1986-11-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Sixth Report of the Striking Committee.


PRESENTATION OF SEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Seventh Report of the Striking Committee.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later today.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of Canadian residents who protest the proposals of the federal Government to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs.
They petition that these proposals will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers, will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs, will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis, and will result in higher costs to provincial drug plans, despite the protestations of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) to the contrary.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour to present a petition, which has been certified correct as to form and content. Like the petitions I had the opportunity to present
once before, it has not been vetted by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski).
It is a petition from many Canadians in my riding of Winnipeg-Birds Hill who take the opportunity to protest the Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from many residents of Flin Flon, Manitoba and Winnipeg, Manitoba. These petitioners are protesting the changes to the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. They protest that these changes will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs and that they will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. Furthermore, they will only result in higher costs not only to the provincial Government drug plans but also to individual consumers. These petitioners call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will only create great hardship for many Canadians.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of towns and cities in Manitoba, including, Teuton, Sandy Hook, Balmoral and Portage La Prairie, in which they say that the proposed measure with regard to changing the prescription patent law will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They therefore humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106. The petition has been certified as correct as to form and content. The signatories to this petition live in such places as Kanata, Hull, Ottawa and Gloucester, Ontario. The petitioners say that the federal Government's proposals to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of the average Canadian to buy necessary prescription drugs. They also charge that the proposed changes are another example of Canadian Government concessions to the United States, at the expense of average Canadians, in the free trade negotiations. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject these proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for all Canadians.
1342

November 20, 1986
Questions on the Order Paper


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 106 it is my privilege and responsibility to present a duly certified petition from residents of Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, a riding, incidentally, which has a high percentage of senior citizens. The petitioners are very concerned about changes in the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs which will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They are concerned that these changes will result in unnecessary hardship both for individual consumers and for provinces. They see this as an another example of Canadians bowing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members, I think, have been given a fair amount of latitude by the Chair in making sure that the House and those who are listening know the thrust of the petitions. I would ask that the Hon. Member not go on overly long.


James Douglas Manly: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners urge that the House of Commons reject the proposed changes to the patent law.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and duty today, pursuant to Standing Order 106, to present a petition to this honourable House.
Mr. Speaker, the petition is signed by residents of Kanata, Ottawa, Navan, Orleans and Gloucester who ask Parliament to abolish the budgetary cutbacks affecting research, especially in the budget of the National Research Council.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition which is signed by residents of the areas of Devlin, Emo, Fort Frances, Stratton and Barwick in my riding. This petition again, as with so many others, calls upon the Government to rescind the proposed changes to the Patent Act which will inevitably increase the drug prices paid by ordinary Canadians.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to get up yet once again and present a petition under Standing Order 106. This petition has been certified by the Clerk of Petitions. As far as I know, it has not been seen yet by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), but I understand that that is not required under the rules of the House of Commons.


Mr. Lewis:: Not yet required.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I heard the threat from the Parliamentary Secretary. In the petition these people from numerous communities in Ontario, including Mississauga, Oakville, Scarborough, London, Toronto and Hamilton, express their
deep concern that the cost of drugs will go up as a result of the Government's action. They also protest strenuously the fact that this is yet another example of the Canadian Government's concessions to the United States, at the expense of average Canadians, as a result of the free trade negotiations. These petitioners believe that they will be unfairly hurt, especially those whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. They call upon the House to protest the Government's actions.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join with my colleagues in presenting petitions on behalf of a number of western Canadians who are very concerned about the Government's plan to introduce changes to the Patent Act which they believe will increase the price of prescription drugs dramatically. They call upon us as parliamentarians to do whatever we can to encourage the Government to change its mind and reject the concept of changing the Patent Act which will, in their words, increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move, seconded by Mr. Lewis:
That the Seventh Report of the Striking Committee, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Member have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 20, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-20, an Act to amend the Senate and the House of Commons Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, a special "thank you" to my colleagues for their warm applause.

Yesterday afternoon we listened to a speech by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Don Boudria: It was not a very good speech as you will recall. Let me repeat to you what he said. He said:
In all of these initiatives we faced some tough choices, especially with respect to expenditure reduction.
The Hon. Member was telling us how the Government had these tough decisions to make on reducing expenditures. Perhaps the Hon. Member could explain, was he referring to expenditures of the Prime Minister's Office? Was he referring to the fact that staffing in the Prime Minister's Office increased by 50 per cent since the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) took over? Or was he referring to the fact that the Prime Minister now requires not one, not two, not three, but five cars in order to travel up and down Parliament Hill and go for lunch at noon? Is that the expenditure reduction the Hon. Member was referring to?
Perhaps he was talking about the newly established legal aid service for cabinet Ministers. You see, if you are an ordinary Canadian in trouble with the law-and you, Mr. Speaker, who are learned in the law, will know this-you go out and find a lawyer. Unless you have a very, very low income, which most cabinet Ministers do not, you have to pay for legal advice. It is a kind of business transaction between the lawyer and his client. The lawyer says he will charge you so much to represent you, and the client says, all right. That is usually the way it works. At least that is the way I thought it worked. Not so if you are a cabinet Minister. A certain former cabinet Minister ran into a situation whereby there was a $350,000 legal bill over an alleged conflict of interest.


Philip Derek Lewis: Is that Kaplan?


Don Boudria: This particular cabinet Minister decided he would avail himself of cabinet legal aid. The Government of Canada will now pay, so we are told, $350,000 of taxpayers' money for his legal bill. Do you know that the savings represented by this Bill at the rate of $1,000 per Member of
Senate and House of Commons Act
Parliament and Senator is roughly the same as paying the legal bill of the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens)?


Thomas Scott Fennell: You caused that.


Don Boudria: This $350,000 is allegedly saved to pay for a former cabinet Minister's legal bill. That is what this scheme is all about. It is not a matter of the Government saving money. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with a certain sense of moral dishonesty on the part of the Government. That is what it is all about.
Albeit unlikely, if you think that I am partisan in making those remarks, which you probably would not, if you think I am not totally objective, let me read to you what some Tories have said in the past about saving money. Once upon a time there was this author. He was not very good. He wrote only one book and the book was called Where I stand.


Mr. Gagliano:: Where he stood.


Don Boudria: Yes, that is very appropriate. That will most likely be the sequel.
At page 44 of the book it says: "How can the Government call on the nation to restrain itself, to be more realistic in its collective demand, when its own record is an unbroken stream of fiscal excesses? Canadians may be many things but stupid we are not. We have a leadership that so blatantly has one code of conduct for itself and quite a different one for the rest of us."


John R. Rodriguez: Author!


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I was not going to reveal the author but I am being provoked by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). The book was written by one Martin Brian Mulroney.


John R. Rodriguez: No!


Don Boudria: Yes, indeed. He wrote this book which I have right here in my hands. Now we know why the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) said the book should be retitled "Where I stood".
We have a Government which uses two jets, one to carry the Prime Minister and the other to carry his ego, or his cameras, or even his limousine, upon occasion, so that he can have the pleasure of travelling down the streets of New York or wherever with a licence plate on his car that says CAN 001 instead of some other number. That is what it is all about. It is the fiscal excesses of this Government, a Government and a Prime Minister that went on a Far Eastern trip with a butler and a maid. However, they were not an ordinary butler and maid. Yes, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) told us that this was no ordinary butler. This butler was a combination of James Bond and a butler. He was a security butler so we could ensure that indeed the Prime Minister's clothes and so on were in the proper place at the proper time for security purposes. I ask you, since when is the Prime Minister's underwear a

November 20, 1986
Senate and House of Commons Act
national security issue? I am wondering. I am waiting to be briefed on that particular topic.


Mr. McDermid:: Hah, hah, hah.


Don Boudria: Then the Government has the unmitigated gall to tell Canadians they must tighten their belts after that string of excesses.
I was at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts earlier this week. Government officials were asked why a building in Hull, known as the Louis St. Laurent building, stayed vacant for nine months after construction.


Mr. Tupper:: Why was it ever built?


Don Boudria: I am asked two questions and I will answer both of them. First to the Hon. Member for Nepean- Carleton (Mr. Tupper), and he was not at the committee and that is understandable because he is not a member, but I want him to be aware of the fact that the building was supposed to have been used at the time it was completed and there was a demand for every square foot of space, according to Government officials who appeared in front of the committee. We were told in committee on Tuesday morning that after the building was complete, the Minister was supposed to hire a person to do the interior design. That process normally takes 10 days. I asked how long it took in this case. The Government official said seven months. It took seven months for the Government to appoint a consultant to do the inside of the building.
Do you know how many taxpayers' dollars were wasted in that case? I asked what it was and I ask all Members to review the record of that committee. It cost $1 million a month so that the Minister could decide who he wanted to do the interior design of that building. It is not I who said that. It was said in a committee of this House this week. That is a $7 million waste. We are told by the Government that Canadians must tighten their belts. The Government must be a little more honest with Canadians. I invite the former Minister of Public Works to review the report of that committee. He will see what was said there. If it is inaccurate, I hope he will so state in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, today we are being asked to adopt this Bill. It is not a very important one financially speaking, but it is important as a symbol and for two reasons: first, the Government announced in its Budget that as a symbolic gesture, Members of this House and parliamentarians in the other place would be asked to forego $1,000 of their annual increase.

On page 1338 of Hansard of yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary said:
In February of this year we had the budget address of the Minister of Finance. In this Budget, the Minister of Finance asked all Members of the House and the Senate to accept a reduction of $ 1,000 in their salaries this year.
That is not correct, Mr. Speaker. You and I know that that is incorrect. Members of this House were asked to forgo $1,000 of their increase in salary for this year. The Parliamentary Secretary continued:
It means that the Prime Minister and all of our colleagues in Cabinet will have $1,000 less at the end of this year in addition to the other reductions to which I referred previously.
That is incorrect as well, Mr. Speaker. We will not have $1,000 less this year than we had last year. We will have about $3,000 more in our salaries. I am not advocating that it be different, but why do we not reveal the facts and tell the Canadian people the truth? That which we are telling them is not correct.
During his speech yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary spoke about the plight of those less fortunate than many of us in this House. He talked about poverty. He said:
There are 300,000 fewer lower income Canadians in 1985 than there were in 1984.
The Member spent a considerable amount of time talking about that. However, he did not tell us that the budgetary changes will result in massive tax increases for the same people about whom we say we are so concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I have a chart here showing that a family with one breadwinner and three dependents and an income of $30,000 for a family of four-I would say this is certainly not a rich family, Mr. Speaker-will have to pay 2.1 per cent more in taxes this year, while a family with an annual income of $50,000 will have a 1.2 per cent increase in income tax, and that from the very same Government which claims to be the defender of the needy. Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is less than honest to make claims of this kind.
I may draw the attention of the House to the fact that a single-parent family with two children and an annual income of $20,000 will have to pay $420 more in income tax in 1986, according to the last two Budgets. Now, the Parliamentary Secretary told the House that Hon. Members would, according to him, have to forego $1,000 of their salaries. Mr. Speaker, that is not correct, that is not true. We are being asked to take a cut in our salary increases. However, Canadians who have to live on very low incomes, the family to which I referred earlier, are faced with a real increase in income tax and thus a net reduction in income for that family. That is what is happening to them. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the Government's symbolic or quasi-symbolic gestures will not go down well with Canadians.

In the Parliamentary Secretary's fine speech yesterday he pretended that this Bill was important for deficit reduction by the Government. He knows that that is not the case. He knows
November 20, 1986

better than to make the claims which he made in this House yesterday.
This is but a tiny Bill. It has only four pages. We are taking much time in the House of Commons to debate this Bill. However, in addition to debating the Bill, we are debating the inaccurate comments made in the House yesterday. I think the Government should be held to account for that. It is our duty to hold it accountable. We are trying to do that, but it is pretty hard to keep the Government straight. We are doing our best because we know the kind of Government that this is.
I have read the translation of the Bill before us. The French text and the English text do not appear to be the same. I consider them to be different. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, and the Table Officers to examine the text of the Bill. I believe that in the English text of the Bill we are talking about rounding off the salary at the level of the total indemnity, including the expense allowance. However, that is not explicitly written in the French text. You are learned in the law, Mr. Speaker. I invite you to read page 2 of the Bill. I believe there are discrepancies in the translation of the Bill. I invite Members to look at this because it does not appear, at first glance, to be identical in both official languages.
I will take a moment to talk about more of the fiscal policies of the Government. After all, we are talking about a budget Bill. The Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou is paying very close attention to these remarks. I know he would want me to bring to your attention the fact that there has been a tax increase on certain construction goods and other products. I know he is very concerned about this because he has spoken to me about this in the past. The Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou is a very fine Member of Parliament and is obviously very concerned about these things. As you know, he is the small business critic for our Party, a duty which he discharges very well. He wanted me to bring to your attention that the tax rate on construction goods after the 1985 Budget was 7 per cent, and 8 per cent after the 1986 Budget. Of course, that will increase the price of housing and commercial structures in Canada.
It is time that these facts were brought to the attention of the House, and I congratulate the Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou for bringing this to my attention so I could raise it with the House. Let me expand on the fiscal policy of the Conservative regime.

Mr. Speaker, we could talk, for instance, about the 1 per cent increase in sales tax on alcohol and tobacco. Well, most Canadians may not object that much, because these taxes do not affect so-called essential goods. That may be true, but the fact remains that increasing the cost of these goods means increasing the cost of living. Whether they are essential or not, these products are purchased by the Canadian consumer, and price increases in this area help increase inflation. Mr. Speaker, these are problems we have to consider.
Senate and House of Commons Act
All things considered, we are still talking about a Bill which flows from the Budget. I draw your attention to the increase in the air transportation tax, and I do so for the significant reason that, as I said, a lot of goods are transported by aircraft. It is still a working tool for quite a few Canadians such as northern residents and businessmen. So again this tax will fuel inflation since it will boost the price of products and goods marketed by these companies, and all Canadians will eventually feel the pinch.
Mr. Speaker, a word about the telecommunication programming services tax, another case of an increase to 7 and 8 per cent by the Conservative Government.

The Government has been less than sincere in its statements about these tax increases. I would not want to use other words in the fear that they may not be parliamentary. I certainly would not want to do that, out of my great respect for the House. However, let me point out that the Government made commitments to the people of Canada during the election campaign. I may have already said that the Government made 338 Tory promises during the last election. I have listed them in a book called "338 Tory Promises". A copy of this book is available to any Canadian who wants to write me. There is no postage necessary and I will send them a copy of the book "338 Tory Promises".
Let me quote from this book so we can compare what the Conservatives promised with what they have done. I know that you have had to endure, as I have, listening to those partisan Tory promises during the last election campaign. I know that you look at those promises objectively since the Speaker is always non-partisan.
I believe it is important to remind those partisan Tories opposite about those promises that were made in the last election, and I invite my colleague from Saint-Leonard- Anjou to note some of the contradictions between the Tory promises and the budget Bills, including the Bill before us today.
In the category of Government management, the Tories said that they would adopt a positive approach to productivity management through the development of incentives to meet objectives specified in any programs placed before Cabinet or Parliament. What was the positive approach to productivity in delaying for seven months the appointment of a consultant to finish the building? I suggest to the Hon. Member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) that it simply does not coincide with that promise.
The Conservatives promised to ensure that Parliament performs a stronger role in creating and monitoring the expenditures of the Government. Was Parliament consulted before the prison was built at Port-Cartier?


Alfonso Gagliano: The Member for Drummond (Mr. Guilbault) was not even consulted.

November 20, 1986
Senate and House of Commons Act


Don Boudria: The Member for Drummond was not even consulted, as the Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou says.

Besides, we had good reasons to believe that the majority of Cabinet members had not even been consulted. Some Ministers were contradicting themselves. A Minister, whose name I shall not mention, had stated it was his responsibility to decide that the prison was going to Port-Cartier, despite the fact that it was not his Department's role to decide where prisons should be built. I will not say who it was, but you probably know indeed that the media did report the statement had been made by the Minister involved. Elard to believe I admit, Mr. Speaker, but I am told the statement was made.
The Chief of Staff or an official in the Prime Minister's Office said that the decision had not been made by the Prime Minister, yet the Prime Minister was bragging that he was the one who did make the decision. The Solicitor General kept saying the prison was needed, but the Auditor General maintained that there was no use for it at all.
In answer to a question I directed to him in the House the new Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mclnnes) indicated there was no conflict of interest in the award of a certain contract in Port-Cartier; 30 seconds later his colleague-I am referring to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret)-replied in answer to my supplementary that an inquiry had already been launched with respect to this alleged conflict of interest.
Mr. Speaker, such flagrant contradictions are just one more example of the broken promises made by the Progressive Conservative Party during the 1984 election campaign.
It stretches one's imagination to think that a Government may have broken so many promises in so little time. This Government was elected with the greatest majority ever given a political party in the history of this country, but in very short order it quite simply whittled down the confidence of the Canadian people. Would you believe it? In very little time indeed, Canadians no longer believed what this Government and this Prime Minister were saying. Some people have gone as far as wondering whether the Prime Minister is always telling the truth. Doubts have been raised. It is hard to believe that a Government would lose this confidence so quickly, but sure enough, that is exactly what is really happening.
The ultimate conclusion is that never again will Canadians have confidence in the Conservative Party.

Canadians can no longer trust these Tories. They made too many promises to Canadians and have deliberately broken most of them and failed to deliver promises they could have fulfilled.
Let me give a few examples. During the last election campaign the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, raised an issue involving patronage. The issue of political patronage was raised by the Tories during the last election. They said how evil the previous Government was because it
appointed 19 people to certain Government positions. That was wrong, according to these Tories, and they wanted to correct that situation. They said that under a Tory regime these kinds of things would never be allowed to happen. I have a little list of Tory political appointments in a book called The Black Paper on Tory Patronage. In this book is a list of approximately 1,000 political appointments during the first seven or eight months the Conservatives were in power. That is one appointment every three hours, 24 hours a day, seven days a week for seven months. That is not bad for an outfit which said it was not going to partake of patronage.
I ask the Tories opposite to stand and defend some of those patronage appointments. I ask them to defend the appointment of Gail Christie who said her qualifications were that she could drive a car and that is why she should sit on the Board of Air Canada. I ask the Tories to try to defend the appointment of Marie Marchand of North Bay who said to the North Bay Nugget concerning her appointment to CN Rail: "I come from North Bay, a railroad town, and my grandfather was a well-known railroader in the Maritimes". Those were the qualifications she attibuted to herself. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? And the Tories had the unmitigated gall to make the promises they did during the last election campaign.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member would accept a question on the remarks he has just made?


Don Boudria: At the appropriate time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will accept questions at the appropriate time. As I was saying before I was interrupted, I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a few quotes made in the past. On May 24, 1983, the Leader of the Conservative Party said, concerning patronage: "There will be jobs for Liberals and NDPs, too, after I have been Prime Minister for 15 years and cannot find a living, breathing Tory in the country".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: If they are all like you, we understand why.


Don Boudria: Those were his words. I know they are hard to swallow. I can see the Tories opposite wincing. They are embarrassed, and I do not blame them. I would be embarrassed, too, if I were a Tory, heaven forbid that would ever happen. A little later, on July 16-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) on a point of order.


Mr. Reimer:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order. I cannot see the relevance of the Hon. Member's
November 20, 1986

remarks to the specific items in this Bill. I would respectfully request that the Member be required at least to be relevant to the topic.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point made by the Elon. Member for Kitchener is, of course, well understood by the Chair. However, we are dealing with a matter that involves the salaries of Members of Parliament, and taking into consideration the speech made yesterday by a member of the Government, I must give the benefit of the doubt to the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) with regard to his comments.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was indeed very well adjudicated by yourself, as usual. I am speaking on one of the Bills introduced pursuant to the Budget. I feel it is my responsibility to bring to your attention the fiscal policy and waste of taxpayers' dollars by the Government. That is what I am doing. I am also, as you indicated, Mr. Speaker, responding to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary said yesterday that this Bill was one of the measures used by the Government to curb Government expenditures. I am trying to demonstrate why that is not so.
As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by the Conservative Member opposite, let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, of an article in the Ottawa Citizen on July 16, 1984, in which the Leader of the Conservative Party said about his pro-patronage statements during the Progressive Conservative Party leadership race and his harsh criticism of the June 1984 Liberal appointments. He said: "I was talking to Tories then and that's what they wanted to hear. Talking to the Canadian public during an election campaign is something else". Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that someone who is now the Prime Minister could have made statements like that?
I have another quote from July, 1984. However, this one is so bad that if I were to read it, the Chair would probably rule it unparliamentary. The Leader of the Conservative Party also said to the Canadian Press on July 16 about patronage and about the method of making appointments: "The method of making appointments could be corrected by dramatic measures. We are going to bring in a brand new dimension of objectivity, representation and fairness to all Canadians".
As you probably very rightly understand by now, Mr. Speaker, these statements not only contradict the present policy of the Government but they contradict each other. The present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was saying something different when talking to Tory partisans from what he said when talking to the Canadian people.
In 1977 I considered running for provincial office in the Province of Ontario. I later decided to wait until the next election. A close friend said to me at that time that if I run for office I should remember one thing because only one thing is important: "Ask yourself continuously the question; what happens in case I get elected?" That may sound funny to Hon. Members opposite but he went on to say: "If you are defeated, there is no problem. You just go back and do what you were
Senate and House of Commons Act
doing before. But if you are elected, you have to deliver those things you told the people you would do for them". I think the present Prime Minister should have asked himself that question before making his 338 promises. He should have asked himself: "What happens in case I get elected?" If he had done so, he would not have made those contradictory promises. He would not have made those statements to the people of Canada which have caused the Government and the Prime Minister to lose so quickly the confidence of the Canadian people. Obviously, it was not carefully thought out.

But Canadians will not be fooled again. They know better Mr. Speaker. Canadians have been misled once by the Conservatives, and I can tell you that it will never happen again as long as the Government operates this v/ay. Canadians want a more open Government, and you will see that after the next election we will again have a Liberal Government.


John Henry Reimer: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to ask the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) a question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. Resuming debate.


John Horton McDermid: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) said that he would be happy to consider questions at an appropriate time. He has finished his speech, and I think this is an appropriate time for him to accept such questions. The only person who said "no" was the Hon. Member for-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I asked Hon. Members for unanimous consent and I heard someone say: "No". Thus, there was not unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on debate.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate and a disservice to this House that the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) made such a speech lambasting the Government, quite correctly, and then when the opportunity came about for Hon. Members to put questions to him it was a Liberal colleague of his who denied us the opportunity to explore this matter further with him.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, those to my right are called Grits. I think they should be called "hypo-Grits". We saw a

November 20, 1986
Senate and House of Commons Act
perfect example today of the pot calling the kettle black. The Liberals were great for spending money uselessly.


Mr. Della  Noce@: He was not there, he was working in the kitchen at that time.


John R. Rodriguez: Bill C-20 proposes to cut the wages of MPs and Senators by $1,000.


Don Boudria: Not quite $1,000.


John R. Rodriguez: This is really a symbolic measure. I think every Member in the House would agree that if we really want to show some symbolism, this is an appropriate way to do it. However, I think members of the Canadian public will not be satisfied with mere symbolism. What they are really looking to Parliament for is leadership in terms of cutting expenditures, something about which the Government has declared itself in favour. They are looking to Parliament and saying: "How are you really taking care of our accounts? We want an accounting of your stewardship. We are not satisfied with symbolic cuts. When you say it is $1,000 per MP and Senator, it could well be less than that". That is the crux of my remarks today. Since this is second reading debate and since we are dealing with principles, I wish to deal with the principle of symbolism.
Incidents which have occurred recently have cast doubt on the seriousness and validity of this symbolic wage cutting which Members of Parliament and Senators are being asked to support.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Tell us about the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) symbolism.


