance plan through which they can exercise financial control over these matters and thus indirectly control the practice of abortion as in the case of other areas of medical practice. What I have just said shows the complexity of this issue. A single opinion or decision cannot bring about a complete change in the abortion policy.
Naturally, the physician is subject to the pressures of many sectors of society. As the Hon. Members are probably aware, there have been changes to the Criminal Code in relation with
Right to Life
abortion. Very militant groups have asked for abortion on demand. A number of physicians have apparently been influenced by these groups and by the fact that other countries and many American states have very flexible abortion laws. It is amazing to find such a change in attitude among physicians of whom many were initially very strongly opposed to more generalized abortions. Madam Speaker, I believe that there will never be abortion on demand because there will always be cases where abortion is refused even if we have very flexible laws and amenable physicians. However, since there is an increasing number of abortions, there will be a lot of serious problems, both medically and socially.
Indeed, an abortion can lead to medical complications. For instance, there have been cases where an interrupted pregnancy has caused the death of the mother. Permanent damage to the cervix can also endanger future pregnancies since they result in a risk of spontaneous abortion, miscarriage or premature labour.
On the other hand, if there were extended access to abortion services, we would have to examine the implications for the morale of hospital personnel, such as the anesthetists, the surgical nursing staff, the technicians, without forgetting the gynecologists themselves. Most of the latter would be working in a situation where they would have to perform many more abortions than at the present time. As physicians, their work is to protect, not to destroy life.
This could even lead to the point where some gynecologists would only practise abortions.
If, because of those legislative amendments, abortion became available on demand, gynecologists would become mere technicians who would not have to decide on the merits of an abortion.
If, on the other hand, certain criteria were established that would have to be met before a decision to abort could be taken, conscientious gynecologists would then have to spend a lot of time studying scores of cases. Even in such circumstances, there could still be women who, because of the influence of others, their own perseverance or additional funds, could obtain an abortion when other women could not.
The time needed for these abortions should also be considered. However, if the Act were to be made less stringent and if it were provided that the majority of abortions would have to be made outside major hospitals, because of the strict regulations enforced there, gynecologists would then abdicate their responsibilities as specialists.
Finally, if binding guidelines were to be established, it might very well be that certain smaller hospitals outside large urban centres would become mere abortion clinics.
Thirdly, despite expectations raised by more flexible legislation, the latter does not necessarily lead to fewer abortions. The explanation for that would be that apparently, from the moment abortion would be viewed as a socially acceptable treatment, some women who at present would not

November 21, 1986
Right to Life
consider having an abortion might then apply for it. On the other hand, if certain criteria were to be adopted, some women who would not meet those criteria would be turned down and, in order to have an abortion, would go through a criminal process. Further, some women-although they could obtain an abortion-would not wish to record their names on whatever Government form, and would therefore not apply to a recognized medical clinic.
Madam Speaker, when abortion is readily available, understandably people will feel a lesser need for ordinary birth control methods. A great many women even feel no real need for contraception when they can have access to abortion. Later on, these same women are greatly incensed when they realize, after they have become pregnant, that abortion is refused to them. Such an attitude would explain, even among married women, this common lack of concern and frequent disregard for the most simple and easily accessible contraceptive measures to avoid unwanted pregnancies.
Finally, it should be emphasized that repeated abortions lead to a great many medical problems for the patient, as well as the medical profession and the community as a whole.
Even without such problems, it is clearly a tragedy to treat human life, be it just an embryo or a foetus, with total disregard and to suppress it because it is expedient to do so.
Madam Speaker, those are the considerations I wanted to bring to the attention of the House.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, 1 want to thank the Hon. Member for presenting the motion. This is a very delicate matter indeed and, as a result of our parliamentary reform, a Member may now raise a votable item after a five-hour debate. 1 am grateful as well to my colleagues for listening to and participating in the debate.
The motion under consideration deals with one of the most pressing issues with which Canadians have to come to grips. I am convinced that the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges), among others, will be a source of enlightenment to us.
I would suggest that Parliament can make a useful contribution to this issue, but 1 do not think time has come to amend the abortion legislation, nor that these debates are the ideal approach. A constitutional amendment process has already been adopted under which the provinces and the federal Government must give their approval, so we ought to consult the provinces before going any further. It must be done. Besides, we must ensure that we amend our Constitution only after a thorough analysis of all the factors involved, and not before Canadians have had every opportunity to voice their opinion on the issue.
The question of protecting the unborn child has given rise to a great deal of controversy, and many Canadians have taken firm stands on this issue. In a famous U.S. court judgment in
the case Roe vs Wade, Judge Blackmun of the United States said as follows, and I quote: "First of all, we admit we are aware of the emotional and delicate character of the abortion debate and the clashing and vigorous opinions held on the subject, even among physicians." In fact, we have just heard the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Marin), himself a physician, express his own concerns in this respect, saying that he was aware of the deeply held and apparently absolute belief that were often involved. The general ideas and experience of a person, what he or she knows of the problems of life, his or her religious upbringing and attitudes towards life and family and the values they represent, as well as the standards he or she tries to live by, all this can influence the ideas and beliefs of this person about abortion."
The Members who are moving this resolution are proposing that the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Charter be conferred upon the human foetus or unborn being. That Section of the Charter guarantees to everyone the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The issue of whether or not the Charter protects the rights of the unborn child is already before the courts. In the case of Borowski vs the Attorney General of Canada, those who oppose the current abortion provisions of the Criminal Code argue that Section 7 already protects unborn human beings, that the foetus is a person and that, therefore, the word "everyone" in Section 7 guarantees the protection of the unborn child. In other words, the courts were asked to rule on the question of whether a foetus is a legal person from the time of conception, or immediately afterwards. The trial court decision was that the word "everyone" in Section 7 does not apply to unborn human beings. However it indicated that it was difficult to rule on the question of whether legal status should be conferred upon unborn human beings. Justice Matheson stated that although, in view of the great strides made in the medical Field, from a social viewpoint, it would be desirable to confer legal status on the foetus, whether or not it would prove viable in time, it is Parliament's responsability and not that of the courts to draft the appropriate legislation to confer on the unborn child some or all the rights enjoyed by living individuals. Nothing in the law can lead us to conclude that the foetus is a legal person. That is why, on the basis of the term "everyone" as it appears in the Charter, the applicant's request must be denied".
That decision was appealed before the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal which has taken the case under advisement and should make its decision known within the next few weeks.
The matter of the consistency of the Canadian legislation on abortion with the Charter has also been reviewed in the case of the Queen vs Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott. In that case, it has been alleged that the restrictions to abortion as set in the Criminal Code were an infringement to the right to life and to the freedom and security of the individual. The Ontario Appeal Court has rejected that plea and has deferred
November 21, 1986

it to the Supreme Court of Canada which has taken it under advisement and should deliver its judgment in the forthcoming months.
Madam Speaker, you have indicated that it is 5 o'clock and that we should now adjourn. I understand that I will have the opportunity to conclude my speech whenever this debate is resumed.
Right to Life


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(3), this item shall be dropped to the bottom of the list of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, November 24, 1986