John R. Rodriguez: We in this Party will not oppose the symbolism which is before us in Bill C-20. It is but flimsy symbolism which signifies really nothing. For the first time since I have been around here the Auditor General has just taken on a project which has not yet been built.


Don Boudria: It's half built.


John R. Rodriguez: That's right, it is half built. The contracts that were tendered have been assigned, which is another process.


Philip Derek Lewis: Like roads.


John R. Rodriguez: The people look at the prison which will be built in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) riding and see that it will cost in excess of $41 million to move the prison from where it was originally scheduled to be built in Drum-mondville to put it in place in the Prime Minister's riding. Canadians will look at that move and say: "He is the leader of the country. After all, he is the Prime Minister. What is the symbolism in that move? What is he saying to Canadians?" What he is saying is: "It's my skin and to heck with the costs". That is what he is saying. He is saying that he is more interested in saving his own re-election skin than in giving leadership to the country. Canadians will see all this foo-faraw about wanting to cut Government expenditures and the deficit and see that in fact the Government is really only playing a shell game. On the one hand the Government is saying that MPs will take a $l,000-a-year cut in pay and on the other hand, out the back-door go millions of dollars to save the Government's neck and the Prime Minister's political hide.
Another example in this respect is the ex-Minister who was accused of conflict of interest. He requested a judicial inquiry and the Government acceded to his request. Lo and behold we find out that the taxpayers of the country are picking up the tab for the ex-Minister's lawyer's fees of $1,700 a day. That was a contract which was not tendered. Surely we could have gotten a lawyer for less than $1,700 a day. Not only that, the Government has said that the ex-Minister's secretary must also have a lawyer, and the taxpayers will have to pay for those services as well. We should extrapolate that principle and apply it to each accused in the country for whom the taxpayers should pick up the tab.
Where is the symbolism in that action? Canadians are saying: "Look at those MPs. They are planning to take a $l,000-a-year cut in pay and yet look at how they are handling the big bucks. They are just opening up the barn-door and shovelling it out."
I would now like to deal with the case of Mr. Dalton Camp. Why did he have to be put on the Civil Service payroll at over $100,000 a year? Members of the Government could have received his advice free just by reading his column in The Toronto Star. Why did he have to be put on the payroll when for 35 cents on weekdays and $1 on the weekends members of the Government could have received his advice? He does not bring any particular expertise with him concerning Government procedures. He is merely bringing political advice to save the Prime Minister's political hide and to save the hide of the Tory Government. That is what he is doing.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: He's not doing it in western Canada, I can tell you that.


John R. Rodriguez: Where is the symbolism in paying Dalton Camp over $100,000 a year, plus benefits?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: John Diefenbaker is rolling over in his grave.


John R. Rodriguez: In the same moment the Government erected a statue to the Chief. Members of the Government could not even bring off the dinner party.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Did you see the frown on that statue?


John R. Rodriguez: I sure hope the pigeons are having a hey-day out there.


John Horton McDermid: They wouldn't dare!


John R. Rodriguez: I will bet Hon. Members that the Government has even installed Dalton Camp in the Chiefs old office. One could only imagine what the ghosts in the halls of this building are going through.
November 20, 1986

Members opposite might laugh, but I wish to tell them that since television came into the House, the Canadian people are more aware of these types of expenditures that the Government is putting out.
We are talking about the symbolism involved in a $1,000 cut in the pay of MPs. If the Prime Minister would only stay home for one week, we could save as much money as that. Have we forgotten his sojourn in New York? Have we forgotten what it cost for the hotel suite in which the Prime Minister stayed in such regal style? Have we forgotten the cost of transporting all the media equipment required when the Prime Minister goes abroad? If Pierre Trudeau had done that, Tom Cossitt would have brought this House down brick by brick. Imagine Pierre Elliott Trudeau living that lifestyle and spending that kind of money.
Let us be fair about this. What is the symbolism of that kind of spending in the minds of Canadians? Canadians are not saying that those MPs are wonderful for taking a $1,000 cut in pay because they are looking at the larger figures. We are not diverting their attention by making piddly cuts that actually mean nothing and are symbols of nothing. Canadians are looking at the bigger picture.
I well recall how Conservative Members used to count the number of people employed in Pierre Trudeau's office daily. Today, the Prime Minister's Office has undergone a geometric expansion. Perhaps he could provide an example to Canadian taxpayers by cutting back on the size of his office. It seems to me that Canadian taxpayers are looking at the way the leadership conducts itself and at the lifestyle here on the Hill. The Prime Minister's Office has expanded while the public looks on.
The other matter that comes to mind is the expenditure of $9 million on the Forget Commission. That money is being spent to study the unemployment insurance program.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: To Figure out how to take away money from people who need it.


John R. Rodriguez: This money is being spent largely because the Government did not have the courage to look at the program and make recommendations to the House with respect to changes it wanted. From where does this $9 million come? The Government has not taken it from general operating revenues-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: As it should have.


John R. Rodriguez: It took it right out of the unemployment insurance fund. The Government has taken away funds contributed by employers and employees. That is the lousiest action that I have seen taken around here in a long, long time. Imagine if that had been done by the previous Government. The ceiling would have fallen into this place.


Mr. Nunziata:: We wouldn't have done it.
Senate and House of Commons Act


John R. Rodriguez: I know the Liberal Party's historic position on unemployment insurance. Do not let us get into that. We will have to look at how Mackenzie King handled unemployment insurance, brother, so, Liberal Members, do not think that you are squeaky clean on that matter.
I have never before seen behaviour like this, the taking of $9 million for the Forget Commission from the unemployment insurance funds. The money is not even coming from the Government's contribution to the extended benefits. It is coming right out of the premiums contributed by working Canadians and employers. That is not fair.
Even more ridiculous is the fact that considering all the previews we have had of the Forget Commission Report, the Government will not touch its report with a 10-foot pole. The report will be put on a shelf because the Government is not interested in stirring up any hornets' nests two years before an election. The Government will simply sit on it and waste the $9 million that has been spent from the unemployment insurance fund so that Mr. Claude Forget and his commission could travel around the country hearing briefs on the unemployment insurance program. What is the symbolism of that, Mr. Speaker?
There are 282 Members in the House of Commons. If each gives up $1,000, that amounts to $282,000. There are another 102 Members in the Senate. What is the symbolism of that? It is absolutely hollow. It is not even based-


Mr. Thacker:: Put in an amendment increasing it to five.


John R. Rodriguez: The Hon. Member from the other side said that I could amend it to five. I would certainly do that if I also had the power to cut out the large giveaways in which the Government has involved itself. I would do so if I had the power to say to the Prime Minister: "Thou shalt not send the transport plane with all your t.v. cameras and all the rest of it on trips and thou shalt leave your secret service butler and maid at home". If I had the power to say that, I would do so, but I am not interested in empty symbols like the offering up of a $5,000, $2,000 or $1,000 cut in our pay.


Mr. Beatty:: Are you going to vote against it?


John R. Rodriguez: No, I am voting for it. All I am saying is that it is an empty symbol because it is not matched-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Why did you just say you are opposed to it?


John R. Rodriguez: It is not matched by more responsible behaviour in the spending of taxpayers' money.
The pay cuts would be meaningful if I had the power to fire Dalton Camp. The pay cuts would be meaningful if I had the power to tell the Prime Minister that the prison will not be built in Port Cartier and that he could get by with a much smaller staff. There are so many people on his staff that they are tripping over each other. They cannot even communicate with the press.

November 20, 1986
Senate and House of Commons Act


Henry Perrin Beatty: What would you do about Ian Deans?


John R. Rodriguez: The pay cuts would be meaningful if I had the power to tell the Prime Minister that the Senate goes. He keeps appointing more Tory hacks and flacks into the Senate, and that creates an expenditure that is costing taxpayers millions and millions of dollars. I do not think the Canadian taxpayers are interested in these symbols. They are interested in meaningful leadership in the handling of taxpayers' dollars.
I said that we will vote for the Bill. We have no axe to grind and will not hold it up. We have no reason for not supporting it. However, it only goes so far because it is symbolism of the lowest rank. It is not backed up by meaningful behaviour patterns on the part of the Government.
In conclusion, I want to say that the Government has a responsibility to lead. I accuse the Government of not showing leadership with respect to this Bill.
Another thing that really bothers me-


John V. Nunziata: I thought you were concluding.


John R. Rodriguez: One of the things that really bothers me is things like the situation of which I read in this morning's Toronto Star. It says a lot to Canadians. A Canadian Press story appeared in today's edition of The Toronto Star entitled "Tory bagmen study new pitch to well-to-do". In part the article reads:
Well-to-do Progressive Conservatives may get a chance to dine privately with Prime Minister Brian Mulroney for a $5,000 contribution to the Party.
What is the symbolism of that? It goes on to indicate:
Flushed with the success of the Tory 500 Club, the Party is considering creating a select category within that group-called governors-


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: That is a nice American phrase.


John R. Rodriguez: I think it has imperialist overtones. The article continues:
-to encourage donations of $5,000 a year, said Brian Gallery, 500 Club chairman.
Is that believable? Mr. Speaker, guess how much is membership in The 500 Club? The article indicates:
Membership in The 500 Club is $ 1,000 a year.
Membership in The 500 Club is $1,000 per year, exactly what Members of Parliament are being asked to give up in their wages.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member to show the relevance of his remarks to the Bill before us.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the relevancy is that we will not all belong to the club. I want to make that crystal clear. There are at least 70 Members in the House who will not join the club. I do not want people to get the impression that all of us will join the club. It is a $1,000 membership, and the Tories
can write it off on their income tax returns. We are not applying for membership in the club. The articles continues:
Among the benefits for governors would likely be a private dinner "with the members themselves and a guest, hopefully the Prime Minister,"-
It continues:
Governors would also be entitled to trade in their 500 Club lapel pins and ties for new pins and ties with a G on them.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It is the Tory answer to the G-string.


John R. Rodriguez: Right. They should have at least put a T on it. The article goes on to indicate:
But the main attraction would be the recognition "and the satisfaction that you are a governor and that you have contributed," he said.
The new pitch would be modelled on the Republican Eagles club in the United States, which has a $10,000-a-year membership fee and provides regular meetings with party leaders, including President Ronald Reagan.
This kind of behaviour on the part of the Government raises question in the public's mind about the hollow symbolism of what is in Bill C-20. If the principle of the Bill is to show that Members of Parliament are examples of leadership on the whole question of cutting Government expenditures, how is the Government following through with its expenditures from the larger purse of the public?
The article about the new 500 Club governors indicates that in fact the Tories are tied in with a very elitist element in society. In fact, they have to keep handing out the porkbarrel consistently. Dalton Camp would have probably belonged to the club. They will now have a barrel into which they can reach any time and pick governors for the thousands of appointments they will have.


John Horton McDermid: Ian Deans is inquiring about a membership.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: In Manitoba these memberships are going for five cents a piece.


John R. Rodriguez: That is right. It has been said that no Conservatives from Manitoba are joining. As a matter of fact, the Conservative Party of Manitoba wants to secede.


John V. Nunziata: Why?


John R. Rodriguez: I think they have some problems there.
The Tories are institutionalizing porkbarreliing with the particular kind of structure they are setting up. The Liberals did it as just a normal behaviour, as a way of life. The Conservatives are now raising it to a new level of sophistication. They are establishing structures or governorships. Of course any governor would want to serve his country, but the Tories should hang their heads in shame.
It is the Party of Tom Cossitt. That hon. gentleman made a name for himself in the House by exposing the Liberals consistently. He was correct to do that. He was interested in how many bulbs were on the Christmas tree at 24 Sussex

.



November 20, 1986

Drive. Ele wanted to know those kinds of interesting and scintillating pieces of information.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: He was thorough.


John R. Rodriguez: Exactly. I wonder how he would have reacted to the behaviour of the Conservative Government today in respect of the way it spends taxpayers' money.
In 1984 we were promised a different style. We were promised that it would be the dawning of a new day. We were promised that the Conservatives would be different from those old porkbarrel Liberals. We were promised that, and we looked forward to it. We really wanted that change. We were tired of Liberals handing out jobs to Liberal hacks and flacks. We were sick and tired. We had Liberals coming out of our ears. They had infested every commission and board across the country. It was a scandal.


John V. Nunziata: You are going too far.


John R. Rodriguez: It was, honestly it was. We really expected better behaviour from the Conservative Government.
There is no decency left in the Government. It is even doing these things blatantly now with the governorships. By appointing one New Democrat and one Liberal, it feels justified in appointing 10,000 more Tory hacks and flacks.
The Conservatives are not kidding anyone with that game, so they should not throw around the names of Ian Deans and Stephen Lewis. For every one of those extremely competent people who rightly occupy positions, they have appointed some
15,000	to 20,000 hacks and flacks who have absolutely no qualifications whatsoever, other than the fact that they belong to the Tory Party. Now they will be elevated to governorships.
I can foresee levels in the Tory Party. It is now stratifying; it is now a hierarchy. For an appointment to the Human Rights Commission, one just has to be a Tory member.
I do not want to delay the Bill. Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the question be now put.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. The debate will be on the motion. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it is very presumptuous of the New Democratic Party to move that motion.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: A lovers' quarrel.


John V. Nunziata: There is no question that the motion is in order. If you bear with me a moment, Mr. Speaker-


John Edmund Parry: We didn't need your opinion anyway, John.
Senate and House of Commons Act


John V. Nunziata: Thus far we have had a representative of the Conservative Party speak on the Bill, a representative of Her Majesty's Loyal and Official Opposition, and a Member from the New Democratic Party, the third Party, speak on the Bill.


John R. Rodriguez: What more do you need?


John V. Nunziata: The New Democratic Party prides itself on openness. If often argues in this House and at committee that elected Members have a right to speak to legislation. New Democrats continually argue that it is important for Members to express a point of view in order for their constituents to understand where they stand.
The New Democratic Party speaks out very vigorously on the issue of closure. What absolute hypocrites the New Democrats are. I ask you, Sir, and other Members in the House to review the record on the issue of closure. On many occasions the Conservative Government has decided to invoke closure on pieces of legislation that were considered controversial, and members of the New Democratic Party, including the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), have stood up and criticized the Conservative Government for invoking closure. They have argued, and the record will show, that closure is undemocratic and that closure has no place in a parliamentary democratic system. Yet the New Democratic Party, for whatever reason, decides today to invoke a form of closure. That is hypocritical, Mr. Speaker.
Members in this House have a right to speak to this legislation. I am sure there are a number of Members opposite who wish to express a point of view, and I know that there are a number of individuals in the Liberal caucus who wish to speak to this legislation. For the New Democratic Party to invoke closure is inexcusable. The Member for Nickel Belt said that the Government should hang its head in shame. I agree with him that the Government ought to hang its head in shame for the things it has done and for its record of Government. But the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt and the rest of his Party should hang their heads in shame for doing what they are doing and for being as hypocritical as they often are. They are a self-righteous group of socialists.
When Mr. Deans was in the House he spoke of patronage. He said: "Shame, Shame" to patronage. He said: "Shame, Shame" to double dipping. But what did Mr. Deans do, Mr. Speaker? He waited until he had six years of service in the House of Commons. Why is the six year period significant? Because after six years a Member of Parliament has a pension. Is it any wonder he chose to resign after six years? He said that he was fed up with the Government. He said that the Government was lousy. Then he went to the Government cap in hand. "I want", he said on his knees, "a Government position. I need something to survive". What hypocrisy!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member said that we were trying to cut off debate on the Bill and that he wanted to speak about it. I hope you will

November 20, 1986
Senate and House of Commons Act
consider that the Member has strayed from the subject matter of the Bill and that he no longer is relevant to the Bill.


Mr. Gauthier:: He is speaking to the motion.


John V. Nunziata: The Member by moving his motion has precluded me from speaking to the Bill. Indeed, I am speaking to the motion. I am trying to point out that the New Democratic Party's motion to invoke closure is hypocritical and that it is reflective of the actions of the Party to my left.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Right on.


John V. Nunziata: The New Democrats say one thing out of one side of their mouths and they say something else out of the other side. I was using the example of the Hon. Ian Deans.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He is not an honourable.


John V. Nunziata: A former Member of this House and a member of the New Democratic Party of Canada.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In listening to the Hon. Member who is speaking, will you first review the application of the rule of relevance? Second, will you advise this House whether such an infantile personal diatribe against a former Member is admissible under any circumstances?


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is messy when a marriage breaks up.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that you have ruled that my comments are relevant. I am speaking to the motion. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the motion itself. Once again, I have chosen to use the case of Ian Deans as an example to illustrate the hypocrisy of the socialists to our left.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The previous speaker stated that you, Sir, had made a ruling. Is he in order in imputing a ruling when you have made no such ruling?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) dealt with the fact that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) was making comments on the nomination of Mr. Deans, comments which I am allowing to a certain extent. One of the considerations is that recently we heard comments made by another Member of this House on the nomination of Mr. Camp. I would not want the whole debate to deal with the nominations of either Mr. Camp or Mr. Deans, but I am willing for a few minutes to entertain some comments about their nominations.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, members of the New Democratic Party, which includes Mr. Deans, stood up on many occasions and complained about patronage. The New Democrats purport to represent the working class, the poor and the
downtrodden in society. They speak in a very self-righteous fashion about the disadvantaged in society. I ask the New Democratic Party how many of those downtrodden have a Government job that pays $93,000 a year.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Ian Deans does.


Mr. Kaplan:: Plus.


John V. Nunziata: Plus a pension. It is one thing to accept a Government job but it is another thing to accept a Government job together with not one pension, not only his House of Commons pension-


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know why the Hon. Member is trying to hold up a Bill that will save at least some money for the Canadian taxpayers. I wish he would stop filibustering a Bill which is obviously designed, even though it is a symbolic gesture, to save at least some money for Canadian taxpayers. Is the Hon. Member just looking after his own skin?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This being not necessarily on that point, but I would like to advise the House that once the motion being debated is "That the question be now put", the debate may continue on the original question.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely hilarious that the Member should talk about saving money. If we want to save money, why does the former Member for Hamilton Mountain not forgo his pension? My colleague here says that the former Member for Hamilton Mountain was double dipping, but he is triple dipping. Not only is he getting a salary of $93,000 as Chairman of the Public Service Commission, he is also receiving a Government pension from the House of Commons, which is about $30,000 or $40,000 a year, and he is also receiving-and listen very carefully-a pension from the provincial Government in Ontario.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: None of them are here.


John V. Nunziata: The New Democrats have all left, Mr. Speaker. There is not one single, solitary New Democratic Member of Parliament-I cannot comment on the presence or absence of Members. They are so embarrassed they left the House and are hanging their heads in shame.
Enough said about the NDP. Let me now speak for a few moments about the hypocrisy of the Conservative Government as shown in Bill C-20. Who is the Government trying to kid? It argues that Bill C-20 is meant to show to the people of Canada that we parliamentarians are leading by example in taking a $1,000 cut in pay. What are Canadians saying? Big deal. They are asking, if the Government is sincere and honest, why not take effective measures to lead by example? If it is concerned about the salary of Members, why not propose that they be reduced to the poverty level? I challenge the Government. If it is true to its word, then let it bring in a motion to
November 20, 1986

cut our salaries to the poverty level. Then we can say we are leading by example. We can say we are concerned about the
1.5	million young people in families with incomes below the poverty level. Canadians will then appreciate that the Government is leading by example. Yet, for whatever reason, the Government decides to cut our salaries by $1,000. It does not have the guts to cut salaries to the poverty level.


John Horton McDermid: What about your Leader? He took a nice cut.


John V. Nunziata: The salary of Members of Parliament and Senators is not the issue. What is at issue is the fairness, equity and justice of the policies advocated and implemented by the Government of Canada. If it was truly concerned about the plight of the downtrodden and disadvantaged it would not have brought in two regressive Budgets which amount to a massive frontal assault on the poor. The Government deindexed family allowances and tried to deindex pensions. If it were truly concerned about the disadvantaged then it would declare war on poverty. Let it bring in measures to assist the poor rather than assisting its rich brothers and sisters on Bay Street, the richest businessmen in Canada.


Mr. Della  Noce@: Where is your Leader from? Bay Street?


John V. Nunziata: If the Government was able to find the means to assist the oil industry in western Canada and find $1 billion for failed banks, or billions of dollars to help business in Canada, it can find the resources to assist the poor.
The Government, by its actions, has led Canadians to question seriously its credibility and integrity. If it were truly concerned about waste in Government, why would the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Government support the relocation of a prison to the Prime Minister's riding? That decision is a classic example of crass porkbarrel politics at its worse. Some $41 million has been absolutely frittered away because the Prime Minister wanted to play sugar daddy to his constituents. How far could that money have gone to assist the poor? It would have gone a long way to help the thousands and thousands of Canadians who suffer the indignity of standing in line at food banks in every major city in Canada. It is a national tragedy that our fellow Canadians have to stand in line for food.


John Horton McDermid: When did the food banks start?


John R. Rodriguez: They did not start yesterday.


John Horton McDermid: That is for sure.


John V. Nunziata: Yet the Prime Minister decides to waste $41 million of taxpayers' money while his Government, through his wife, takes particular pride in opening food banks. It is the goal of the Liberal Party of Canada to close every last damn food bank in the country. The fact that these food banks have spread out over the country suggests a very serious problem in our social welfare system.
Senate and House of Commons Act


John Horton McDermid: When did they start?


John V. Nunziata: Instead of building prisons in the Prime Minister's riding, instead of padding his office with Tory hacks and flacks and bagmen, instead of hiring Dalton Camp at over $100,000 a year, instead of wasting money on Challenger jets to follow the Prime Minister around, the Government should be directing the money toward the needy.
I have attempted to point out the hypocrisy of this legislation. Of course, it will carry. It may result in a one-paragraph story in major newspapers, but Canadians will see through it, see it as a facade. They will recognize the hypocrisy in this move. I believe very strongly that they will reflect their opinion at the ballot boxes in the next election. It is very obvious, if one reviews the public opinion polls over the last two years, that the Conservative Government has lost the trust and faith of the people of Canada. The voters gave the Government an opportunity in September of 1984 to govern. Members opposite have done one hell of a lousy job and Canadians know that now. Is it any wonder the Conservatives are tied with the NDP for last place in popular support?
In closing, may I indicate that Members on this side of the House intend to support the legislation. It is hypocritical legislation but, nonetheless, if the Government wants to play its petty little games, we will respond accordingly. However, it is regrettable that the NDP wants to cut off debate. I have considerable respect for the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I think he works hard. I ask him to reconsider the position he has taken. I know that if he looks in the mirror and rereads Hansard he will understand the hypocrisy behind the motion he has presented. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to say a few words, Mr. Speaker.


John Horton McDermid: How can you say that with a straight face?


John R. Rodriguez: It's easy when you do not have a straight face.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). Can he tell us which Prime Minister in the history of Canada has proposed and taken a 15 per cent pay cut? Which Cabinet in the history of Canada took a 10 per cent pay cut? Which House in the history of Canada has reduced its salary by $1,000? Did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) accept the 10 per cent pay cut equivalent to that which the Cabinet took? If not, why not?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can ask the Hon. Member a question or two.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Some Hon. Members:: Answer, answer.


John V. Nunziata: I do not ask for answers, Mr. Speaker. I know it is not appopriate for me to ask questions of the

November 20, 1986
Senate and House of Commons Act
Member. I will wait until for that opportunity he has spoken. However, in response to his question, I would like him to reflect upon some questions which I would like to ask of him.
Which Government in Canadian history has had the biggest Cabinet ever? Which Government in Canadian history has appointed commissars, chiefs of staff, at over $80,000 a year? Which Prime Minister's Office in history has increased that office by over 50 per cent? Which Prime Minister in history has hired Dalton Camp or an equivalent at over $100,000 a year of taxpayers' money? The answer to all those questions is, the Conservative Government of Canada led by the present Prime Minister.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Member's speech. It was the most incredible misinformation that I have heard delivered in this House in a very long time. The Member was accusing the Government of hypocrisy. Let us put some facts on the table.
He spoke about poverty in the country. When the Liberals defeated the Conservative Government in 1980, 15.1 per cent of Canadians were living below the poverty line. Four years later, after the great Liberal management of the economy of the country, the poverty rate had climbed to 17.3 per cent. That is when the food banks started. They started with that Government because of the way it mishandled things. The facts are there. If the Hon. Member would deliver the facts and if he were honest with this House, we would not have to listen to the falsehoods which are spread.
Another fact is that one year after that 1984 election the poverty rate had declined to 15.9 per cent, which means that
300,000	fewer Canadians are living below the poverty line. All these facts contradict what the Hon. Member is saying. I would like to make it clear that we are not happy with that. That is not good enough in this country. We want it to get better and that is what we are working toward.
The Member's friend got up earlier today and attacked women appointees. It is interesting to note that this Government has increased the appointment of women to federal bodies by 25 per cent over that of the Liberals. The Liberals talk a lot but never act. This Government acts. I suppose the Member will oppose the recent appointment of women to the Senate by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I am sure he will have something to say about that. The facts are here.
The Member stands up and delivers his diatribe, which is completely wrong, with a straight face. I am not a lawyer but-


John V. Nunziata: That's obvious.


John Horton McDermid: -1 can imagine that in law school there is a course on keeping a straight face while telling a big whopper.
1 believe that there is a course on that because the Hon. Member told the greatest string of tales with a straight face. The nerve of him to accuse the Government of hypocrisy! He is
a new boy in here and maybe he did not study that which has gone on in the past. He should study what has gone on in the past and then maybe he would get up in the House once and deliver a straight speech with the facts in it.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in view of the concerns of the Hon. Member, allow me to lay out the facts with a smile. I will try to smile as I lay out the facts. As a result of the two Budgets of the Government of Canada, taxes have increased by $5 billion in 1986 to 1987, A one-income couple with two children earning $30,000 a year will pay an additional $630 in taxes, while a one-income family with two children earning $50,000 a year will pay only $575 in additional taxes. That is a difference of over $50. Those are some facts.


John Horton McDermid: Tell us about tax reform.


John V. Nunziata: If the Member wants facts with a smile, I will give him facts with a smile. We know for a fact that the Prime Minister has decided to construct a prison in his riding at a cost of $41 million, notwithstanding the fact that a prison is not necessary. We know for a fact that there are new chiefs of staff who are being paid in excess of $80,000. We know for a fact that Mr. Dalton Camp was hired and is being paid over $100,000 a year. I am trying to relate these facts with a smile, Mr. Speaker. We know for a fact that the Prime Minister uses a Hercules jet to transport video equipment in order to film his every move, including the changing of the diapers of his children. We know as well that the Gulf-Reichmann deal cost taxpayers $1 billion. We know as well that uninsured depositors were paid over $1 billion.
If the Member wants facts, I will give him facts. I will lay out all the facts rather than only selective facts. The bottom line is that the facts speak for themselves. It is a fact that the Government has decided to pay the legal fees of the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to the tune of $350,000. The Government of Canada has decided to pay the legal fees of someone who may be found to be in contravention of the conflict of interest guidelines. The Government is paying that when other Canadians have to pay their own legal fees for a divorce or to fight a speeding ticket. Those are the facts, my friend. When one looks at the facts and the record of the Conservative Government it is no wonder that the Conservative Government is so far down in public opinion. Canadians are looking at the facts when they speak about the Government in disparaging terms.
The Member wants to talk facts. The facts are there, my friend. The facts of the two regressive Conservative Budgets are on the table. I only ask that the Hon. Member have the backbone and courage to stand up and hang his head in shame.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At one o'clock p.m. the House took recess.
November 20, 1986



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The Elouse resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, at long last, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) revealed in the House the elements of the so-called recovery package for northern Ontario. I am grateful that the Government has recognized the difficulties being experienced in northern Ontario. We have a failing regional economy.
What are the Government's initiatives? The establishment of an economic development committee. We know all about committees in northern Ontario. There is the transfer of federal agencies to northern Ontario. Which ones, where, and when? The Government will dedicate program moneys to northern Ontario. Will that be new money, how much, and when will it be received? There is special tax treatment for investors. What are the details and when will we have them? So far what we have are general directions and some good intentions. What the people of northern Ontario want is immediate action leading to the restoration of lost jobs.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@Pembina: Mr. Speaker, last week I visited with some 300 farmer delegates from all points of the Prairies at the 80th annual meeting of the shareholders of the United Grain Growers Ltd. I ask Members of the House to recognize one of Canada's great self-help organizations, and to reflect for a moment on its origin.
May I start with the United Grain Growers' mission, and I quote:
United Grain Growers is a farmer-owned and controlled company, with the objective of furthering the economic well-being of western Canadian farmers by providing agricultural services and influencing farm policies.
This great institution was born from need. At the turn of the century farmers were opposing grain handling and rail combines that were fixing prices, grades, and shipments.
After 80 years of working for farmers, the mission of this organization remains the same, farmers working with farmers, for farmers.
Most Canadians would recognize the names of Senator Thomas Crerar, former Member of Parliament for Manitoba
and United Grain Growers' second President, Mr. Mac Runceinan, who retired recently, to be succeeded in office by the able current President, Mr. Lome Hehn.


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



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to share with Members of the House, particularly with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), a letter that I recently received from a woman in Winnipeg who wants to see generic drugs retained. She wrote:
I work in the health care industry rehabilitating persons who have had heart attacks or other heart related illnesses.
It goes on:
More than a few of our members spend $120 or more on one of their prescribed medications every month. Usually, these individuals have more than one prescribed drug and they look forward to the availability of these drugs in their generic forms because of the price cut and the pharmaceutical effect which is equal (to the brand name drug).
Individuals on drugs prescribed by their physician are usually of two types where I work-seniors, or persons of the age of majority who are unable to work a 40-hour work week because of the nature of their illness.
All have in common-a fixed income!
Keep the generic drug trade-in fact promote it!
That is exactly what New Democratic Party Members of Parliament intend to do.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, this week a shopkeeper in Montreal shot and killed a thief during an attempted robbery. Two weeks ago a pharmacy owner shot and killed another robber in Calgary.
Reactions to these vigilante incidents clearly demonstrate the lack of confidence Canadians have in the ability of our justice system to deal effectively with criminals.
In light of these incidents and the reactions to them, the decision by the Correctional Service of Canada to hand over part of our parole system to a volunteer organization seems somewhat incredible. It is no reflection on the John Howard Society, but can the public truly be expected to believe that this will mean more, not less, strict supervision for convicted criminals on parole? Is this really the message the Government wants to send out at a time when more and more Canadians are deciding to take the law into their own hands?

November 20, 1986



WELFARE


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is disgraceful that in these days, with Canada's wealth of human and natural resources, there are thousands of Canadians standing publicly in food-lines waiting to receive food for their families from food banks in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and several other communities.
Some people are there because they do not have the adequate skills in order to get a job. Some people are there because under our current system there are not enough facilities for child care. It has recently come to my attention that patients who are released from mental hospitals have inappropriate support systems and are now standing in the foodlines.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to Hon. Members, there is something wrong with the way in which we run our country if we have to depend on our churches and volunteers to provide food for our people. I am sure you know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, of the situation of the food bank on the corner of Georgia and Burrard Streets in Vancouver. I urge the Government to take the recommendations of the Conference on Hunger three weeks ago and do something about this situation.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: The unfortunate and tragic war between Iran and Iraq enters its seventh year with mounting loss of human lives and causing severe damage to the economy of the region. The Middle East is already a politically explosive area and the perpetuation of this conflict could ignite into a full-scale tragic experience for all of us.
I draw attention to the sage pronouncement by our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who urged compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 582 of February 24, 1986, and Resolution No. 588 of October 8, 1986, calling for an immediate ceasefire, withdrawal to internationally recognized boundaries, and the initiation of negotiations toward a peaceful settlement using the good offices of the UN Secretary General.
I, therefore, urge parties to the conflict, as well as all Governments, to heed the words of our Secretary of State for External Affairs and to help bring an early resolve to this tragic war.



VIA RAIL


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, insult has been added to injury in Manitoba. We learned recently that VIA Rail plans to test a $500,000 British rail bus this winter rather than pursuing the testing of a $150,000 prototype developed in Canada-in Manitoba, I might add. By allowing VIA Rail to do this, the federal Goverenment has reneged on an 1984 agreement to continue testing the Canadian rail bus for use in the North, particularly in the riding of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy). This is another example of federal-provincial agreements affecting Manitoba which have been broken by the federal Government.
We also learned today that the Conservatives are considering forming a new club in which people would pay $5,000 to chat with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, after the CF-18 decision and after this decision and many others which affect Winnipeg, Conservatives will be lucky to sell memberships in that club in Winnipeg for five cents, never mind $5,000.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, just recently the Mennonite Central Committee opened a community self-help centre in Brandon, Manitoba. This centre will provide clothing for people in need and will also sell crafts from Third World countries. It is just one of the many projects sponsored by the Mennonite Central Committee, a highly respected group which does much good work both at home and abroad.
This year the Mennonite Central Committee will spend some $15 million in developing nations. Well over half of this money comes from the congregations of Mennonite Churches all across Canada. Over a thousand volunteers from the Mennonite Central Committee are currently working in 50 developing nations. They are helping people learn to read, to stay healthy, and to improve farming practices, to mention just a few activities.
The Mennonite Central Committee has a reputation among Third World nations which is exceeded by none. It is an excellent example of what Canadian volunteers can accomplish. Such volunteers prove that by working together in an unselfish manner Canadians can help to improve the quality of life both at home and elsewhere in the world.
November 20, 1986



VIA RAIL


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice against the weekly campaign of desecration that the Mulroney Government is visiting upon my home Province of Manitoba.


Mr. Malone:: Order!


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that once again we have an example in which the Mulroney Government obviously-


Arnold John Malone: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that it is improper to use the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in the way in which he is using it. Would the Hon. Member continue his statement, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is sometimes hard to admit that, in fact, he is the Prime Minister of the Province of Manitoba.
I want to make the following point. The rail bus technology and the agreement we signed back in 1984 were an idea conceived in Manitoba. A local manufacturer was given the opportunity to carry out the design. The prototype work and the testing were done with the co-operation of the people in the North. Once it reaches a stage at which it is about ready to come to fulfilment, what does the present federal Government do? It decides to move it and contract with a British firm to do it.
It seems to me that in the case of the CF-18 the Government said it wanted to keep the transfer of technology in Canada. But now the Government has seemed to reverse itself. What it really seems to be saying is that it simply wants to mess up Manitoba.
 *
*



POLITICAL PARTIES

[Stage Direction]
ALLEGED UTILIZATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis): Mr. Speaker, I would rather not comment on the open dissension and the collective anxiety of Liberals on the eve of their convention. However after reading an article in today's La Presse I am quite concerned over the fact that the Liberals are spending taxpayers' money to finance their convention.
Will the Liberal Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), exMinister to boot, explain why he used public funds to make
56,000	photocopies of press clippings favourable to his boss? The Leader of the Liberal Party will have to enlighten the House today with respect to the behaviour of his third-ranking Quebec lieutenant. Can former Liberal Ministers not tell the difference between Parliament and their political Party, or are the Liberal Party coffers so bare that an ex-Minister would see fit to pick the pockets of other people?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, the Government waxes eloquent about its compassion, sensitivity, and understanding of native concerns in Canada. Last year the House acted to reverse discrimination inherent in the Indian Act. All Parties agreed to the passage of Bill C-31 with the understanding and the commitment that funds would be provided to assist many of the 70,000 people who have applied for reinstatement.
The commitment has now been broken by the Government's refusal to continue funding for the co-implementation of Bill C-31. This means that nearly 100 trained native people can no longer do the leg-work, the research and, in many cases, the Translation work necessary to help correct decades of unjust discrimination.
By taking away this funding, Indian war veterans who lost their status to fight for this country will be on their own, as will children born out of wedlock, men who took work in Depression labour camps and, of course, native women who married non-natives.
The Government must act now to restore this funding to help many people regain the heritage that unjust laws took away.
* *
*



THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the Association quebecoise de loisirs pour personnes handicapees or the Quebec recreation association for the handicapped for sponsoring last weekend's annual provincial prize award reception in Quebec City. I commend the association for showing such innovative and far-reaching leadership which makes it one of the major champions of Quebec's handicapped people. This annual event held by the association is aimed at highlighting the endeavours of municipalities and community groups to have the handicapped participate actively in the social activities of their locality. The Secretary of State was present and was duly impressed by the efficiency and professional approach of the reception organizers. The Union des municipality du Quebec, the Union des municipality regionales de comtes, and all community associations which sent delegates deserve praise for their work and participation. Their strong support to promote the cause of the handicapped is the key factor of the unprecedented success of this important event.

November 20, 1986
Oral Questions
In conclusion, allow me to thank the representatives of my region for taking part in this event.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the National Capital Commission announced today that it intends to sell publicly owned land in Ottawa to comply with a Treasury Board request to cut its budget by $25 million. The citizens of Ottawa should express their views about this request.
It does not make much sense to sell publicly owned open space in a city which treasures every square inch of green. If anything, the NCC should be encouraged to acquire land so as to ensure for future generations the green urban spaces which have to date given Ottawa the reputation of being one of the most beautiful capitals in the world.
How can Treasury Board and the National Capital Commission reconcile the demand for a 27 per cent cut in the NCC budget with the mandate given to it as stated in the 1986-87 Estimates, which was to plan and develop from a national perspective the physical and spatial character of the Capital of Canada which will contribute to its aesthetics, symbolism, function, and effectiveness?



CANADA EMPLOYMENT CENTRES


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I rise in reference to the recent incident of a federal Government employee removing confidential unemployment insurance records from the Canada Employment Centre in my riding of Kitchener, Ontario.
According to the employee, the motivation for this action was to embarrass the Government by proving how easily Government security could be breached. However, I would submit that the only thing demonstrated by this illegal publicity stunt is that this individual is not worthy of the public trust. Furthermore, he has betrayed the confidence of his
colleagues in Kitchener and throughout Canada who serve the Canadian public with integrity each and every day.
This individual must be suspended without pay pending a full RCMP investigation and, if found guilty of theft, must be fired from his position and the appropriate court action must be taken. Canadians expect public servants to serve them effectively and efficiently. The vast majority of them do. Any breach of this privilege and responsibility cannot be tolerated.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday the Minister accused the CBC of fabrication and implied that it was splicing the words of Dr. Eastman. Dr. Eastman was reinterviewed and said again yesterday that he believes the prices of drugs introduced in the future will be higher than they were under the old law.
Will the Minister withdraw the statement he made yesterday? Will he apologize to Dr. Eastman and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and will he apologize to Canadians?


Mr. Broadbent:: And then resign.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of a letter to the Editor of The Globe and Mail from Dr. Eastman in my hand and this letter says in part:
Mr. Andre says that the changes will not cause the prices of the new branded drugs to rise above the levels at which they are introduced in the market. I agree.
The fact is that there is no disagreement between Dr. Eastman and me. If the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition had listened to last night's As It Happens, another CBC program, he would have heard Dr. Eastman and me discussing our points of agreement and the points about which there may be a difference in our points of view. However, it is not on price.
Let us get this legislation into committee and have Dr. Eastman appear. I will appear before the committee as will anyone else the Opposition wants. We will have a chance to examine this legislation.


John Napier Turner: I cannot follow the Minister in all his public appearances. I have enough trouble listening to him right here in the House of Commons.
November 20, 1986


REQUEST THAT MINISTER RESIGN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Eastman has been quite clear in his position that only competition from generic drugs has been keeping prices down and that the projected law before the House will destroy that competition. I suggest to the Minister in the strongest terms possible that both yesterday and today, through his performance in the House, the Minister has been misleading Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


John Napier Turner: I wonder if he has not
come to the conclusion that he ought to resign his portfolio.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the only person misleading Canadians is the person who is saying that drug prices will rise as a result of this legislation. That is misleading and is designed to frighten those-


Nelson Andrew Riis: They will.


Harvie Andre: They will not.


Nelson Andrew Riis: They will so.


Harvie Andre: I challenge-


Mr. Isabelle:: Put your seat on the line.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Minister could complete his answer.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the letter I am holding will cover any questions of differences of opinion. In terms of the details of what will be the effects of the legislation, the proper forum for doing that is in fact committee. That is how our parliamentary system is designed. If the Opposition will co-operate in that-


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister refers to a difference of opinion, but Dr. Eastman is very clear and very specific when he states that the price of drugs will increase. The Minister says no. We take the position that in the circumstances, the Minister has misdirected the debate on this issue and he should now do the honourable thing: he should hand in his resignation to the Prime Minister. Is he going to do that?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the letter contradicts what the Leader of the Opposition says. If a drug is introduced at the price of a
Oral Questions
dollar under the old law, it will be introduced at the price of a dollar under the new law. The purpose of the Drug Prices Review Board under Dr. Eastman is to ensure that that happens. Prices will not rise. What will rise are research and development activities. What will rise are jobs in this important sector. Why is the Liberal Party opposed to research and development and jobs for Canadians?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHETHER DRUG PRICES WILL INCREASE
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister is contradicting his own words. Monday, when he answered my question about the $100 million granted to the provinces, the Minister said: "I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the $100 million way more than covers any additional costs". "Any additional cost" . . . ! Mr. Speaker, that is an admission that prices will increase. Yesterday, in answer to the same question put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Sudbury, the Minister said: "I hope he was careful to listen to what I have been saying all along, that the price of drugs will not go up by a penny." Could we have the truth, once and for all? Are prices going to go up, yes or no?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the truth lies in recognizing the difference between price and cost as we move from the old regime to the new regime. Because of the backlog of some 41 generic copies which have generated as a result of the intended change, there might be some increased cost to the provinces, not because of any increase in price of drugs.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: I repeat, not because of any increase in price of drugs. In June, 1983, the Liberal Party stated that to generate further growth in this industry the Government of Canada had decided to change the Patent Act to rebalance the 1969 policy. We are going to do that. Why has the Liberal Party changed its mind?


SITUATION OF CONSUMERS
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, at his press conference this morning, Mr. Calenti of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada said that if the Bill is passed, they will have no option but to increase the price of generic drugs. Since the Minister has no control over the industry's decisions, how and by whom will Canadian consumers be protected?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I was very disturbed to see that threat.

November 20, 1986
Oral Questions
Nothing will change in terms of the market for generic drugs currently on the market and brand name drugs. Since there will be no change, any threat of increase by Mr. Calenti borders on the irresponsible. Perhaps in committee we should examine allowing the Drug Prices Review Board to examine the behaviour of generics. It is a very profitable industry which has become profitable by copying the innovations of fundamental researchers. If they are saying that their profits are not high enough and they are going to gouge more, perhaps we should examine some controls on that industry.


PRICE OF DRUGS-STATEMENTS MADE BY DR. EASTMAN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I think we are in high risk of getting to the bottom of the matter as a result of what the Minister, perhaps inadvertently, said today about the letter from Dr. Eastman to The Globe and Mail. According to the Minister, in the letter which we have not seen yet, Dr. Eastman is going to be saying that the prices of brand name drugs will not be above the levels at which they were introduced in the market. He also said last night that they will be higher in the market-place in general because of the absence of generic competition. Is it not a fact that, because he is saying that they will be introduced at higher levels and the Minister is saying today that they will not be changed, they will not go down to what they would go down in general? This is because generic competition will not be provided. That is the essence of the Bill. Does the Minister deny that?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time a spokesman for the New Democratic Party has not claimed that prices will increase. He is saying that when generic competition comes it causes a price decrease. I agree, and so does Dr. Eastman. We both agree. What effect will the 10 years' exclusivity that we are providing have, and what degree will this onset of generic competition have? On average it has taken 11.5 years for a generic competitor to come on the market. We are proposing 10 years of exclusivity. On average there may not be any difference. There might be, but it is these kinds of details that we should be discussing in committee.


AVERAGE PRICE OF NEW DRUGS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister to consider the exact words of Dr. Eastman last night:
-the average level of new drugs will be higher than it would be were the legislation unchanged.
He is saying that the average price of new drugs in the market-place will be higher as a result of this Bill. Those are Dr. Eastman's words, not mine. Does the Minister deny that?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not deny that those are Dr. Eastman's words. I am saying that it is a legitimate item for a sensible debate between responsible individuals to discuss what effect on generic competition the changes will have, and to
balance whatever costs might be arrived at in that regard against the benefits of the thousands of jobs in research and development that will occur in Canada. That is the kind of intelligent debate we should be having instead of these silly debates in which people are claiming that drug prices will rise when they will not.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister may think this is a silly debate, but I can tell him that thousands of seniors across the country think this is a serious debate indeed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER WITHDRAW AMENDING LEGISLATION
John Edward Broadbent: Will the Minister now clarify once and for all whether he agrees with the statement, not with whether it is a quote from Dr. Eastman? Dr. Eastman is saying that as a result of this Bill general prices of drugs, including newly introduced drugs, will be higher. Does the Minister agree with that and, if he does agree with it, will he withdraw this Bill?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, again, in his effort to over-extend, the Member exaggerates and frightens old people. Dr. Eastman did not say newly introduced drugs. He says in his letter, and 1 quote again:
Mr. Andre says that the changes will not cause the prices of the new branded drugs to rise above the levels at which they are introduced in the market. I agree.
That is Dr. Eastman. He agrees.


John Edward Broadbent: After the market. You can't even read the statement.


DRUG PRICES-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister compared media commentary on this question to "an episode from Dallas". By continually repeating that the price of drugs will not go up, this Minister belongs on an episode of "Another World".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Baker: How can the Minister expect Canadians to believe that the price of new drugs produced in Canada will be as cheap as generic drugs if allowed to be produced? Does he expect Canadians to believe that?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, all of the generic drugs on the market will remain on the market, including 41 that are now in the pipeline which will come on the market. Yes, that will have an effect on reducing prices. In fact, after 10 years generic drugs will come on the market in terms of any not-yet-discovered drugs. That will have the effect of reducing prices.
What we are trying to do is to give effect to what the Liberal Government of 1983 decided, namely, to produce a
November 20, 1986

more balanced policy so that we will have jobs in this important area of research and development in Canada rather than seeing it all exported to other countries.
[DOT] (M30)


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER ORDER WITHDRAWAL OF LEGISLATION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the sick, the elderly, mothers and fathers, no one in this country believes the Government when it says prices will not go up. Therefore, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell this House why the Prime Minister does not order the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to withdraw the Bill and tell the Americans to go take a pill?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in order that we might enlighten Hon. Members across the way the best thing would be to allow the Bill to proceed to second reading debate. Then they might be in a position to understand what the Bill contains. Most of those questions would then be answered.


COST TO PROVINCIAL TREASURIES
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs advised the House "that there is nothing in this legislation that will cause the rise in the price of a drug by one cent: not old drugs, not new drugs, not pipeline drugs, not by one cent." Would he now agree with what the previous Minister said on June 27 of this year, that "It is our estimate that the total cost to provincial treasuries resulting from the delay in the introduction of generic drugs will not exceed $100 million by 1990. In order to ensure that those most in need bear no cost, the federal Government will provide transitional financial assistance to the provinces."


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Why would they do that if they are not going up?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, for I do not know how many times, there is a difference between price and cost. The price of drugs will not go up, but because of this group of 41 generics which are caught by the changes between the old and the new Acts there might be some delay, between two months and five years depending on the drug, which might have the effect of, at the maximum, increasing the cost to provincial pharmacare plans, because of the delay in introduction, by perhaps $60 million over the next four years. That is a far cry from the Hon. Member's statement that drug prices will go up.


STATEMENTS MADE ON DRUG PRICES
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is more and more beginning to sound like the Minister of bafflegab. Mr. Eastman says prices will go up.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: He does not.
Oral Questions


Neil Young: The accounting firm of Coopers & Lybrand says drug prices will go up. The previous Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said prices will go up.


Charles Joseph Clark: False.


Neil Young: Everyone says prices will go up except this Minister. How can Canadians possibly believe that drug prices will not go up after all those respected Canadians say they will? Will the Minister not agree to table in the House the cost impact studies the Government has so all Canadians can look at them?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the NDP will not allow this to go to committee so we can examine all aspects of it. Are they afraid of what the Canadian public might understand?


John Edward Broadbent: Give us the studies.


Charles Joseph Clark: They are afraid of debate.


Harvie Andre: Here we have a typical example of what is wrong. Having written out his questions in advance of Question Period-


Neil Young: I was quoting from Hansard.


Harvie Andre: -when I quoted what Dr. Eastman said, that did not prevent the Hon. Member from standing up and claiming just the opposite. One wonders how loudly, shrilly, and often one has to quote things and state things before the Hon. Member will accept them. What is wrong with the Hon. Member?


EFFECT OF GENERIC DRUGS ON PRICES
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening with some interest to this exchange and confusion. A moment ago I heard the Minister say that after 10 years the presence of generic drugs would drive the price of drugs down, that is, drugs not yet discovered. Surely a conclusion to be drawn from that is that with the presence of generic drugs the prices would be lower. How can the Minister say that the price of drugs will not be higher if generic drugs will drive the price lower?


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member is absolutely correct, I have not said that. What I have objected to are statements designed to frighten and which say prices will rise. Generic competition will indeed bring prices down. However, I would say it is a debatable point as to whether our amendments are going to delay by any significant amount the onset of generic competition, given our experience. Most importantly, what our legislation will do is generate thousands of jobs in research and development in Canada. I thought the Liberals and the NDP wanted to see more research and development in Canada.

November 20, 1986
Oral Questions


INQUIRY IF DRUG WILL COST MORE WHEN PLACED ON MARKET
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, Em starting to understand the Minister's position or the point he is trying to make, which is not quite logical since we can hardly expect the price of a drug that is not yet on the market to increase. I agree, because the price hasn't been set yet. So if we are agreed on that point, does the Minister also agree that once the drug is on the market, prices will be higher because there will be no competition?

Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, when a new brand name drug is introduced there is no competition under existing law or under the new law. The question is when do the generic drugs come on the market. On average, historically, generics have taken eleven and a half years to come on the market. We are proposing a 10-year period of exclusivity. So the argument about when the generics come on is the kind of debate we should be having in committee. I hope the Hon. Member will co-operate in getting this Bill to committee so we can discuss it.


EXPORT OF HELICOPTER PARTS TO IRAN
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My understanding is that his Department was reluctant to permit the sale of helicopter parts to Iran in the fall of 1985. President Reagan then phoned the Prime Minister and enlisted his support for that sale because of the covert action he was then taking to send arms to Iran. The Prime Minister, through the Minister, decided that the permits would be granted. Was Canada the third country referred to by President Reagan last night? Are those facts correct?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say that the allegations just repeated on the floor of the House by the Hon. Member are 100 per cent false.


Mr. Crosbie:: As usual. The little girl who cried wolf.


SHIPMENT ROUTE INQUIRY
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, we are also reliably informed-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pauline Jewett: -that the helicopter parts were included in a cargo shipment from Italy where they were being stored by
Pratt & Whitney, via Israel to Bandar Abbas in Iran. Will the Minister tell us if that is the case?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do not know the particular route. What I do know is the process by which the exports from Canada were authorized. That was a Canadian process by a sovereign Government acting absolutely independently.
I should say, by the way, that there was in 1983, by the Liberal Government, the authorization of the export of military engines to Iran. That came back to me for a decision in 1985. I reversed the Liberal decision and stopped the export of those military engines to Iran.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and concerns the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and its leader's recent comments in the national press. Paul Watson, a Canadian from Vancouver, admitted that his organization destroyed two Icelandic whaling vessels and a processing plant, causing $2.8 million in damages. He has now publicly announced that his group intends to destroy Asian fishing nets in the North Pacific. What is the Canadian Government's reaction to one of its citizens playing havoc on the seas and publicly boasting of breaking the laws of other countries?


Mr. Benjamin:: In this case it is a good idea.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, a Member of the NDP said "In this case it is a good idea". I reject absolutely that kind of encouragement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This Government condemns any illegal action. The RCMP is conducting investigations now to see if any Canadian laws have been broken. If they were, the action which would ensue from that investigation will ensue.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question-


Lloyd Axworthy: I beg your pardon. Excuse me.


John R. Rodriguez: Listen, brother, you're not from Nickel Belt.
November 20, 1986


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Don't fight.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill-Winnipeg-Fort Garry.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am glad you got that right, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member should get his question out as fast as he can.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it always takes two of them to make one of us.


John Edward Broadbent: No comment.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EXPORT OF HELICOPTER PARTS TO IRAN
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He said that the decision relating to the Pratt & Whitney export of engine components to Iran was taken solely within Canada. Could he explain to the House why the spokesperson for Pratt & Whitney said that not only did they gain permission from the Canadian Government, they sought authorization from the United States Government at the same time?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there were American parts involved as there were Canadian parts involved. They required American authorization for the export of American parts. They required Canadian authorization for the export of Canadian parts. Surely the Hon. Member would not suggest that the United States should give authorization for Canadian export policy. That is not the view of the Government.
PRATT & WHITNEY-COMMUNICATION WITH UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I never said it was. The point is that this is the Government which was making the decision. Pratt & Whitney, a subsidiary of United Technologies, decided to export an engine made totally within Canada to the Iranian Government, conceivably for military purposes. Was the Minister or his Department aware that Pratt & Whitney was, at the same time, in communication with the United States Government about the export to Iran of its engines made in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, they may well have been. However, the Member is trying to suggest that there was some kind of
Oral Questions
collusion between the Government of Canada, the Government of the United States, and the Government of some other country. That is absolutely false and the Hon. Member should recognize it as false.
As was admitted when I brought forward amendments to the export control law in September, we have a situation which was caused by bad law endured for so long under the old Liberal Government. We have introduced changes to that law. We have already stopped the export of some military engines which the Liberal Government was prepared to send to Iran. I would not send them to Iran.
We have indicated that there is a very real problem with dual use. We have said that we are trying to determine how we can resolve that problem in a way which protects all Canadian interests. I hope that now that there is a Government in Canada which takes seriously this problem of Canadian exports and export permits, we might have the co-operation of the House of Commons.


Lloyd Axworthy: Get serious.


APARTHEID
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for External Affairs. Two days ago in this House I raised the issue of Falconbridge Nickel Mines reinvesting $31.6 million in Western Platinum, a mine in South Africa. The president of Falconbridge Nickel Mines completely ignored the Minister's letter with regard to voluntary guidelines for investment in South Africa. Therefore, will the Minister tell this House whether he intends to instruct Falconbridge to divest itself immediately of its holdings in Western Platinum in South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that action of Falconbridge which I think defied Canadian Government policy. I have expressed my regret at that action. When the Deputy Prime Minister met with the president of Falconbridge yesterday he re-expressed that and the president of Falconbridge indicated that Falconbridge intends to divest of its holdings in South Africa as quickly as it can.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Minister for the statement he just made.


REQUEST THAT MANDATORY EXPORT GUIDELINES BE INTRODUCED
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is fairly obvious that voluntarism has not been working. What are really needed are mandatory guidelines. Is the Minister



November 20, 1986
Oral Questions
prepared to introduce mandatory guidelines for the "Falcon-bridges" of the country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary I think there is abundant evidence that voluntarism has been working. The Falconbridge example is a bad one and we trust that it will be changed.
Three weeks ago I asked Archbishop Ted Scott, who served for Canada on the Eminent Persons Group in the Commonwealth, to undertake direct consultations with companies in Canada and the United States which had practised disinvestment recently or were intending disinvestment. Archbishop Scott reports to me that there is a very positive attitude on the part of the Canadian business community, that there may well be actions in the very near future with respect to disinvestment, and that he has some recommendations to put before me which may allow us to make even more effective the voluntary approach to this problem which has been effective so far in Canada.
I would hope that this House of Commons, believing as it does in trying to encourage people to lead rather than forcing them by laws, would applaud that attitude which has been shown by the Canadian business community.


REVENUE CANADA
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Around 3.30 in the afternoon of last Tuesday a reporter from the Windsor Star called the Revenue Canada general inquiries number in Ottawa. Using his editor's name, social insurance number and date of birth, he said that he had lost his copy of his 1985 tax return and needed some information from it.
The journalist received by telephone the amount of his editor's charitable donations, he learned that he did not claim any extra medical expenses, and that his wife's income was not in his return because she had filed a separate tax return. What does the Minister of National Revenue have to say to the House about that?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, my response to my colleague is the same as it was when he raised the question of his own tax return in that regard. I have caused an investigation to be made. There is more than one district office involved. An audit trail has been left. We have identified the employee. There was some
additional information supplied. When I have a complete picture, I will report to the House.


CONFIDENTIALITY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister take appropriate action to ensure that the confidentiality of the tax returns filed by Canadians is respected?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I certainly shall.


EMERGENCY MEASURES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works who has now had ample time to peruse the publication put out by his Department a few weeks ago advocating that prudent Canadians would do such things as dig a shallow trench for themselves and their family members and cover it over with boards in the event of a nuclear attack. Does the Minister really believe that this is appropriate advice for the Government of Canada to be giving to prudent Canadians?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Indeed I do, Mr. Speaker. For the past 25 years Governments have been printing publications of this kind at the request of Canadians. Indeed, some 4,800 requests have been received by the Government since August. A good number of other countries have asked for a copy of this publication because it has that kind of merit.


COST OF PUBLICATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it cost $140,000 of taxpayers' money to publish 140,000 issues of this publication. Of those, 100,000 are still sitting in a warehouse and 40,000 have been distributed, 8,000 to Americans. Does the Minister believe that it is appropriate to use $140,000 of taxpayers' money to produce this bizarre, macabre publication?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, the cost is $145,697.11. The Government considers that to be a very appropriate expenditure because Canadians have asked for some guidance and direction on what they might do in their homes in case of a nuclear attack.
November 20, 1986


GOVERNMENT'S PROMISE TO ANNOUNCE NEW PROGRAMS
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Youth. Last March 21, the Prime Minister promised new programs for young Canadians by saying that the Government would be announcing new programs, including programs to deal with the problems facing Canadian youth, at the proper time or near the end of the fiscal year, and in the appropriate circumstances.
Where are these new programs, Mr. Speaker? Is this another one of the forgotten or broken promises of the Prime Minister?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer officially my best wishes to the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice on his election to the House. I can offer him all my co-operation and the benefit of my long years of political experience and tell him that I am certain that he must be happy to see that the unemployment rate for young Canadians has been going down consistently since this Government has been in power. In contrast with what the previous Government had done, we have implemented a Canadian Jobs Strategy which takes the training needs of young Canadians into account.
Since my appointment to this portfolio, we have reviewed all the programs and looked at the general situation facing young Canadians. I hope to be able to make certain proposals to this House and the Government relatively soon.


PROGRAMS FOR THE YOUNG-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, I probably do not have as much experience as the Hon. Member, but my own analysis of the facts did not produce the same figures nor, unfortunately, the same conclusions as his own. The reason for my question is that, on November 18, a drastic cut-back of $76 million was announced at the Department of Employment and Immigration and the additional funds required by the Government will bring absolutely nothing new for young people. What does the Minister intend to do to reverse this trend and ensure that young people will have programs to meet their needs and expectations, as promised by the Government?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice that his memory is faulty. First, the unemployment rate for young Canadians is about 14.9 per cent. He is saying no, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps he does not like to hear it. Last year, we spent over $750 million, which benefited 256,000 young Canadians. As for the cut back to the Innovation Program, this was a 3.7 per cent cut back applicable to all departmental programs. This program was slow to give results because of its originality, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, the funds
Oral Questions
would not have been used one way or another and this is why we chose to do what we did.
On the other hand, I can inform you that my predecessor had been able to obtain or to guarantee $16 million-


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


UNITED STATES DUTY ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER-CANADIAN POSITION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the countervail duty. If a suspension agreement on the softwood countervail is not reached between Canada and the United States in the next seven days, then those hundreds of millions of dollars paid in duty at the border will go to the United States treasury, not the Canadian treasury. Therefore, will the Minister advise the House of Canada's position on a suspension agreement? We know the provinces have different positions. Since we are down to the last seven days, what is Canada's position on a suspension agreement?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I will reply on behalf of the Minister who is at the First Ministers' Conference in Vancouver today. The Hon. Member may not have been in the House yesterday when it was explained that these discussions are ongoing with the provinces. The provinces own the resources and are the ones who have been charged under the countervailing Acts of the United States. They have to come to an agreement on fighting what we consider to be an unfair countervailing duty. I believe there will be discussions tomorrow at noon on trade matters affecting Canada and the United States. I am sure that the Hon. Member will hear an announcement after that meeting.


CANADIAN OFFER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Minister for International Trade made a once-only offer to the United States in seeking an out-of-court settlement, and it failed. Will there be another offer? Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why, during these crucial seven days, the Minister for International Trade will be in Japan rather than here in Canada helping the Canadian forest industry?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, may I correct the perception the Hon. Member is trying to leave? It was at the request of the provinces, the request of the unions, and the
1366

November 20, 1986
Oral Questions
request of the industry that an offer was made to try to suspend the action. The Hon. Member can stand up and say it was the federal Government's decision, but it was not. It was a decision of the provinces, in co-operation with the industry and with the labour unions to try that course. Decisions will be made by Friday on the approach that will be taken in cooperation with our provincial partners. The case will be well handled by the officials in our Department, once that decision is made by the leaders of this country.


SHIPBUILDING
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. He will be aware of the Canada-first purchasing policy in the development of the East Coast offshore oil and gas industry. Why has the Government not moved to implement a similar policy for the construction of fishing trawlers over 100 feet, which would greatly assist the ailing shipbuilding industry in Atlantic Canada and make good on a commitment to impose tariffs that the Government made two years ago?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, a significant part of the policy was the request by the shipbuilding association and the repair association to impose a tariff on large vessels. This was considered very carefully in preparation for the 1985 Budget. At that time it was found that the cost differential that would be imposed as a result of such a tariff would be very burdensome, and it was opposed by the fishermen. We should know if anything has changed since 1985 and I will make sure that our officials look at this to see if there are any significant economic changes.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The Government called for bids and promised early decisions on previous occasions, for the privatization of Teleglobe. Now there is a new game plan because the Government has announced a new round. It has clearly undermined the sanctity of the bidding process. Businesses are losing confidence.
Since Teleglobe profits have poured non-stop into the federal treasury, including $108 million last year and a further $80 million expected this year, where is the economic sense and what is the economic benefit to Canadians in selling this money-making machine?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, we believe that the sale of Teleglobe will be very beneficial for the country. First, as a result of the sale Canadians will be paying less for overseas calls. Second, Teleglobe will be in a much better position to enter into new competitive environments in the whole telecommunications business. Third, that money that is now being put into the federal treasury will be freed up for other priorities of the Government in social programs, research and development, assistance to farmers, and so on.


INQUIRY WHY CANADIANS MUST WAIT TO BENEFIT FROM REDUCED RATES
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same Minister. Is the Minister aware that thousands of Canadians who phone their families abroad each week could save a lot of money if long distance rates were reduced immediately? If Teleglobe is that profitable, why must Canadians wait two years to benefit from reduced rates? This has nothing to do with privatization. Do you think the Canadian public can be fooled in this way?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the selling of this compagny will mean that Canadians will pay less for their calls abroad.

Beginning in 1988, the reduction in cost will be some 13 per cent. After that, the CRTC will be able to regulate further reductions. We see those reductions continuing.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He has kindly provided us with a copy of the letter from Dr. Eastman to The Globe and Mail. Why did he neglect to call to the attention of the House the following sentence in that letter:
My expectation is that the proposed legislation will delay generic competition for some of the new drugs and in consequence delay the reduction in their prices which such competition causes.
Why did he neglect to bring that to our attention?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I did not neglect to do that. In the course of my answers to several questions today, I pointed out that that is in fact where differences of opinion may lie. That is the kind of question we should be discussing in committee. Dr. Eastman pointed out in his letter:
As I understand it, the Minister believes that generic competition may not be delayed and hence that new drug prices may not be affected by the proposed legislation.
November 20, 1986

That is the kind of discussion we should be having in committee. Why will the New Democratic Party not help us take it to committee?


COST OF DRUGS-MINISTER'S POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, in light of all the evidence, why is the Minister the only one in the world who believes that the cost of drugs in Canada will not be higher than they otherwise would be as a result of this legislation which he is insisting on imposing on Canadians?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I think almost everyone noticed the change in tone from the questions the Hon. Member's neighbour asked earlier in terms of prices. However, let me indicate, as I indicated earlier, that on average the generic competition has taken 11.5 years to come on. This Bill provides for generic competition after seven years if it comes through manufacturing. In fact we could and should have that discussion. We should look at costs and benefits, jobs, and the fact we are going to have people doing research, looking for cures for the sick and elderly, about whom the Hon. Member's Party claims it is concerned.


PATENT PROTECTION FOR MANUFACTURERS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs just repeated for a third time today that it takes on the average 11.5 years for a generic drug to come on the market. Can the Minister explain why he is now offering the brand name manufacturers a 10-year protection?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the explanation is very simple. For an individual company planning a research program, trying to develop a new drug, which takes about $100 million, averages are not that helpful. The company could be driven out of business in three or four years or five or six years. It needs the security of the 10 years to do its planning, to do that research and to employ perhaps some of the Hon. Member's constitu-tents.


John Edward Broadbent: Their profits are already higher than the Canadian average.


REASON FOR PROTECTION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Eastman thought that four years was enough. However, if it takes these companies three or four years to develop the product, as the Minister says, why would they need the protection, since the Minister says that it takes on the average
11.5	years for a generic product to come on the market? That is hard to reconcile.
Privilege-Mr. Reimer


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of debate we should be having in committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Right here.


Lloyd Axworthy: This is the House of Commons right here.


Nelson Andrew Riis: This isn't the Petroleum Club, Harvie.


Harvie Andre: Let me repeat again, averages are very important to provinces which deal with over-all costs. Averages are not very helpful to an individual company which might be hit with a generic competition. I believe if the Hon. Member thinks about it for a while he will see that is a pretty reasonable argument.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader for a statement of Government business for the coming week.
And also, if I may do so, I would ask that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) table in the House the letter from which he has quoted so fulsomely but not necessarily completely.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we will be proceeding with Bill C-22, Bill C-25, Bill C-18 and Bill C-19. Next Friday the House will not sit because of a very special event taking place in connection with the Liberal Party. With respect to the tabling of the letter by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I am sure that he-


Harvie Andre: I just did.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He has already done so voluntarily.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Clerk has the letter in question and I would be pleased to table it formally.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw to the attention of Hon. Members an application on a question of privilege and recognize the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer).

November 20, 1986
Patent Act


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which arises out of the comments made by the Elon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) in her supplementary question to the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner). Her comments amount to a misrepresentation of the meeting held between myself and some members of the Public Service Union in Kitchener.
The issue raised with me by the Public Service Union was initially the issue of the confidentiality of the employment records and files in the Kitchener Employment Centre. To that point, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East is correct. However, as the September meeting to which she referred continued with union representatives, they admitted that the real issue was not confidentiality but was, first, contracting out of cleaning services and, second, job security. This is where I believe the Hon. Member for Hamilton East was not fully informed.
Unfortunately, because the Hon. Member was not fully informed, she ended up misrepresenting what took place at that meeting. I, therefore, respectfully request that the Hon. Member for Hamilton East be ordered to withdraw her allegations and correct her misrepresentation of the very good and productive meeting I had with the Public Service Union representatives in Kitchener.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer) at least has the decency to admit that the meeting did deal with the issue of confidentiality of records. Of course, it dealt with the issue of contracting out at the same time because there is a lot of concern by a lot of Public Service unions in Canada that it is impossible to guarantee confidentiality when they have a contracting out process which does nothing to guarantee the kind of commitment to the Public Service by private companies which must come perforce from public servants. Therefore, I see no conflict between a discussion of contracting out and confidentiality. In fact, the two go hand in hand.
The representations which were made to the Hon. Member were that the concerns about confidentiality were raised because of contracting out. The Hon. Member said he was going to take those concerns to Ottawa. The concerns were expressed more than a year ago. The confidentiality was breached at the Kitchener office this week. I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he and his Government should get their act together on the issue of confidentiality.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has heard the question of privilege and has heard the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) in reply. I think I would have the approval of all Hon. Members in noting that this is not a question of privilege. It is certainly a question of a different recollection of facts. Both Hon. Members have had a chance to put the record as they would have it and that closes the matter.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Harvie 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate-


Rodney Edward Murphy: Point of order.


Mr. Robinson:: Point of order.


Harvie Andre: -today in the second reading debate-


Rodney Edward Murphy: Point of order.


Harvie Andre: -on Bill C-22.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Point of order.


Harvie Andre: This is an essential and important piece of legislation for Canada.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) on a point of order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as soon as you recognized the Minister, I rose at that very same point with the intention of moving that the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) be now heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Sure you did. Forget it.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I did so. I do move, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member for Burnaby be now heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members will know that under the procedure which is in effect at the present time it was appropriate to recognize the Minister and it was not appropriate to recognize any other particular Hon. Member. The Hon. Member who rises to move that some other Hon. Member be heard must realize that there are times when the Chair would have to entertain that particular motion. However, this is not one of them.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the debate surrounding Canada's Patent Act has been long, complex and controversial. When the Liberal Government made changes to the Patent Act in 1969, it was a regressive step for Canada. These changes not only resulted in misuse of the Patent Act in an attempt to control prices but also tampered with the fundamental purpose
November 20, 1986

and objective of providing protection for new inventions and discoveries.
In essence, the amendments I propose in Bill C-22 will create a climate favourable to new investment in research and development by giving patent holding pharmaceutical firms in Canada a guaranteed period of protection. These changes will also ensure consumer protection by creating a drug prices review board to monitor drug prices. The amendments will also allow the Government to review and alter the policy after a period of four years, and again in Parliament in the tenth year, to ensure the policy works to the benefit of all Canadians.
The general amendments to the Act not relating directly to pharmaceuticals seek to bring Canada's patent system into line with international practices, to speed the transfer of technological information and to simplify patenting procedures both for the applicant and for the Patent Office.

This package of amendments has been carefully designed to reward private initiative and to adjust investments to support Government efforts aimed at promoting sustained economic growth, job creation and the protection of Canadian consumers.
During the last few months, I have taken every opportunity to meet as many people as possible and to learn their views about this important subject. I have thus met with groups representing consumers and seniors citizens. I have also had lengthy discussions with generic drug companies, manufacturers, researchers, and members of the academic and scientific communities.

Because of the complexities of the issue many people have been asking questions. These questions touch on all aspects of the Bill. One of the questions is related to intellectual property and the protection of intellectual property rights in Canada. I would like to speak for a moment about the question of intellectual property and patents.
The principle that the creator, the inventor, has created something of value and has a right to develop, to own that thing and to have some benefit from it, is a centuries-old tradition. If we were to say, for example, that in order to benefit the consumer we will not recognize copyrights any more and we will allow anyone to publish any author's work in any way they choose, provided they pay the author a 4 per cent royalty, there would be justifiable outrage at the theft of that author's creation. That is what it would be viewed as. If someone invented a widget, a gadget, something of value and we said that it is perfectly all right for someone to copy that invention and to produce it provided they pay a 4 per cent royalty to the creator, we would be outraged. Yet that is exactly what we did in 1969 with regard to the patents on drugs. We violated a literally centuries-old principle which says that the creator, the inventor, has a right for some period
Patent Act
of protection to what he has worked on, invented and developed. It is shocking that Canada should have done that in 1969.
I have been misspeaking myself somewhat in saying that Canada was the first country in the western world to do that. I apologize to Members of the House. We were the second country to do that. According to an article in Canada Business of September, 1986, the first country to treat drugs differently from other inventions was Italy, when Benito Mussolini abolished drug patents before the Second World War. However, Italy was forced to restore full patent protection in the 1970s after joining the European Economic Community.
It is an absolutely unchallengeable principle that if we are to have creation, invention and development, if we are to have that type of progress, then we have to provide the inventor, the developer, the creator, with the right to own exclusively that which he has created, at least for some period of time. When that policy was abolished in 1969, we did this country an enormous disservice.
I have been around the country talking to professors of pharmacology, biochemistry, microbiology and the like. They question the wisdom of a group of elected representatives who, in essence, would say: "But you are different. We will protect Pierre Burton's novels. We will protect the creations and patents of General Motors but you happen to be working in this area-" which, incidentally, is of very important significance to the health of Canadians-"you are on your own. We will not protect you. What you are doing you will be doing for altruistic reasons because there are no protections in our law". That is very short-sighted. It is an offence and one cannot justify that on the basis of "Ah, but the consumer is benefiting". If one uses that argument, then we should remove the laws against selling stolen goods because, surely, the vendor of stolen goods is benefiting the consumer. That can never be justification for the conscription of somebody's property.
Just 100 years ago this year Canada was one of the signators to the Paris Convention wherein, along with the rest of the industrialized world, we said we would recognize the inventions of each other. That was 100 years ago that we did that, and in 1969, in essence, we abandoned that fundamental principle.
The question of intellectual property and respect for it is in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. It is entirely possible that we might have been compelled by some future GATT agreement to make these changes in order to remain a member of GATT. Does it not make a lot more sense that we do it ourselves?
I maintain that the question of fundamental property rights, the respecting of patents, is in and of itself justification for restoring patent rights to Canadians. By itself that is enough reason to undertake this action. However, there are a great many more benefits to Canada as a result of restoring these patent rights.

November 20, 1986
Patent Act
Let us consider the question of industrial benefits. Every Party in this House has said on more than one occasion that it is vitally important to Canada's future that we do more research and development in Canada. We must learn to live more by our wits and less by our resources; we must be there in terms of the new technologies. One of the most important new technologies on the horizon, a technology that could have the most profound effect on our lives, on our society, and certainly on our health, is biotechnology. We are not there yet. Who in their right mind will do research in this important area if the results of their research cannot be patented? The answer is nobody and, in essence, that is what is happening in Canada.
Last year in the United States there was $4 billion spent on biochemical research. In Canada the figure was $75 million. Some $3 billion of that money in the U.S. was spent on medical research. The equivalent figure for Canada was $25 million. So in this important area Canada is non-existent. We are totally out of it.
In terms of jobs, by conservative estimates, this change will generate 3,000 new high-tech jobs. In October of this year, the economic supplement of Le Devoir estimated that with multipliers and the like, this change will generate 10,000 new jobs in the Montreal region alone. How can members of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties call for jobs, jobs, jobs, high-tech jobs and jobs in research and development while at the same time say that they are opposed to this measure which will generate exactly the things for which they have been calling? How can they say, almost in the same breath, that they want more money spent at the NRC to continue to employ 20 radio astronomers and that we should not make these changes which will generate 3,000 research jobs in this important high-tech area?
We will be discussing whether or not there will be any costs. However, if there are to be any costs, they will be borne by the Government primarily because of pharmacare. One hundred per cent of senior citizens are covered by drug programs as are over 85 per cent of the population in general. Whatever costs there may be will not hit the consumers directly, as has been claimed. Even using the worst estimates of members of the New Democratic Party, the pay-out in terms of research jobs versus costs is far in excess of any pay-out that would come from providing the extra funds they would like to see us provide the NRC. To put it mildly, opposition Members are not being consistent in their arguments.
There have been suggestions made that the generic industry will be hurt by this measure. Nothing could be further from the truth. To begin with, all generic drugs currently on the market will continue to be marketed and sold. Second, drugs are coming off patent all the time. New opportunities for generic competition arise constantly. Finally, I would ask Hon. Members to look to the example of the United States. In that country, the generic sector is the fastest growing sector of the drug industry. That sector has been growing by 15 to 20 per
cent per year and now represents 25 per cent of the market. As well, the sector is very profitable, but the profits do not go into research and development. The numbers of jobs per unit of sales are far fewer in that sector than they are in the brand-name sector.
The generic industry will carry on and will be very profitable. It will exist and it will grow. It will not be damaged by anything we are doing here today. What will happen is that the innovative companies, the companies that undertake fundamental research, will now be confident that the fruits of their labour will be protected for at least a period of time and therefore they will be justified in carrying on with research.
We have received commitments from the industry to invest directly in research and development $1.4 billion and to create 3,000 jobs between now and 1995. The commitment is worded so that 10 per cent of sales will be invested in research and development. That is about average for the rest of the industrialized world. Up until now, only 5 per cent of sales had been invested in research and development.
If one were to look at the industrial benefits by themselves without considering the questions of intellectual property and patents and our international relations, and even ascribing the most horrendous estimates of costs put forward by members of the New Democratic Party, one would see that this measure still points to a net benefit to Canada. There is a third reason for this action, and that has to do with multilateral relations.
It has been argued by some, and certainly by the CBC in its propaganda piece, that this action is somehow tied to the trade talks and that somehow we are being forced to do this by the Americans.


David Orlikow: Yes, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised the President of the United States. You know that.


Harvie Andre: Since 1969, every single one of our partners in the western world has been after us to restore patent protection. A few years ago, the former Prime Minister tried to negotiate a special arrangement with Europe, and I think he called it a contractual link. He wanted to try to reduce our dependency. He found that the Europeans were just as upset as anyone else at what we were doing with patents.
In terms of multinational relations and lost opportunities for trade deals and investments, the cost to us of the Patent Act provision, which made us the only western industrialized nation that did not respect patents, has been enormous. The High Commissioner in London received a letter from the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry which read in part:
It is of concern that the Canadian Government, a regular participant in world economic summit conferences, should continue to promote a patent law which is so heavily biased against one innovative industry on which the well-being of the world is so heavily dependent.
That came from the British, not the Americans and not Ronald Reagan. The British are asking how Canada can expect to be treated as one of the top half dozen countries in
November 20, 1986

the world and can demand that kind of respect when it behaves like a Third World country when it comes to intellectual property, when it is willing to confiscate the intellectual property of people who work in the pharmaceutical sector. That is a legitimate question.
Tom Axworthy, the former principal secretary to the former Prime Minister, said that the greatest diplomatic coup of the External Affairs Department of this Government was get admitted to the then G-5 and now the G-7 group. Well, he was right. It was a tremendous tribute to the diplomatic skills of our Prime Minister. Part of being a member of that group, of demanding to be respected as one of the major industrialized countries in the world, is to respect its rules, including its rules of commerce, trade and property. We cannot, as we have, confiscate private property and expect others to say: "Oh, well that's all right. We will let Canada be the one exception in the western industrialized world. Canada can behave like Argentina or other Third World countries and we will understand and tolerate that and of course we will not take that into account when we discuss other important questions". Of course they will take it into account. Of course that has cost us.
It strikes me as being completely absurd that with the blessing of opposition Parties, and quite properly so, we spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year on our relationships with our partners in the western industrialized world in an attempt to sustain and foster them and to work together as partners while we do something as silly as this. This tells everyone else that when they are dealing with Canada, they may not be dealing with a country like the others but with a country that cannot make up its mind if it wants to be a first-class industrialized country or a Third World country which sponges off the investments of others.
I put the following question to any Hon. Member: what would happen if nowhere in the world were there patents for drugs? The answer is very obvious. There would be no research. There would be no drugs to help cure the sick and the elderly. No one can argue against that fundamental premise. I would then ask Hon. Members the following question: what justification is there in all honesty for thinking that Canada should be excluded from having to pay for any of this research?
What if we thought the rest of the world should do that research? It would be wonderful if they found a cure for cancer, a better ulcer treatment or better heart drugs. Would we try to get access to them as cheaply as we could and not respect the property of the people who had made those discoveries? Nobody could do that and hold up his head. However, that is what we have been trying to do, and it has cost us dearly.
A few years ago I was in London talking with the Agent General. He was trying to raise some investment funds from their large pension funds. In talking with him I asked what was
Patent Act
wrong with Canada as a place in which to invest. He said that there were three things wrong with Canada in particular, the Foreign Investment Review Agency, the National Energy Program which confiscated private property, and the Patent Act which confiscated private property.
What did that cost us? Who knows? It was certainly hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, of investment capital. No one considers that in the equation. How many people might be working today if in fact this law was not in place in 1969? I am sure it would be quite a few more.
There is the question of consumer protection. What good would come of it if we had all kinds of new drugs and no one could afford them? If the sick and elderly could not get access to the drugs, what good would come of it? Opposition Members have been trying to scare everyone to death by saying that prices will rise and the sick and elderly will not have access to them. That is absolutely irresponsible propaganda, worthy of the CBC and nowhere else. The fact of the matter is that as soon as Prince Edward Island brings in its pharmacare scheme, 100 per cent of senior citizens in Canada will be covered by drug plans.
Mir. Orlikow: Then the provinces will pay any increased costs.


Harvie Andre: I agree with the Hon. Member. However, does the Hon. Member feel that it is therefore dishonest for him and others to say to senior citizens, as they have been doing: "You will pay more for your drugs"? Does he not think that it is dishonest to say that they will pay more for their drugs?


David Orlikow: Don't seniors pay taxes?


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member is trying to frighten senior citizens by telling them they will pay. He knows that is false.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I ask Your Honour to rule on whether the Minister has the right-and I will deal with his arguments when I speak-to say that I know what I am saying is false.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will certainly read the "blues" and report back to the House later this afternoon.


Harvie Andre: I am prepared to concede that he may be saying that out of ignorance. That is quite possible. It could be deliberately; it could be out of ignorance. In either case it is hardly forgiveable.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would just ask the Minister to not use comments such as the word "deliberately", please.


Harvie Andre: Over 85 per cent of Canadians are covered by drug plans. In terms of the consumer per se, the direct effect if any is very minimal. What will be the effect on drug prices in general? What will be that effect? Let us consider what happens in Canada in terms of the marketing of drugs. I will return to the 1950s and 1960s.

November 20, 1986
Patent Act
In the 1960s we had prices in Canada which were higher than those in the United States. They were reportedly some 20 per cent higher. However, I might say parenthetically that I came across a paper that was presented to the Liberal Government in the 1960s. It made the point that the figures the then Ministers were using to justify a change in the Patent Act were false; they were cooked numbers. In fact, the whole initial change was based upon false numbers in terms of what drugs cost in Canada versus the United States.
There is no question that prices were quite high in Canada at that time. The reason was very simple. We had just come into the pharmacare or medicare era. That meant that many people who had previously paid for drugs out of their own jeans, so to speak, suddenly had a third party paying for them. When one does not pay for something oneself price discipline tends to disappear. What does it matter what it costs if someone else is paying? That had an upward pressure upon prices in Canada. The provincial Governments which were funding pharmacare schemes started to get their acts together to try to compensate for market pressures. Today, provincial Governments buy 60 per cent of the drugs sold in Canada. In essence they have very sophisticated price setting mechanisms. Every six months they establish something called a formulary which states the price they will pay for drugs. They organize bulk purchases and get volume discounts and so on.
There is no generic competition in 93 per cent of the drugs sold in Canada. Some people are under the impression that there is generic competition on all drugs. That is not true; 93 per cent of the drugs sold in Canada have no generic competition. They are low volume and so on. In that area, the prices in Canada are only 80 per cent of what they are in the United States. There is no generic competition. We cannot look at the Patent Act and claim that it has lowered costs for Canadians but, in fact, the prices in Canada are lower than they are in the United States. That will continue. There is nothing in here which will jeopardize in any way, shape or form the fundamental relationship between pharmaceutical manufacturers and provincial Governments. Those market dynamics will remain in place.
One can expect that the relationship of 80 per cent of U.S. prices will remain in place. Unless there are some other changes in the market caused by external forces, either in the United States or elsewhere, we should continue to have that kind of saving. It has nothing to do with the Patent Act. This is another reason I object so strenuously to opposition claims regarding drug prices. For 93 per cent of drugs there is no generic competition. There will be no effect one way or another.
We are talking about a comparatively small group of 7 per cent, albeit they are the high volume drugs and represent 20 per cent in terms of costs. However, that is a far cry from the statements made that all drug prices will go up, in an attempt to frighten people.
We are calling for the creation of a drug prices review board to monitor the existing prices of drugs and the prices of any
new drugs to ensure that the market situation which exists now, where our drug prices are at about 80 per cent of those in the United States, remains in place. The board will be headed by Dr. Harry Eastman. Surely that should give confidence to members of the Opposition. Dr. Eastman is not likely to have his name attached to something which is a sham, a toothless tiger or something like that. He has a lot of personal integrity and personal investment in it. He would only be a part of the board if he recognized, as any fair-minded person would recognize, that in fact it will have teeth and be in a position to ensure fair prices.
Earlier today in Question Period there was some debate about what effect the Bill will have in terms of bringing on generic competition in the area where generic drugs compete. For the moment I will try to indicate some of the factors involved in generic competition. To begin with, when a company discovers a new drug it applies for a patent. It takes eight years of testing, on average, before the Department of National Health and Welfare authorizes the company to sell the drug to the public. Also it takes a number of years and a lot of expense to develop the market and to convince physicians to prescribe the drug for use. A lot of cost is involved in monitoring use, getting feedback from users, physicians and so on.
If the drug turns out to be a drug used by many people then it attracts the interest of generic copycat companies. These companies have to find somebody in a country that does not have patent protection to manufacture the drug, which is not easy. Then they apply to the Government, having to pass certain tests to ensure that that generic equivalent, whether in capsules or pills, is safe. That whole process takes a long time, on average eleven and a half years.
No one can claim absolutely that 10 years of patent protection will delay generic competition. It might. But anyone who says absolutely it will is not being intellectually honest. That is the kind of thing we should and will be discussing in committee.
Averages are important to provincial Governments that buy all the drugs and look at the whole spectrum. To an individual company, averages are not very helpful. If a company spent $100 million developing a drug, bringing it to market, but as a result of some quirk three years later cash flows and sales volumes are cut back because a copycat came on the market, it would then be out of luck could lose its investment. The $100 million spent bringing the drug to market may not be recovered. Consequently if you are thinking about a new research program, you will be very careful about investing in Canada for fear of being cut off.
We have very low research and development activity in Canada and very few drugs. I was at the University of Montreal last week talking to people in the Department of Pharmacy. One of the professors found a new drug that in his opinion has some therapeutic value. He has, however, patented
November 20, 1986

it in the United States. He did not patent it in Canada because he did not want to have his discovery exploited by somebody, to his detriment. I also spoke to a new professor who had arrived from France where he worked for a drug company; a French company, not a multinational. When that company discovers a new drug it licences companies in other countries to do the marketing. He told me that the company did not license companies in Canada because it did not want to lose the technology through lack of protection.
New drugs are being discovered which could help cure sick Canadians but they are being kept off the market and are unavailable to sick Canadians because of our Patent Act. If Members of the Opposition were here to listen and had real concern for sick Canadians they would include that as part of the equation. How many drugs are not available in Canada or are delayed entry into Canada because of our pharmaceutical laws? What is that cost?
I was at the University of Alberta last week where I met a bright young biochemist who I believe is doing some really fascinating work in the area of drugs. He was not able to raise any research funds in Canada, nor was he able to interest any Canadian company in pursuing this research. Why fund research in Canada if you cannot patent your results? He contracted with a Japanese company which funded his research. Part of the funding, $80,000, was to buy the rights to his creation. The Japanese company in turn sold those rights to Cyanamid in the United States for $15 million. Here was a discovery by a Canadian scientist in a Canadian university doing research here, but because of our patent laws it is enriching a Japanese company.
How many people in the Opposition making their cost calculations have included figures like that? What cost is that? What can you say about a country that educates brilliant young people but says, in essence, do not do research in that area because we are not going to protect the results? If you want to live in Canada and continue to do research find yourself a Japanese company to interest itself in what you produce? How in heavens can we hold up our heads continuing to do that kind of thing?
There is anecdotal evidence all over. Dr. de Bold, now at the University of Ottawa, while at Queen's University discovered a naturally recurring hormone that regulates high blood pressure. It is an amazing discovery, for which he has had all kinds of awards; he recently won the Manning Award. In Saturday Night magazine for August, 1986 it was stated:
There are, in fact, many reasons why de Bold, Queen's University, and Canada will not reap the full benefits of this medical discovery. Foremost are the lack of a strong domestic drug industry; patent laws that give consumers low priced generic drugs, but make it uneconomical for drug companies to do research in Canada-
Here is another case of a brilliant scientist, funded by Canadian taxpayers as a university professor and researcher, who has come up with a very important discovery but Canada will reap none of the economic benefits because of our patent laws.
Patent Act
How many Members of the Opposition have put that calculation into their sums when they looked at cost and benefits? Not one, Mr. Speaker. They would rather rant and rave about the National Research Council and so on rather than recognizing that what they are advocating is causing more damage to research in Canada than can be imagined.
Here is a letter from a physician at the Hospital for Sick Children:
1 am a paediatrician training in pharmacology at the Hospital for Sick Children; in this capacity 1 was recently at an annual meeting of the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics in Baltimore. While attending the meeting presenting a paper on research done in our lab, i was struck by the quantity and quality of research done by the pharmaceutical companies that was being presented. 1 also noted that, while many of the scientists and physicians were non-Americans, the majority of the work was being done in the United States. The challenge is clear-
He is pointing out that in order to do work in research and development our scientists have to go to the United States. We train them. I do not know what it costs to turn out an MD, Ph.D in Canada but a few hundred thousand dollars I would guess. We spend those tax dollars, then they go elsewhere to do their research and development. If Hon. Members in the Opposition are truly interested in costs, as they claim in their questions asked in Question Period over the last few days, let them put those costs into their equations. What is the cost to us as a country?
I humbly submit that anybody who takes an objective view of what we are proposing will see that we have in place enormous checks and balances to ensure that consumer prices of drugs remain reasonable. They should look at what we will get by way of research and development, and at the jobs this will create.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Minister that his time has expired. In these circumstances it is often customary for the House to give its unanimous consent to the Minister so he can continue for a few minutes in order to finish.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the House. I thought the opening speaker had unlimited time. I will wind it up very quickly.
This Bill provides protection for consumers through the Drug Prices Review Board policy review in four years and parliamentary review in 10 years. All of the price control mechanisms provincial Governments have in effect will also remain in place. Indeed, the head of the British Columbia pharmacology program indicated that in his view there was likely to be no effect on the cost to British Columbia because the existence of the price review board will help them in their job.
Whatever costs might be associated with this legislation will be minimal. They will not hit the consumer. They will be worth it in the sense of helping to improve our international

November 20, 1986
Adjournment Motion
relations. They are worth it in the sense of respecting the principle of intellectual property, recognizing that people who create have a right to enjoy their creation. However, when you look at the industrial benefits, the research and development, and recognize their importance, and balance that against any potential increase in costs, you cannot reach any conclusion other than that this is a good Bill, good for Canada, and will provide enormous benefits. I look forward to committee study so I can talk about this in more detail.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) rising on a point of order?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the House was magnanimous enough to allow the Minister to continue beyond his allotted time I would ask you to canvass the House to determine whether or not there is unanimous consent to allow questions of the Minister in view of his lengthy statement.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has requested unanimous consent to put questions to the Minister. That is not the rule, but if it is the unanimous wish of the House and the Minister, then it can be done.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am really anxious to get this Bill to committee so I can answer all the questions which might be put. I am reluctant to take up more time of the House and deny the Liberal Party spokesman an opportunity to participate in the debate. I gather there was a precedent this morning as well where we were denied that opportunity, which causes my colleagues to say, regrettably, no.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Inquiry whether agreement exists to reduce number of Francophone employees, (b) Request for explanations concerning letter; and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-Regional Development- Distribution of expenditures, (b) Regional disparities- Request for new policy.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the proposed drug patents legislation, and it is indeed a pleasure to do so, since this is the first time I have had a chance to rise in the House as the Official Opposition critic for consumer and corporate affairs.
In fact, the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) had just given me that responsibility, when fate decided otherwise. A car accident kept me from any active involvement in the legislation tabled by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs last year and passed by Parliament. I am referring to the amendments to the Tax Rebate Discounting Act and to the Competition Tribunal Act.
Before going any further, I would like to take this opportunity to thank publicly my colleagues who substituted for me during my convalescence. They are: the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who was very successful in his work on the two Bills I just mentioned; the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) who took charge of the lobbying dossier; the Hon. Member for Grand Falls- White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), who monitored the copyright issue and diligently attended the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs; and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Male-part) who saw to the representation of my constituents and their concerns. I also wish to thank those Members who covered all proceedings relating to consumer and corporate affairs. Furthermore, I want to thank all Members and employees on the Hill who sent me their best wishes for a speedy recovery. It was much appreciated. Finally, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) who was in charge of monitoring the drug patents dossier and who prepared the Liberal response in anticipation of the introduction of this legislation on June 27 this year. The Hon. Member for Sudbury condemned these proposals as being too severe and lacking any justification, considering the absence of any firm and explicit commitment in the Bill.
When the revised version of the drug patent provisions was tabled last November 7, I denounced the Bill because these propositions quite simply ignore the Eastman Commission recommendations and tip the scales in favour of the multinationals.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that Hon. Members fully understand my position and that of our Party. The Liberal Party has never come out against changes in this sector. The
November 20, 1986

Eastman recommendations are acceptable to us, for the report did strike a proper balance between the interests of consumers and those of the drug industry generally.
But these provisions go far beyond the Eastman report recommendations, so much so that they unduly favour multinational drug companies to the detriment of generic drug companies and consumers.
The Liberal Party has always made it a point to introduce policies which are fully consistent with the interests and needs of the people who are directly concerned. It is a significant characteristic since it sets us apart from our NDP colleagues who go to one extreme, while our Conservative colleagues go to the other extreme.
The status quo advocated by the NDP faction would have helped consumers, I agree, but then it would have killed any incentive the drug industry might have had to develop new drugs. On the other hand the Party in office wants a radical change which, for all practical purposes, amounts to a backward step. The big winners, the multinationals, will rake in millions of dollars in exchange for unsubstantiated and rather vague promises. The big losers, the consumers, will end up with a toothless patented medicine prices review board, as its only protection.
Mr. Speaker, senior citizens, the sick, the people who are not covered by health insurance plans know that song well. The same refrain has struck their ears once more. Indeed, quite recently, the CRTC, a creature similar to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board proposed by the Minister in this legislation, has found that Bell Canada had overcharged its telephone users. So the CRTC ordered Bell Canada to have the overcharge refunded to telephone users. Everyone applauded. The only thing is, Bell has appealed the ruling and we are back to square one of an unending process.
There is nothing in Bill C-22 to prevent the same thing from happening to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board's findings.
Moreover, we know about the multinational drug industry and its performance. That industry has tremendous funds at its disposal and money is no object when it comes to launching all sorts of court proceedings.
We also know that those funds have been used by the multinationals in major public relations campaigns to make their views known to the Canadian public through radio and newspaper advertisements. We also know that their financial strength has enabled them to carry on since 1969 in their attempts to have the Act amended. Now they are getting what they have always been asking for. The Minister would have us believe that the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board and the policy review by Cabinet four years down the road, and the review by Parliament 10 years from now, are a safeguard against the evil practices of those corporations. The average man and woman know what to expect. They have already realized there is nothing good in this legislation. But since the Minister is not an ordinary citizen, an average Canadian, I will
Patent Act
have to go out of my way, resort to complicated explanations to make him understand what the majority of Canadians realized a long time ago, that the Minister has just given out the whole pie to the multinationals.
Let us start with a few historic facts. In the 1950s and 1960s, several complaints were filed by Canadians who found out they were overcharged for their drugs. Later, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission enquired into the manufacture, distribution and sale of drugs, under Section 42 of the Combines Investigation Act. The Commission's enquiry was thorough and complete. It dealt with several issues already covered by the Eastman Report.
Mr. Speaker, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission's findings were as follows, and I quote:
Consideration should be given to the establishment, under the auspices of the federal Government, of an authoritative publication giving all necessary particulars concerning new drugs.
As the Commission believes that the close control exercised through patents has made it possible to maintain prices of certain drugs at levels higher than would have obtained otherwise and that such patent control has produced no benefits to the public of Canada which would outweigh the disadvantages of the monopoly, the Commission recommends that patents with respect to drugs be abolished. In the opinion of the Commission this is the only effective means to reduce the price of drugs in Canada.
This means therefore that the prices of certain drugs protected by patents were very high and were felt to be excessively high. Other studies have confirmed that the drug manufacturing industry was characterized by excessive profits and a level of research and development which was not in proportion with the magnitude of its profits.
The other two studies were the 1964 report of the Royal Commission on Health Services and the 1966 study by the Special Committee which considered the costs and prices of pharmaceutical products. There were several other studies, but all agreed on the same findings.
The pharmaceutical industry charges high prices, collects very high profits, but does not carry out much research and development work, at least proportionate to its sales. As a matter of fact, research and development represents only 3.5 per cent of sales.
In 1969, in an effort to lower prices and increase competition, the Liberal Government of the day allowed for compulsory licenses. From then on, some very popular drugs were manufactured and sold as generics.
In June, 1983, the Hon. Member for Papineau, the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, tabled a working paper on the compulsory granting of licenses in the area of pharmaceuticals. He recognized the fact that there were a number of problems and that those problems tended to make it less attractive for innovative companies to engage in research and development.
Considering the complex situation in the pharmaceutical industry, the Government decided to pursue the matter further through a commission of inquiry, which would be free of all partisan considerations, and to ask the commission to examine

November 20, 1986
Patent Act
the pharmaceutical industry with a view to recommending the fairest possible solutions.
I shall quote, if I may, from the Order in Council:
And whereas it is desirable that proposals for incentives for the development of the pharmaceutical industry be evaluated, as well as the relationship of the pharmaceutical industry to the health care delivery system throughout Canada, the cost of pharmaceuticals to consumers in Canada, the clearance procedures for new products and any other policies and programs administered by the Government that relate to the pharmaceutical industry.
Therefore the Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise that Dr. Harry Eastman of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, be appointed a Commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act to inquire into and report upon the current situation in the pharmaceutical industry in Canada, the prospects for a significant expansion of this industry in Canada and the policy framework for the development of the pharmaceutical industry and, within that framework, to identify proposals that might form the basis for reaching a consensus on licensing policy.
The report says clearly that the Commission will identify proposals that might form the basis for reaching a consensus on licensing policy. The two major recommendations are the following, and I shall quote directly from the Eastman Report. The Commission recommends:
that new drugs should be awarded a period of exclusivity from generic competition of four years after receiving their Notice of Compliance authorizing marketing;
that a Pharmaceutical Royalty Fund be established and be financed by payments made by firms holding compulsory licences, the payments to be determined by the value of the licensee's sales of compulsorily licensed products in Canada multiplied by the pharmaceutical industry's world-wide ratio of research and development to sales.
There are several other recommendations in this important report by Dr. Eastman. However, the point I wish to make is that the recommendations of the Eastman Report represent a balanced view between the interests of consumers, that is reasonable prices, and the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, namely funds for research and development.
These recommendations have been thoroughly examined. In fact, the Eastman Report states that, according to the comprehensive data of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada, there is no indication that the compulsory import licensing implemented in 1969 has had any unfavourable effects. In addition, the Eastman Report notes that the profits of the pharmaceutical industry have clearly exceeded those of all manufacturing industries as well as those of the chemical industry as a whole, except in 1974.
This industry is therefore generally healthy. Dr. Eastman explains why, in spite of the health of the industry, he is recommending a four-year period of exclusivity. The report says that the purpose of the four-year exclusivity period from the date of issuance of a compliance notice authorizing marketing is to encourage the rapid introduction of new drugs in Canada by improving the profitability of the company bringing out the new products. He also explains that insufficient protection does not motivate the companies to do research, while too much protection promotes waste, bad allocation of funds and research that is not really necessary.
The care put into the Eastman Report, and its conclusions regarding the protection of patents for a four-year period, once more bring me to say that what the Minister is proposing is excessive. Ten years of exclusivity is very far from the four years recommended by Dr. Eastman.
According to the observations of the Commission, ten years of exclusivity will promote a waste of money and needless research. I am strongly convinced that the Eastman Report shows what direction we should be taking. It gives a fair and balanced view of the interests of both consumers and the industry. The proposals of the Minister will cost the consumers a lot more than necessary and will allow the multinationals to waste their overly large profits in useless activities.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand how the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) can tell us that this will not cost Canadian consumers one penny. The Eastman Report is very clear about this, as Dr. Eastman pointed out yesterday and today. What does the Eastman Report say? Simply that the appropriate mechanism to boost the profitability of multinational companies-that is, earning more income to invest in research and development-is a four-year prohibition period.
So the report says that there would be no competition from generic products during four years. The industry would be free to change prices to recoup or gather funds for past and future research. Needless to say a new drug would cost more. We in the Liberal Party believe that a ten-year restriction period is too high a price for Canadian consumers to pay. The evidence is there. The Eastman Report says so. We feel that a ten-year prohibition period is an altogether unreasonable and disproportionate demand on the part of the multinationals. We also believe that the Minister is making a big mistake. He is definitely going too far in his efforts to promote a climate conducive to investment and industrial development.
Spokesmen for retired people, elderly Canadians, women and consumers at the Liberal Party's public hearings last September 23 unanimously agreed that the Government proposals were excessive. A number of them said they would prefer the status quo, while others indicated that the Eastman Report recommendations were acceptable even though they did not appear to be in their interest. Nobody was as arrogant as the multinationals when they warned that their investment promises would best be forgotten unless the legislation were adopted.
Mr. Minister, here is what we have against this Bill: the ten-year prohibition period is simply too long. I explained why. The seven-year prohibition period concerning the manufacture of drugs will leave generic drug companies with only three years to recoup expenditures incurred for developing their products. After that period, they will be facing the competition of imports. In their case, they will not be able to recoup the expenses.
November 20, 1986

Mr. Speaker, there is no obligation in this legislation for patent-holding multinationals to manufacture their drugs in Canada. This is important. That obligation was included in the Government's proposal of June 27th. Actually, if a multinational failed to manufacture its drugs within the 2 years following the previous Minister's legislation of last June, and I repeat: if a multinational failed to manufacture its drugs within 2 years, it would have lost the privileges associated with the patent. That provison has been taken out of new legislation. It would really have encouraged the development of a manufacturing sector in the drug industry.
Turning to the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, its authority is limited as far as collecting data on prices and research and development activities are concerned, because a major part of those activities are carried out abroad and all the multinationals have their headquarters in countries outside Canada. Since we have no jurisdiction whatsoever on countries such as France, Switzerland and the United States, the board will be limited in the information it can collect.
Mr. Speaker, the criteria for monitoring and determining whether a drug price increase is excessive open the door to abuse and to the setting up of higher prices. One criteria in particular comes to mind: the selling price of drugs outside Canada. We all know that Canada has the lowest prices in the industrial world. Another criteria is the patentee's selling price over the five years before the ruling. We know that the prices of drugs have increased approximately from 3 to 43 per cent since the Eastman Report was published. We also know that before 1985, the introductory price of drugs varied from $70 to $100. But this year we have seen some drugs introduced on the market at prices between $100 and $150. As you can see, those criteria will have to be very closely monitored. Contrary to what the Minister claims, they show that an increase in the prices of drugs is to be expected.
The powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board to correct the abuses of guilty companies are weaker than they were in the Bill introduced last June. Indeed, the original proposal was that the Board would be authorized to lower the price not only of the medicine involved, but of all medicines produced by the company.
In the present Bill, only the price of the medicine involved and that of one other medicine are subject to reprisals by the Board. I ask the Hon. Members to note this point because it is important.
The Minister claims that the penalty is proportionate to the crime and that the previous proposal was excessive. We have to recognize that the Conservative Government is consistent. Indeed, our competition legislation, while better than it used to be, is certainly one the weakest pieces of legislation on economic competition in the world.
The penalties provided by our competition legislation are not very severe. Therefore, if the Government wanted to bring our pharmaceutical patent legislation up to world standards, it should have done the same for our competition legislation.
Patent Act
Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that this bill is retroactive to June 27, 1986. This is totally unacceptable. Canadians are entitled to benefit from the amendments of 1969 until Bill C-22 is passed by this House. This provision of the Bill is rather fishy. The Government is going to grant ten years of exclusivity to the multinationals, and these same multinationals cannot wait for the bill to be passed? What does that mean? It is completely and totally unacceptable. There is no reason for such a provision.
The Minister tells us that the multinationals will invest $1.4 billion into research and development and that this should create 3,000 jobs. Regretfully, this is not spelled out in the Bill. All I know is that the multinationals have announced some of their investments, and not all of them, but only after they were forced to do so. This happened both times legislation to amend the Patent Act was introduced. Last June 27, the multinationals announced some investments, and last November 7, they again announced some investments. Moreover, when the Liberal Party held public hearings last September 23, they once again announced investments.
Do we have to scare them every time we want them to do their share? The Bill includes no written guarantee and no investment schedules. The ordinary consumer always has a guarantee when he buys something. Why, then, would the Canadian people buy such an industrial policy without any guarantee? The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) could provide such a guarantee for Canadians who are already paying high prices and who could find themselves paying even more.
In addition, this Bill does not define research and development. Does this mean fundamental research, research applied to manufacturing processes or chemical research? If the Goverment really has a research and development policy, it should be able to tell us exactly what it wants. When you do not know where you are going, you can end up just about anywhere. Since the decision is delivered to Cabinet, the definition of research and development will be subjected to risky decisions by ministers experiencing pressures of all kinds. It is a serious shortcoming, a broad gap and clear proof that the Tory Government does not know where it is going or what it is doing.
The amounts allotted to the provinces seem to me to be totally inadequate in the long and in the short term and it is once again an admission that drug prices will surely go up. If not, why provide those funds to the provinces?
The policy will be reviewed by Cabinet after a four-year period and by Parliament after ten years. This would seem to be acceptable except that if the Members of this House want to be realistic, they will appreciate that in those ten years many things may happen, many excuses may be voiced to justify unachieved investments: a depression, a crisis in the industry concerned, retaliatory measures from other countries and so on.

November 20, 1986
Patent Act
Let me be cynical and skeptical. Moreover, I doubt very much that after a four-year period, Cabinet will have enough information to act efficiently to promote the development of our drug industry.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the prices of drugs will increase. Everyone seems to believe it except the Minister. The Government is granting a ten-year monopoly without any written guarantee of investments by the industry, without any commitment by the multinationals as to the manufacture of drugs in Canada, without any specific definition of what is considered as research and development, without any commitment to table cost studies in the House or in committee. I regret but the Bill is inadequate and incomplete. One has to be blind to support such a proposal. Who will pay the bill, Mr. Speaker? Our sick people, those who are not covered by social welfare and whose income is not high enough to pay the premiums for a private insurance scheme; the people on welfare who will have to buy drugs not covered by their provincial drug insurance program; the people on social welfare who will have to pay part of the costs of their medicine where they are not covered 100 per cent by the province. The provinces which will have to make cuts in their Medicare programs to pay for these drugs. The taxpayers who will have to pay higher taxes to cover the increase in costs for medicine. The Canadian men and women who have private drug insurance programs. The drug insurance companies will have no other alternative but to pass the increase on to them. It is Canada which is scuttling its generic pharmaceutical industry which was about to start innovative research, but which will not be able to do so.
In his remarks, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (M. Andre) wondered why the Official Opposition opposed this legislation. He shouted: "The opposition is asking for jobs, jobs, jobs". Yes, its true, we want jobs, but not at the expense of the weak, the poor and the sick.
This Bill is not tailored to meet the needs of our country in the area of drugs; rather, it is the culmination of a host of clumsy efforts to meet the needs of a foreign-controlled industry. This Bill, therefore, has not been conceived to meet the needs of Canada, it is not a proper instrument for research and development, and our sick people, old people and taxpayers will pay dearly for it. The Liberal Party of Canada simply cannot support this Bill in its present form. We will make every possible effort to amend this Bill at least along the lines recommended by the Eastman Report. I join with the many Canadian men and women who are totally opposed to this Bill, and I will do everything in my power to make it more repon-sive to the real needs of all Canadian men and women.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I will say to the Minister that my position towards this Bill will be: "Desperate ills call for desperate remedies." Therefore, I move the following amendment:
Therefore, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray):
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:
Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


Mr. Speaker:: We will now debate the amendment.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, since this Bill was proposed by the Government last spring it has been opposed by Hon. Members of my Party. The earlier version did not receive first reading in June, and it has been opposed by my Party since the House resumed in September. We did everything we could to prevent the introduction of the Bill and we intend to continue to oppose this Bill in every way possible, and to defeat it if we can.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) in answers to questions put to him earlier this week, and even previously, has implied that the opposition to his Bill comes from opposition Members of Parliament for purely partisan reasons. He implied that other people who oppose the Bill are doing so because they do not understand the fact, or because the facts have been misrepresented by members of the Opposition. In my years in Parliament I have never encountered a proposed Bill which has brought forward such unanimous opposition as this Bill.


An Hon. Member:: Do you remember the Crow Bill?


David Orlikow: The Crow Bill was a disaster. It affected farmers very adversely. However, this Bill has produced resolutions, letters to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) from senior citizen organizations from one end of Canada to the other, from consumers associations, from co-operatives, labour unions and farm organizations. I have never before seen this virtually unanimous opposition which has been produced by this Bill. These organizations have been joined by newspaper editorials, by newspaper columnists.
In today's Citizen there is an article by Don McGillivray. The headline reads: "Don't swallow Tories' drug-bill line". He states in part:
-the Tories now have a two-year record of mismanaging the issues that arise.
A little further on he states:
The change in the law abandons Canada's unique system of keeping medical drug prices low by denying patent protection to the big multinational drug companies.
I would like to deal for a few moments with a couple of the arguments put forward by the Minister in his speech today. He stated that the Bill under which these companies have operated since 1969 really permits the theft of intellectual property. I suppose he means that the results of the research done by the multinational companies who bring forward a new drug are
November 20, 1986

then used by the generic drug companies. That is true. Under the law, as it has been from 1969 until now, after a little more than four years, by payment of a royalty, the generic companies can get a licence to produce the drug. Under the Bill which the Minister is proposing the generic drug companies will be able to produce drugs under licence after 10 years. Is the Minister saying that it is theft if the licence is used after four years but that it is not theft if it used after 10 years?


John Horton McDermid: Yes.


David Orlikow: If it is theft, and if the Minister really believes that, then obviously the company should have patent protection for 99 years, not for four years and not for 10 years.
The Minister then says that seniors will not be affected because, after all, they are covered by provincial pharmacare plans. Seniors are taxpayers just like everyone else. The provincial pharmacare plans are paid for out of the revenues of the provinces. The provinces obtain their revenues through various forms of taxation. If they have to pay more, as they will, for the cost of prescription drugs for seniors, or for anyone else, then the cost of the programs will have to increase. If the provincial pharmacare programs and health care programs, along with private insurance plans of which there are many, have to pay more for prescription drug costs, then either they will have to increase the premiums which they charge or they will have to cut back on the benefits which they provide for other services over and above the cost of paying for prescrition drugs.
I would like to take a few moments to consider the history to the point we are now, from where we have come and where we will go if this Bill passes. I remind Hon. Members that before 1969 Canadians paid among the highest prices for prescription drugs in the world. In the period from 1945 to 1965 the cost of prescription drugs rose by 150 per cent. The Government of the day, because it was receiving so many complaints from so many people with respect to not being able to afford prescription drugs doctors prescribed when they were ill, appointed three commissions to study the problem. All three commissions made proposals with respect to changing the patent law as it affected prescription drugs.
In 1968, a parliamentary committee chaired by Dr. Harley held many public hearings. Interested people, companies involved and research scientists were allowed to come forward and testify in public before the committee. After the committee held its hearings it brought down a report. It was on the basis of that report that the patent laws as they affected prescription drugs were changed.
The result of these changes was that the generic drug companies were permitted to obtain a licence to produce drugs after the company which had developed them had had the exclusive right to produce and sell them for a number of years. This permitted them to import the active drug ingredients needed to produce the drugs, which resulted in bringing
Patent Act
competition into the drug market. The results were dramatic. From having the second-highest drug prices in the industrialized world we moved to the situation where, up until now, we have had the second-lowest drug prices in the world.
The multinational corporations were unhappy with this situation, to say the least. They were dissatisfied. They fought the system with every means available to them. They had, they have now, and they will continue to have one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country, just as they do in the United States. The pressure they brought to bear was continuous. Finally, a couple of years before the then Liberal Government was defeated, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who was then the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, caved in somewhat to the pressure. He began to look for ways to satisfy, at least in part, the demands of the multinational corporations. However, his portfolio was changed and a new Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was saddled with the responsibility. I refer to the Hon. Judy Erola.
Despite the fact that the system we had since 1969, and have up until today, was working well and giving the people of Canada prescription drugs at a reasonable price, Mrs. Erola, to lessen the pressure on her and her Government, appointed Dr. Harry Eastman to investigate the situation. Dr. Eastman brought down his report after the Liberal Government was defeated and the present Conservative Government took office.
What did Dr. Eastman say in his report? Essentially, what he said was that the system which we now have in place is working quite well. He said that the system under which the generic drug companies are permitted after a number of years to produce a drug, after paying a royalty to the company which originally developed it, saved the people of Canada $211 million in 1983. Dr. Eastman also said that we could make some changes to the Act, although the ones he proposed were relatively minor. He proposed that the four-year patent protection now given to drug patent holders be looked at, that the royalties paid by the generic producers should be increased from the present 4 per cent to 14 per cent, and that there should be specific grants for research and development from the funds collected from the royalties.
The Government could have accepted Dr. Eastman's proposals, or it could have held public hearings such as were held in 1969 under the chairmanship of Dr. Harley. But the Government ignored the public way of dealing with the situation in favour of working secretly behind the scenes. It brought the two antagonists-the multinational drug companies and the generic drug companies-together. It told them that they had to negotiate and work out an agreement that would be acceptable to both of them. However, the Government was really only listening to the demands of the multinational companies; not just the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada but its real master, its real owners, the pharmaceutical manufacturers in the United States. The results of this type of pressure and this type of wheeling and

November 20, 1986
Patent Act
dealing behind closed doors had predictable results. The multinational corporations got what they wanted.
In the original Bill, which was to be introduced before the summer recess by the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, multinational corporations would have had the exclusive right to produce and sell drugs they had developed for eight years to 10 years, an increase over the four years to six years provided by the present law.
Under the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the penalty clause has been softened to make losing exclusivity on one drug and one other from one drug and all others. The import restrictions have been lifted on the import of active independents rather than the manufacture of them in Canada. The cost provisions to be reported to the Prices Review Board were changed and the process made easier.
We know what will happen when this Bill is passed because we know what occurred previous to 1969 when we passed the legislation under which the manufacture and sale of prescription drugs has since operated. The companies will set the prices by what the market will bear. There will be no competition for at least 10 years. We know from experience that the people of Canada will suffer tremendously.
In the proposed Bill there are no cost estimates beyond the Minister's statement that there would be not one cent more in additional prices. The only person who believes that is the Minister himself. Yesterday and today the Minister charged that quotations which the CBC program The Journal put in the mouth of Dr. Eastman were taken out of context and that Dr. Eastman had agreed with him that there would be no extra cost. Today, an article in the Toronto Star quotes Dr. Eastman as saying that the price level of new drugs would be higher under the Bill than if there were no legislation.
I called Dr. Eastman last night and asked him if in fact he had been misquoted or misrepresented on the CBC program. I asked him if he believed that prices would not be higher after this Bill had passed. Dr. Eastman pointed out a very obvious fact. Under the present system a company which develops a drug has at least four years, and according to the Minister this works out to an average of 10 and a half years, in which it has the exclusive right to sell the prescription drug. After this Bill is passed the four years provided by the present system will grow to 10 years. The multinational corporations which develop the new drugs will have an extra six years to sell the drugs, and in this time generic companies will not be able to get licences to produce the drugs and will not be able to bring down prices as they have up until now.
Let me give Hon. Members and the Minister some examples of how the system works right now. I will deal with two or three prescription drugs which are used very frequently. Valium is probably the most widely used prescription drug in Canada and virtually every other country. In Winnipeg the retail price for 100 tablets of the brand-name prescription drug
is $15.10. For the generic equivalent, the retail price is $5.64. Let us deal with the drug Tagamet which is now very widely used by people who suffer from ulcers. One hundred tablets of brand-name Tagamet costs $39.38 in Winnipeg. For the generic equivalent, the cost is $15.34.
For one of the newest antibiotics, Amoxicillin, the brand-name drug costs $18.25 while the generic equivalent costs $9.25.
Under the present system, because of the wide use of generic equivalents for the most prescribed drugs, consumers pay half or less than half the cost of the brand-name drug for prescriptions. That is the system which the Minister is proposing to virtually destroy.
The Minister has said that not only will the cost of present-day drugs not rise, but the cost of drugs manufactured in the future will not rise. He is certainly alone in that view. Clayton Yeutter, the chief trade negotiator for the United States, said in an interview by the CBC after he made a speech in Chicago on September 30 the following:
It may raise prices at the retail level of some of these products. If you're going to have low retail prices based on piracy that is not a sound way to run a country.
I would like to hear the Minister tell senior citizens and young families with children who get sick and need prescription drugs whether he agrees with Mr. Yeutter, that the system we have had which has saved them money is based on piracy and we must get rid of it. Even the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs knew better and was more forthright than this Minister. He said-


John Horton McDermid: One man's opinion.


David Orlikow: The Hon. Member says that that is one man's opinion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Minister's.


David Orlikow: It was the then Minister's opinion. On June 27, 1986, he said that it was their estimate that the total cost to provincial treasuries resulting from the delay in the introduction of generic drugs would not exceed $100 million by 1990. If there is to be no increase in costs, why did the former Minister agree, as has the present Minister, that he would pay the provinces this $100 million. It is obviously because they know that there will be increased costs.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), and other Hon. Members have called on the Government, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) to make public the studies they have in their possession, studies which tell the real story about what the increased costs will be.
I would ask the Minister to tell Hon. Members and Canadians why the Government has refused to make those documents and studies public. We have every right to assume that the reason they will not make those documents public is that the
November 20, 1986

documents would tell Canadians that there will be very sharp increases in the cost of prescription drugs after the Bill is passed.
We could not obtain those figures. However, other people have looked into the matter. The Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association, an association of generic companies, commissioned a study. It was not done by some fly-by-night group, by some wild-eyed radical or by some know-nothing. The Minister tried to indicate that all the people opposing the Bill do not know what they are talking about.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Who did the study?


David Orlikow: The study was conducted by one of the largest, most respected firms of chartered accountants in Canada, Currie, Coopers and Lybrand.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Very reputable.


David Orlikow: Of course they are. That firm has done work for the federal Government and for many provincial Governments.
In the study it was found that without generic competition as a restraining factor on the desire of multinational drug companies to maximize their profits, prices would increase quickly for new drugs. It was estimated that by 1995 Canadians would be paying $650 million more than they are now paying. The total would be $4.73 billion over a 10-year period. Let us compare that cost with the claim-and I emphasize the word "claim"-by the Minister and the Government that multinational drug companies would invest $1.4 billion in that period of time if the Bill were passed. For every dollar multinational drug companies might invest, Canadians will pay $4.
I think we have every right to question the claim that the companies will invest that amount of money. Until 1969 companies had patent protection. They had all the patent protection they wanted, all the patent protection they needed. If it is the patent protection they will get under the Bill which will induce them to do research in Canada, why did they not do research in Canada when they had prior patent protection?
The facts are very simple. Multinational drug companies, like other multinational companies in virtually every area of industry, have a very simple policy. They prefer and almost always conduct their research at head office, not in one of their subsidiary companies. We have no right to believe that they will invest the amount of money and produce the kinds of job which the industry and the Government accept without question.
We realize that the study conducted by Currie, Coopers and Lybrand was as a result of an organization being hired to do the study by one of the interested parties which would be very seriously and adversely affected if and when the Bill was passed. We tried to be as certain as we could that the position we were taking was the correct one. Therefore, we took the Currie, Coopers and Lybrand study, which indicated that by
Non-Smokers' Health Act
1995 Canadians would be paying an extra $650 million per year for prescription drugs, to a leading economist in the drug policy field. We cannot give his name because he works for the federal Government. The economist told us that the assumptions and estimates made by Currie, Coopers and Lybrand were conservative on the whole.
Let me return to the fact that we know what will happen because we know what occurred regularly in pre-1969 years. In those years companies were able to set prices at whatever they thought the market would bear. They knew then and they know now that if the Bill passes there will be no competition from generic companies for at least 10 years. There will be no need for them to reduce prices. As I have already indicated, the prices they charge are at least twice and often more than what the generic companies charge. We know that prices will accelerate immediately. In fact it is already happening for new drugs.
Let me look at two new drugs which were introduced in the last six months, Tegison and Carderone. They were introduced at wholesale prices of $150 per hundred for Carderone and $77 for 36 tablets of Tegison. We can compare those prices with the previous wholesale introduction prices of new drugs of between $50 to $70 per hundred tablets.
Drug companies now know they will get away with price increases, since last June is the retroactive date when the Bill will come into effect. It only stands to reason that drug companies will set the highest price possible since the drug will be under price controls thereafter?
Therefore I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the word "they" and by substituting therefor "12 months hence".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will take the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and seconded by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) under reservation and make a ruling at a later time.
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-PUBLIC BILLS   NON-SMOKERS' HEALTH ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood) moved: that Bill C-204, an Act to regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers and to amend the Hazardous Products Act in relation to cigarette advertising, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

November 20, 1986
Non-Smokers' Health Act
She said: Mr. Speaker, today we are looking at historic legislation. For the first time we are examining an extremely important Bill concerning the health of all Canadians. It is akin to a Government bill in its complexity and it is possible thanks only to the reform in our parliamentary rules. The intention of the bill is to establish a smoke free work-place for all employees under federal jurisdiction and to ban the advertising and all promotion of tobacco products. It is as comprehensive a bill as a private Members' Bill can be because a private Member cannot spend money. There cannot be provisions for counter-advertising or for support for substitute crops for tobacco, for example.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) himself has said that a comprehensive approach is needed. I call on the Government today to reflect that concern by supporting Bill C-204. This Bill has a chance to pass under the new rules. It was selected by an all-Party committee as a nonpartisan subject. This all-Party committee on private Members' business was dominated by Conservatives who met, incidentally, in a smoke-filled room. Hon. Members put aside their personal considerations to put a health issue of such national importance to the fore.

The problems of tobacco consumption are well known. Every year, 35,000 Canadians die of diseases related to cigarette smoking-cancer first of all, coronaries and emphysema. And
1,000	of those 35,000 Canadians who die every year are not smokers themselves but the victims of sidestream smoke. There are also non-fatal illnesses. Smokers are ill more often than non-smokers. In a family where one member smokes, the children are twice as likely to be sick and get bronchitis, for instance, as children in families where no one smokes. Tobacco consumption causes very serious problems: death, illness, suffering, disability, decreased productivity and fires.
What can we do about it? The majority of smokers are trying to stop smoking. It is not easy, and it would be better not to start in the first place. That is why we must ban tobacco advertising. Because many Canadians have stopped smoking, especially men, and since 35,000 smokers die every year, the tobacco companies have to recruit new smokers, and unfortunately many of these are women. Advertising campaigns are aimed at young people and women, and take advantage of the insecurity and vulnerability of these two groups.

These campaigns have succeeded magnificently. We have seen a 4 per cent increase in tobacco consumption this year over last year. The advertising campaigns are working. We have a terrible irony that the symbols of emancipation for women are used in these campaigns to induce women to smoke. We will be seeing equal lung cancer death rates for women compared with men long before women achieve equal pay with men.
Society has a stake in the health of its citizens. When a person is ill, absent from work or dies leaving young dependents, society must pay. Society pays for medicare, society pays for dependents, and society pays for pensions. Smokers themselves pay S3 billion a year in taxes but they cost the system $8 billion. The tobacco companies do not have to pay compensation to their victims. I am not suggesting that that is the best route, although lawsuits may have to be the answer if we do not get adequate legislation. When the harm of thalidomide was discovered, the drug was banned. No one would suggest that what we needed was better legislation to enable the victims to sue the companies. The drug was simply banned.
There is no right to advertise any product. In fact, restrictions for advertising apply to all kinds of perfectly legitimate services, lawyer services and drug products. The idea that there is a right to advertise a hazardous product is absolutely preposterous. A hit man cannot advertise his services, a supplier of arms for terrorists cannot advertise, and poisons for bumping off your spouse cannot be advertised.
Freedom of expression in the Charter is for individuals to express views. People are free to argue the merits of smoking but no one is free to advertise a hazardous product. Further, the Charter stipulates exceptions where these are demonstrable in a free and democratic society. Certainly free and democratic societies have banned cigarette smoking. I note that the one that has ban adopted the most stringent, Norway, has seen a significant drop in tobacco consumption, especially among young people.
The statement that advertising will not do everything, will not stop all people from smoking is perfectly correct. If perfection were a criterion for accepting legislation we would not have any bills before this House. Advertising is absolutely essential to the tobacco companies. A ban on advertising is absolutely essential. No campaign of good health put on by the Minister can possibly overcome the insidious campaign of the advertisers to associate a product with life, health, sports, glamour, success and to prey on people's fears. I would advocate a counter-advertising program, but only after a ban on the positive advertising program. The Government cannot put up the money. That would be enormously costly when the tobacco companies are spending $200 million a year to try to meet that.

The impact of this Bill on employment should not be exaggerated. I hope there is a drop in tobacco consumption, but we are not talking about banning tobacco production or the manufacture of cigarettes in Canada. Farmers are already being affected by competition from the Third World, and even if tobacco consumption remains at its present levels, farmers will still be competing with cheap Third World tobacco. So long as we have smokers in Canada, we should not import tobacco or cigarettes, and the manufacturers will survive. The changes in these industries will be gradual. As demand drops, jobs will be lost in the long run. On the other hand, this will mean more jobs in other sectors. People who
November 20, 1986

stop smoking buy other products and other services. They go to the movies and to restaurants, they buy clothes, and so forth. I think rising demand in these sectors will create more employment.

This Bill in action would give employees in the federal workplace the right to a smoke-free work-place for the first time. Employees have been demanding it but without success. Health and Welfare voluntary guidelines have not worked. Putting a sign up to stop the tobacco smoke from circulating does not do it. Specific cases have been taken, but they have not been very successful. They have taken years, as in the case of Mr. Timpauer, or they have been turned down on appeal by the Federal Court of Appeal. It is expensive, time consuming and it is not the way to do it. This is a serious problem and it needs legislation.
I note that in the field of transportation the transportation companies have welcomed regulation from the Government. They find it difficult to adjudicate between smokers and nonsmokers. They want this legislation. My private Members' Bill includes common carriers, the airlines, railway companies, marine transportation and interprovincial buses. They want this regulation as well.
There is a great deal of support for this Bill, Mr. Speaker, from the Canadian Cancer Society, Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada, Non-Smoker's Rights, Nova Scotia Medical Associations, the Canadian Council on Smoking and Health, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, and I expect we will be seeing lots more support come in as Canadians see what are the possibilities.
This Bill could be landmark legislation. It could be the first Bill passed under the new reformed House rules, and it certainly could be the first comprehensive law dealing with Canada's preventable health problems. I call on all Members of the House on both sides to give employees under federal jurisdiction the right to a clean, safe, disease-free working environment. I call Hon. Members in all three Parties to promote the health of children, to stop the sophisticated marketeers, these pushers in pin-stripes, as the doctors have called them, from using the allures of their trade to attract children into a habit that they will regret. I call on all Hon. Members to put aside all partisan considerations and support a Bill that will give employees the right to a clean environment and will give children the protection that they need to grow up safely.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to comment on Bill C-204 introduced by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). This measure is aimed at several objectives, including restricted smoking in the workplace, a ban on tobacco advertising, and restricted sales of tobacco products. My intention today is not to deal
Non-Smokers' Health Act
with every single sector which might be affected by this piece of legislation. Instead I will concentrate my remarks on its consequences in the workplace.
Mr. Speaker, there is already in place a mechanism to deal with the problem of workers' health and safety, and I am referring to the joint committees on health and safety.
At the local level, health and safety committees are the ideal means to tackle the complex issues related to the safety and health of workers, so we should not take any initiative likely to undermine their efforts. As it happens, that would be the ultimate result of Bill C-204. An explanation is in order, Mr. Speaker.
As all my colleagues already know, employers and employees under federal jurisdiction are governed by the provisions of the Canada Labour Code and its attendant regulations. Labour Code Part IV covers employment health and safety. It applies to every workplace referred to in the legislation now before us, including the federal Public Service, the airlines, the banks, the postal service, radio and TV stations, the railways, the grain elevators and some Crown corporations.
The primary purpose of Part IV of the Code is to prevent employment accidents, injuries and illnesses in the carrying out of duties covered by the Code or arising from or connected to them. To that end, it requires employers to protect adequately the safety and health of their employees. Part IV of the Code also empowers the Governor in Council to enact regulations for the safety and health of workers. It is within that mandate that the Canada Regulations on safety and health in the workplace have been established.
Those 18-part regulations establish the standards for everything that concerns the safety and health of workers, from hygiene measures to boilers. Part X of the Regulations deals with dangerous substances and is of particular significance to the debate. It sets up the procedure for investigations, even when there is only a possibility that the safety and health of workers might be endangered. Limits are indicated for the permissible exposure to dangerous substances. It is recognized that the exposure to dangerous substances must be limited as much as possible by technical means.
Mr. Speaker, Labour Canada is responsible for recommending safety and health regulations to the Governor in Council and for enforcing the regulations as authorized by the Governor in Council. However, the Code recognizes the very important role played by employers and employees alike in eliminating as much as possible the existing hazards in the workplace.
The Code makes it mandatory for employers with twenty employees or more to establish a safety and health committee made up of an equal number of management and labour representatives. Small businesses with fewer than five employees may select one worker as a safety and health representative, instead of setting up a committee. It is Labour Canada's sincere hope that those safety and health committees

November 20, 1986
Non-Smokers' Health Act
will strongly support our efforts to reduce worker exposure to dangerous substances. Those committees are the cornerstone of Labour Canada's policy of internal responsibility, under which workers and management should find mutually acceptable solutions to problems in the workplace.
Whenever parties cannot reach a satisfactory resolution of a specific problem, an inspector from Labour Canada may be called in. This in my view is the most reasonable and economical way of ensuring safety and health in the workplace. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are already in effect in Canada a whole set of regulations aimed at protecting worker health and safety. There is also an excellent mechanism giving workers all the protection they are entitled to under the Act.
Let us now turn to the very issue of tobacco smoke in the workplace. This is an extremely complex issue. It is not just the case of an employer using a dangerous substance in his manufacturing process or of a manufacturing process emitting a dangerous substance against which workers should be well protected. Both the employers and the employees do smoke.
Bosses as well as workers are affected by secondary smoking. It is therefore not, Mr. Speaker, a matter of employer versus employees. It is not a technical problem either, and it is therefore not appropriate to look for a technical solution. According to the experts of the Occupational Safety and Health Branch of Labour Canada, trying to determine maximum levels of secondary smoking by measuring the concentration of some component or other might be very tricky. That approach is not recommended.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, I doubt that we could have a smoke free environment just by imposing a regulation banning smoking, unless it were to be strictly and firmly enforced, particularly in federally regulated workplaces with a lot of public traffic. I am thinking of airports, stations, and the rest, where a whole army of inspectors would have to be hired to enforce the ban on smoking, and where the regulation would involve a lot of red tape. Surely this is not what the people of Canada want.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to give the impression that I think smoking is a harmless habit. There is irrefutable evidence that the smoker's health is affected. I also firmly believe that more and more Canadian citizens object to breathing an air which is polluted by other people's smoke. More and more of them are concerned and displeased with that situation.
While I sympathize with them, I do not think it advisable to regulate further. The solution does not lie in greater Government interference in the day to day lives of Canadians.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the answer must come from those directly affected, that is from the workers and the employers. That way it would be possible to find solutions suitable for each work environment.
Moreover, a local solution, devised by those most directly concerned by the problem, would be more likely to be favorably accepted than a solution imposed by a faceless bureaucracy in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that this complex social problem must be solved on a voluntary basis, in a spirit of cooperation, by employers and employees.
It is my opinion that the problem of smoking in the workplace must be considered through health and safety committees, and this is precisely what Labour Canada is trying to do.
As I said earlier, we should not pass a measure which would in any way undermine the role of health and safety committees, even on a narrow question like this one.

Mir. Sergio March! (York West): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to address Bill C-204 presented by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald). Essentially the Bill would regulate smoking in the federal workplace and on common carriers, as well as amend the Hazardous Products Act with regard to cigarette advertising. The Bill is timely and represents a concerted effort to try and come to grips with the problem of smoking in our society in those areas under federal jurisdiction.
The Hon. Member who just spoke essentially characterized the legislation as interventionist. He seemed to support a voluntary approach. With all due respect, that is a cop-out. It is the same as saying inaction is preferred over action.
In the 10 minutes that I am allotted this afternoon I would like to go into what the Bill purports to do and give you some statistics which would perhaps serve to disprove the theory that this legislation is interventionist. First, the Bill would mean that employers under federal jurisdiction have to provide a smoke-free environment. What is wrong with that? It would provide for designated smoking rooms for those individuals who do not smoke, who happen to be a majority in this country. It would also mean that there would be no smoking in common carriers under federal jurisdiction.
In the last week the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) suggested that as a start there should be no smoking on flights of less than two hours duration. Smoking is a health hazard in airplanes because of the compressed air, and is also a hazard to the aircraft itself. I think it will be only a matter of time before smoking is entirely eliminated on airplanes. We are also considering this option for ships, trains, and public transport road vehicles.
This Bill would change the Hazardous Products Act to ban the promotion and advertising of tobacco products although allowing the sale of them. The Bill is saying that those who choose to smoke know the risk and are responsible for their decision. However, it is completely absurd to try to promote smoking as a healthy and fun life style. That is misleading and
November 20, 1986

erroneous. It is particularly harmful to address such campaigns to younger people. We must eliminate that.
Statistics indicate that two-thirds of Canadians are nonsmokers. Many companies and institutions are already developing non-smoking policies and designating smoking and non-smoking areas. Approximately 30 major municipalities across the country have already instituted non-smoking bylaws. Rather than breaking new ground, the federal Government would be showing leadership, which has already been shown in the private sector and at other levels of Government. The federal Government would be saying that it will do what it can to undermine the present pro-smoking campaign which is hazardous to health.
Let us look at the effects of smoking. This Bill is not interventionist and does not trample on the rights of individuals. The statistics fly in the face of any such argument. Statistics show that smoking is the greatest cause of preventable death. Smoking accounts for almost 20 per cent of Canadian deaths, killing more Canadians than alcohol, car accidents, violence, drugs, suicide and poisoning combined. Smoking kills 32,000 Canadians every year. Four million Canadians will die from the effects of tobacco products. Each smoker will die, on average, eight years prematurely.
There is a growing awareness of the dangers of second-hand smoke. A recent Health and Welfare study found that one in five Canadians has a serious medical condition which is aggravated by second-hand smoke. One need only speak to people who have asthma, emphasema or heart disease to substantiate that. Health and Welfare also estimated that 1,050 non-smoking Canadians will die from lung cancer, perhaps one-half from second-hand smoke.
With regard to the economic costs of smoking, Health and Welfare Canada estimated that the cost associated with smoking is twice as much as the revenue from tobacco taxation. The Health and Welfare study pointed out that the economic costs of tobacco use in terms of mortality, disability, fire damage, direct hospitalization and physicians fees is $7.12 billion versus only $4.2 billion in economic revenue from the tobacco industry.
Therefore, by debating this kind of legislation we are not trampling on people's rights or trying to legislate people's lives. We are trying to address the case of the majority. Two-thirds of Canadians do not smoke. They are dying along with the people who smoke. We are only trying to minimize the effects of smoking on both smokers and non-smokers. I do not think any Canadian would object to that as long as the legislation allows those who wish to smoke to do so. No one is trying to remove that right from those individuals. After all, we live in a free society.
We are trying to do two things. We are trying to protect those who do not wish to smoke and who do not wish to be affected negatively by second-hand smoke. Second, we are trying to educate the Canadian public about the many statistics which indicate that smoking is a hazard. The
Non-Smokers' Health Act
Government has an obligation to instruct Canadians, particularly our youth, that smoking is not healthy and does not represent the "in" lifestyle which the advertising companies would have us believe it does.
We on this side of the House welcome this legislation. We welcome the opportunity to try to address this problem in the federal sphere. If municipal Governments and private companies can initiate non-smoking by-laws, why is the federal Government not taking that kind of leadership in the areas under its jurisdiction? If we are serious and responsible we will not allow this legislation to become inactive and say that we must strike a voluntary chord. Statistics show that voluntary chords do not work in this matter. I hope my colleagues on all sides of the House will co-operate on this. Let us allow this Bill to go to committee where we can hear from witnesses, on both sides of the issue, from the entire country. When the evidence is in, I think it will support this legislation.


John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my comments on this Bill. I commend the Member for introducing it. The Member has done us a great service. I agree with the thrust of the Bill. The Member reminded us that the reform of the rules of this House make it possible for us to vote to send this Bill to committee. The Bill would then return to the House for two or three hours of debate and then be voted upon to determine whether it will be adopted. That is a very important reform procedure.
I am a member of the committee dealing with private Members Bills. I am pleased that in this session some Bills will go through the whole process and come to a vote. I am particularly pleased that this is one of those Bills, because I heartily support it. While there are a few minor concerns, they can be addressed in committee and I encourage the passage of this Bill.
Cigarette smoking represents the most important cause of preventable illness and death in Canada and results in over
30,000	deaths annually in this country. Of 180,000 deaths in Canada, one-sixth were related to this one preventable cause. I believe this Bill is important, because if we can begin to show some progress in reducing smoking we will be saving the lives of some Canadians, improving their productivity and saving on many related costs. This Bill will help us to begin making progress in dealing with a preventable cause of death and illness in Canada.
I recently talked to a physician who works in the area of cancer research. He is a chairman of a committee at the University of Ottawa that is studying cancer research. He told me that 92 per cent of the people who enter hospital with lung cancer will be taken out in a coffin. That is an alarming statistic and if this Bill can in any way address that problem we will be showing tremendous progress.
The statistics on smoking in Canada show that there is a very serious health problem, and also suggest some disturbing

November 20, 1986
Non-Smokers' Health Act
trends. Currently, Canada has one of the highest rates of per capita cigarette consumption in the industrialized world. Approximately 36 per cent of Canadians aged 15 and over are smokers. While the proportion of smokers has been slowly decreasing, the latest poll shows that the number of young Canadian women who smoke is sharply increasing. For example, the proportion of young women smokers aged 20 to 29 has increased from 36 per cent in 1983 to 45 per cent in 1986. Moreover, there is a rising prevalence of smoking among the very young teenagers. The recent over-all decline in smoking may be offset in the near future by current increases in the number of young smokers.
Canadians are increasingly voicing their concerns over the effects of smoking. They seem to be especially concerned with issues of tobacco advertising and smoking in public places. I agree with those concerns. I agree with their view that tobacco advertising misleads consumers and attempts to recruit new smokers among Canadian youth.
I was a teacher of health and physical education for four years in a high school in Kitchener. We dealt with this topic in our health courses and I found it alarming that, while we could do the best we could in presenting all the facts, we knew there would be certain children within those classes who would end up smoking, no matter what the information. It is alarming because the whole purpose of school is to provide information and allow people to make intelligent choices. Unfortunately, the children would not always listen to the facts.
Canadians are demanding protection from involuntary exposure to smoke as they become better informed about the serious health hazards of second-hand smoke, which contains over 60 poisons.
I commend the Government for its actions and I commend the actions of Air Canada in at least eliminating smoking on aircraft in the triangle between Ottawa, Toronto, and Montreal. I encourage the important recent step announced by Transport Canada to experiment with banning smoking on flights lasting up to two hours. When I am on an airplane on a longer flight I find that after three hours I may as well begin smoking myself, because I am inhaling just as much as the person who is smoking two rows behind me. When I leave the airplane at the end of the flight my eyes are watering and my lungs are full of smoke. I resent that. I am glad that the Government is beginning to react so that we are at least seeing some progress. This Bill will help us go further.
The public became more aware about the issue of tobacco advertising when the RJR-Macdonald Tobacco Company sponsored the Canadian Ski Association in 1983. At that time there was a public outcry over the fact that amateur sport was being used as a vehicle to promote tobacco products. In response, the federal Government enacted a policy in January, 1985 which required all amateur sport bodies funded by the federal Government to desist from any new or renewed tobacco sponsorship contracts. Such an approach means that we are at least beginning to attack the problem on many different fronts.
Although the RJR-Macdonald Tobacco Company recently announced that, due to poor sales, Tempo cigarettes will no longer be sold, the ad campaign for this cigarette also raised public concern about current tobacco marketing practices. Many Canadians felt that the campaign was directed at recruiting new smokers among Canadian youth, in contravention of the tobacco manufacturers' voluntary tobacco advertising and promotion code. This is, of course, a tempting marketing strategy, given the fact that smoking habits are established before the age of 20.
The Non-Smokers Rights Association has also documented numerous other violations of the manufacturers' code, including the practice of advertising tobacco products on billboards and store posters within 200 metres of school property. I want to call to the attention of the House a full page advertisement that appeared in a local newspaper in my riding. This ad, which appeared in papers across Canada, encourages people to write to their Member of Parliament. It states: "Tell your Member of Parliament there is no freedom of choice when a product is addictive. Tell him it is time to stop kids from beginning an addictive, killing practice." That is a good advertisement and I welcome every letter I receive about it. I welcome this Bill because it will help us begin to deal with the problem. These activities by different groups across the country are beginning to have an effect.
The new 15 cigarette Export A pack has also been a worrisome tobacco marketing practice since the low price makes the product more accessible to youth. Unfortunately, in a declining tobacco market more of these questionable advertising and promotion campaigns can be expected. Therefore, I am pleased to support the Bill before us today.
Advertising and promoting such a hazardous product has for some time been a source of concern. Advertising associates tobacco products with healthy, exciting, and glamorous lifestyles, increases the acceptability of tobacco products among young people, and generally legitimizes tobacco use. We have seen very colourful and attractive full page advertisements in magazines. The companies would not invest their money in such ads if they did not work.
A number of Canadian magazines and newspapers, including the Kingston Whig-Standard, the Brockville Recorder and Times, and The Globe and Mail, are now refusing to accept tobacco advertising because they believe it is unethical to advertise a product that is so clearly hazardous and addictive. I commend them for that action.
Although voluntary undertakings by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council have proven useful in partially restricting tobacco advertising, in ensuring that health warnings appear on packages and in lowering tar and carbon monoxide levels in cigarettes, as code violations show, this selfregulation approach has its limitations. Without any built-in compliance processes, manufacturers are not obliged to follow their own code. I commend the Hon. Member for attempting to address that in introducing her Bill.
November 20, 1986

In conclusion, let me say that I find it remarkable that research indicates that by banning smoking on the job, not only are health hazards avoided but $5,000 per employee can be saved within three to five years of implementing such a policy. The savings to employers come from lower accident and fire insurance premiums, reduced routine maintenance costs, reduced absenteeism and lower mortality rates among employees. Surveys show that smokers take 50 per cent more sick leave than non-smokers. Mortality rates for smokers in the peak working years of age 30 to 35 are four to seven times higher than that for non-smokers. These are alarming statistics. That is why I feel this action is so needed.
The Government has begun to take some action on this issue and we have before us another Bill along the same line. Whether the spokesperson is from the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party is not the issue. The issue is that this House as a result of the reforms can finally come to grips with something. We can leave our Party labels aside and start to address an issue, as our electors sent us here to do. 1 commend the Hon. Member for her Bill and hope it ends up being passed.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address the problems and benefits associated with applying a law such as Bill C-204 to means of transport and transportation terminals, especially where such facilities are also workplaces. The proposed legislation seeks to accommodate within reason both smokers and non-smokers who are employees in the federal Public Service as well as users of federally regulated means of transport.
In the transportation sector, as in other sectors, employees providing a direct service to the public share their workplace with the public, and in locations such as large airport terminals and railway stations, with private users of the facility such as restaurateurs, shopkeepers, advertisers, repairmen and, of course, passengers, none of whom may be subject to federal regulation. In these circumstances, it is hard to see how legislation such as Bill C-204 could be successfully enforced.


Lynn McDonald: They all need to breathe.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Furthermore, a brief review of attempts to create a smoke-free environment in the transportation sector suggests that legislation might not be required and might, in some cases, prove to be counter-productive.
In 1984, Transport Canada and Health and Welfare Canada examined the issue of smoking in transit, in consultation, of course, with the provinces, the carriers and public interest groups. The consensus appeared to be that while legislative restrictions might be desirable, they should be examined from a practical point of view. Since then a number of initiatives have been investigated and I shall deal with them individually.
Non-Smokers' Health Act
At the beginning of September, VIA Rail introduced nonsmoking facilities in all except four of the corridor services. Each train now has one car for the exclusive use of nonsmokers-


Lynn McDonald: And no space at the stations.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: -and the remaining cars will have 70 per cent non-smoking and 30 per cent smoking areas. These percentages represent the demands and preferences for seats-


Lynn McDonald: It is not non-smoking if you are in the same enclosed space.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: -by VIA Rail's customers as shown in their reservation patterns. Computer services are not, of course, a federal responsibility. However, it is worth noting that in Toronto, a smoke ban on all rolling stock has existed for 20 years. This year it was extended to include smoking in all enclosures and bus shelters. In Montreal smoking is banned on all rolling stock but not in shelters or on platforms.
Intercity bus service also falls under provincial jurisdiction, but federal-provincial negotiations are now taking place for the implementation of non-smoking services. The question of enforcement presents some problems which are now being discussed. However, some large bus companies have already undertaken some initiatives, including provision of completely non-smoking buses. Generally, surface carriers are very supportive and active with respect to providing non-smoking facilities. They are responding to the new trends and demands for non-smoking services which now exist in their respective markets-


Lynn McDonald: But far too slowly.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: -as a simple matter of business planning and strategic marketing devices.
In view of the efforts already undertaken by these carriers, a major federal policy initiative or statement would likely be considered by the operators as unnecessary-


Lynn McDonald: Talk to the customers who are suffering in smoke-filled areas.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: -and given the lack of federal jurisdiction in most surface areas, might dampen or even diminish the current atmosphere of co-operation.


John Edmund Parry: Surely you jest.


Lynn McDonald: Co-operation? It's a question of health.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: As far as aeroplanes are concerned, I think everyone is familiar-


Lynn McDonald: You want to co-operate with lung cancer?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.

November 20, 1986
Non-Smokers' Health Act


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I listened to you, perhaps you can give me the same courtesy.


Lynn McDonald: You are talking total nonsense-total nonsense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Could we have the courtesy of listening to the Hon. Member's speech.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As far as aeroplanes are concerned, I think everyone is familiar with the success of Air Canada's pilot project banning smoking on flights of two hours or less in the Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa corridor. On November 17, 1986, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) announced proposed regulations to ban smoking on all flights of two hours or less in Canadian commercial aircraft. The Minister will recommend to the Governor in Council that the new air regulation, which proposes to ban smoking on Canadian aircraft for both domestic and transborder flights of two hours or less, be published in Part I of the Canada Gazette to solicit public comment before a final decision is taken early in 1987. The new regulation would require Canadian air carriers to post signs prohibiting smoking on such flights and that crew members may request any passenger who is smoking to stop. If a passenger does not stop smoking on request, the air carrier, under the regulations, would be required to have the passenger removed; of course, at the next available stop.


John Edmund Parry: Preferably before.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Flight crew members on the flight deck would be exempted from the smoking ban. Currently there is no legislation in effect in Canada which requires air carriers to provide non-smoking areas in aircraft.


Lynn McDonald: That's the point of this Bill.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Most of them do so on a voluntary basis.


Lynn McDonald: Its not non-smoking if you are in the same enclosed space.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: In the marine mode, there appears to be less need for regulatory measures to afford passengers reasonable freedom from tobacco smoke because of the larger area and mobility available to them which offers more scope for avoiding tobacco fumes.


Lynn McDonald: So non-smokers have to go outside.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: One measure taken earlier this year has been to place "no smoking" signs in ferry cafeterias and restrooms. Operators of some ferries have also considered establishing specific smoking areas, but only one ferry has such an area to date.
In addition to ferries, Transport Canada is currently considering possible initiatives in facilities serving the marine sector such as cruise ship terminals at Halifax, Montreal and Vancouver.
The Coast Guard fleet on the other hand, raises more complex issues. It might be reasonable on the part of the federal Government to require that employees refrain from smoking during normal working hours in buildings and workshops, since they are free to smoke as much as they wish once they leave the public facilities. The majority of the Coast Guard fleet, however, spend more time at sea than alongside and it would be unrealistic to anticipate a total ban on smoking aboard Coast Guard vessels. The crew are "at home" when they are not on duty and are entitled to the same liberty on their own time as are land-based employees.


Lynn McDonald: And those who don't smoke are entitled to a smoke-free environment.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: With regard to tranport terminals, in 1982 Transport Canada introduced restrictions on the smoking of tobacco products within federally owned and operated air passenger terminals. However, this is a complex issue which, in the case of airports and large railway stations-


Lynn McDonald: They all stink!
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Gerin), on a point of order.


Mr. Gerin:: Mr. Speaker, you called for order a while ago, but the Hon. Member for the New Democratic Party who moved the motion, the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) who is right next to the Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) who is speaking, is constantly interrupting and making it very difficult for us to follow the speech. I believe this interferes with my rights and privileges as a Member of this House which include being able to listen to the Member, who is making a very interesting speech, without having to put up with uncalled for interruptions by the other Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The reason we are experiencing a bit of a problem is that there is obviously a Member who is doing some heckling, which is not more than Members do generally, except that the microphone very close to her is open.
I would ask the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) to conclude her speech as she has approximately one minute left.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, while it is clear that tobacco smoke can be a serious source of annoyance and discomfort to non-smokers, as well as a health hazard to some, legislation of the kind proposed-


Lynn McDonald: Some 35,000 people die every year.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Would you please give me the courtesy of letting me conclude?
November 20, 1986


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the Hon. Member for Calgary South a minute in which to complete her speech.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, in conclusion, while it is clear that tobacco smoke can be a serious source of annoyance and physical discomfort to nonsmokers, as well as a health hazard to some, the legislation of the kind proposed in Bill C-204 is premature. Self-regulation and voluntary imposition of restrictions have so far proved to be an effective means of accommodating both smokers and non-smokers. Legislation would probably diminish the atmosphere of mutual respect within which these initiatives are now being adopted.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I rise today with some pleasure in taking the opportunity of addressing the very important motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald), but also with great sorrow that there is even the necessity to debate in the Chamber measures aimed at eliminating a murderous and totally irresponsible habit that claims the lives of some
35,000	to 40,000 Canadians yearly.
I was amazed at the speech delivered by the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow). I could not believe my ears. Had the rules permitted the opportunity to ask questions of that Hon. Member I would have asked if she had composed the speech she read. If she had I would be doubly horrified. If it was simply a pre-packaged speech that the Government Members' services bureau provides for its acolytes, then I have to say that those who put it together literally exhibited-and I am fully conscious of the pun-a breath-taking degree of irresponsibility in regard to this particular question.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) has imputed motives to the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow). She is quite capable of writing her own speeches. There is no sense or reason for the Hon. Member to impute motives, to the effect that someone else wrote her speech. I think he should withdraw his imputation.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Perhaps the speaker from the New Democratic Party who has the floor was imputing a motive; but perhaps he was doing it inadvertently. The Chair might want to give him the opportunity to retract his statement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have listened to the representations of the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) and the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). I am not convinced beyond a doubt that the Hon. Member was in fact imputing motives. Therefore, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) has the floor.
Non-Smokers' Health Act


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, in fact, I was about to rise on the same point of order. With Your Honour's permission I would like to respond to it before returning to debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am willing to allow the Hon. Member to respond to the point of order before resuming his speech, but I have made a ruling. According to the Chair the Hon. Member was not imputing motives. However, the Hon. Member may well want to comment on my decision. I would certainly be willing to allow him to do that.


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, in deference to your ruling, I will simply continue with my speech and say, as I was saying before I was interrupted, that in my opinion the grouping of the legislative measures that is countenanced by this Bill is a sensible one, and I think a good first step in the ultimate objective which must, of course, be the elimination of the use of tobacco products from the Canadian scene.
The Bill looks at directing the federal Government to ban completely the promotion and advertisement of cigarettes. It guarantees workers under federal jurisdiction the right to a smoke-free environment. It provides Canadians travelling on common carriers the right to do so without breathing cigarette smoke.
Two of the speeches made this afternoon with respect to the Bill were obviously opposed to the spirit of it. I would like to comment briefly on those two speeches.
The Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine) referred to this measure in the context of ensuring a smoke-free environment in the federal workplace as an intervention. So it is. Let us face it, by our very presence in this House we are intervenors individually and collectively. We have no other purpose in this House but to intervene in order to ensure that that which we as legislators desire takes place. I would say that is on the same level as accusing a midwife or a gynaecologist of intervening in a birth. It is on the same level as accusing a policeman who prevents a crime of intervening in the commission of a crime. So much for interventions!
What we are looking for here is legislation aimed at saving lives. Frankly, I was amazed to hear the words of the Hon. Member for Calgary South, whom I understand, and I hope she will correct me if I am wrong, was at one time a nurse. She must have been spared the horror of seeing people die in agony, wracked by cancer, if she could make the remarks she made. I must also say that for her to express such a disdain for legislation fundamentally denies the very purpose for which she was elected to serve the riding of Calgary South. What do we come here for if not to legislate?
I have to thank very much my friend, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), for his intelligent and well-argued intervention in favour of the Bill. I believe it takes courage for a Member whose riding is so close to a tobacco-growing area to stand in the House and so firmly nail his flag to the mast of health protection and health promotion, as he did.

November 20, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Before any Member opposite begins to think that mine is a partisan speech, I wish to say that I condemn my own Party, too, for its failure to act on the question of health promotion through the prevention of smoking. I condemn a Party that appoints a self-confessed, acknowledged smoker as its health critic. I have to say that I condemn, too, the provincial wing of my Party which prevented the discussion of an anti-smoking resolution at the recent provincial convention. If, after that, any Member cares to interpret my remarks as being partisan, let the Member do so.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak again on the subject of official languages. To me it is an important subject, and it seems to be important to the Government. In fact, the Government included a number of promises concerning official languages in the last two Speeches from the Throne.
The Minister has assured me in the House that his Government had no intention of relaxing its efforts to strengthen the francophone presence in the Canadian public service. The Minister's statement would seem to be consistent with the policies announced by the Conservative Government in the last two Speeches from the Throne. However, the real situation is not at all consistent with these objectives. Indeed, the Commissioner of Official Languages said as much in his annual report. He expressed his concern about the position of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on official languages. As we know, the RCMP has announced that it intends to reduce the percentage of Francophones within the force from 20 per cent to 14 per cent. Even worse, it intends to change the classifications of bilingual positions, and I will get back to this later on. Once again, we see that the Conservative Government promises one thing and does the exact opposite.
Meanwhile, there are new developments, life goes on and the Government has once again failed to act responsibly, as I said before, because up to now it has consistently failed to take a clear and unequivocal position on reinforcing policy on official languages programs. This means that managers just have to do the best they can with the few resources they have, because the people in charge, the Government, are shirking their responsibilities.
The effects of this lack of Government leadership are disastrous. No coordinated efforts can be made, and in some cases, we are unfortunately seeing a reduction in services to Francophones. That is already the case with the RCMP, which
has announced it will reduce the number of francophone constables in the force from 20 to 14 per cent. The Minister however, in one of his answers to me in the House, stated that this was just something being discussed by a few officials and that no decision had been made.
I have referred to a document of the highest level between the RCMP commissioner and the Treasury Board officials then responsible for implementing the official languages policy, and this document clearly states that there has been an agreement in principle. The Minister rejected this offhandedly by saying that no agreement had been made, that these were only discussions between officials and that he himself had agreed to nothing. This truly shows that the lack of action of the Minister has had negative results. If the Minister is right in saying that no relaxing of the policy will be tolerated, he is nevertheless guilty of letting his officials waste some precious time by negotiating among themselves to conclude unworkable agreements.
Mr. Speaker, if the agreement in principle is implemented as anticipated in the documents which we have obtained, the Minister will have to apologize for having misled the House. Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what is happening now in my opinion. After the Minister stated several times in this House that he would not tolerate any reductions from the levels provided in the official languages policy, we are seeing movements everywhere to reduce these levels. An editorial in the newspaper Le Droit of November 18 said, and I am not the one to say so, that the French language has lost a lot of ground in the RCMP since a Conservative Goverment has been in power in Ottawa. Not only have hiring standards been changed, but the whole bilingual staffing sector will be turned upside down. All this is confirmed by an internal document of the RCMP of which I have a copy. After reading this document, the Le Droit reporter noted that the obvious objective of the management of our federal police force is to require a sufficient knowledge of both official languages of Canada only on rare occasions, so rare in fact that the Commissioner has just conferred upon himself the exclusive power to approve "the unit bilingual complements with Level C profiles".
The Commissioner feels that the B level profile would be enough for the RCMP. I do not agree, Mr. Speaker, and although the RCMP is to be blamed, final responsibility for those unfortunate decisions rests with the Minister himself, and the Treasury Board among others. Since the Tories came to power, they have allowed the situation to deteriorate by doing nothing, showing no leadership. The Minister in charge, the President of the Treasury Board, has stated in this House that he would not back out of his objective to strengthen the French-speaking presence. But apart from his rhetoric, he has done nothing, Mr. Speaker. The Minister and the Government are responsible for that situation. They have failed to show any leadership. Nothing is being done, and when nothing is being done there is no progress. This is why I feel the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary should tell me why this Government does not act, take concrete steps, translate its rhetoric into actions.
November 20, 1986

Mir. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) speak in such a demanding tone. One would think there was an election on. We are reminded of his usual speeches, except that, first, Mr. Speaker, I rise at the request of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret). I will not speak in English, whatever the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) might think in that respect.
One thing is sure, Mr. Speaker. With the experience gained by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier over these last few years in this House, he should know that regulations have to go before the Treasury Board. The decision is made by the President of the Treasury Board. We receive a great many reports.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier stated earlier that there were internal reports saying this or that. We know very well that a great many reports are received by the Department every day, whether under the Liberals or the Conservatives. Mr. Speaker, I wish the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier would stop looking at this issue through his political glasses; he ought to face facts and focus on the way the law is being applied.
The law states that, with respect to the official languages, it is up to the President of the Treasury Board to decide what is good and what is not good. When the President of the Treasury Board rose in the House to respond to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier he made it quite clear that he did not agree with the document which had been submitted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If he does not agree, Mr. Speaker, it means that the RCMP document is not good enough for him. I think respect ought to be shown for minimum standards. We respect the Constitution, and we respect the very principle of bilingualism in Canada. As a longstanding and strong proponent of bilingualism, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier should rise and thank the President of the Treasury Board for doing the utmost to support and promote bilingualism.
But you know, Mr. Speaker, we cannot do everything overnight. We simply could not have tackled every single issue after only two years in office. So when I listen to my colleagues across the aisle, they were there for 20 years, I have serious reservations about their integrity with respect to responsibilities. They had 20 years to raise standards and strengthen policies, but today we can see that they did not accomplish anything over 20 years and it is now up to us as a responsible Government to do something about improving French, and promoting bilingualism throughout Canada.
Adjournment Debate
[DOT]	0805)


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT-DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURES. (B) REGIONAL DISPARITIES-REQUEST FOR NEW POLICY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week I directed a question to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) regarding comments made by Canada's chief negotiator in the bilateral trade negotiations with the United States. Mr. Reisman said that Canada could no longer expect to continue its practice of subsidizing industry if it wanted to escape the effects of American trade laws.
I posed that question to the Minister because I believe the answer to it is germane in terms of national policies which must be instituted to provide economic viability and opportunities to some regions of the country. Unfortunately-and I say so sincerely-the Minister chose not to answer the question. In fact, my disappointment was even greater because on subsequent days I had hoped to question the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney). However, due to previous commitments she was not in the House to receive my question.
It is fundamental that Canadians know and understand the effects of what the chief negotiator for Canada is talking about. He is not talking about a review of regional economic development policies. He is talking about major concessions with regard to subsidy to industry in Canada.
We do not know whether or not there will be major concessions with regard to maritime freight assistance. We do not know whether the Government of the day is preparing to make major concessions with regard to western grain transportation. We do not know whether the Government is intending to terminate assistance to small business or to terminate assistance to our primary producers. The Minister and the Government should avail themselves of every opportunity to explain to Canadians what the statements mean in their totality. This could have an extremely negative effect on Canada's economy.
[DOT]	(1810)
In particular, I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to some of the musings that were in the Throne Speech of some months ago. There in a paragraph or two it talked about regional disparities. We read that the Government was going to try new solutions for Atlantic and Western Canada.
It is imperative for policy makers at the national level to let us know exactly what is in the mix that is being given away, if you will, to the United States as part of the concessions that we will have to make as a result of these bilateral negotiations. I think Canadians, being the reasonable group of individuals we are, collectively would respond in a reasoned and objective way if the Government saw fit to elaborate with some degree of specificity as to what Simon Reisman is talking about.

November 20, 1986
Adjournment Debate
There are provisions in the Canadian Constitution that call upon the Government of Canada to provide equal opportunities for all Canadians regardless of where they may live in the country. I suggest that the refusal by the Government of Canada to respond in a detailed way to questions about a very important statement made by our chief negotiator leaves reasonable, objective individuals to question the seriousness of a commitment the Government may make with regard to regional economic development. It raises fear, animosity and concern among Canadians who are receiving benefits under the programs of, say, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion as well as those of Crown corporations. It raises fear because people may be terminated.
Take a look at a community such as Terrace Bay in northern Ontario. It is under the threat of major lay-offs as a result of the 15 per cent countervailing duty on softwood lumber. Will the Government terminate all forms of assistance under the Labour Adjustment Program for that particular sector? Will the Government terminate unemployment insurance benefits or make that a major concession? We have to know so that we can intelligently look-and I say this through you, Sir, to the Government-at the options being presented.
For the Minister to rise in his place and give a nothing answer to an important statement made by Canada's chief negotiator is not only irresponsible, it is an abdication of one's oath of office, an abdication of responsibility to the House of Commons and an abdication of responsibility to the Canadian people. In particular, it is a betrayal to the regions of Canada which depend to a large extent on the national programs of the national Government. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will clearly spell out today what that statement by Canada's chief negotiator means in its full impact.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it means, among other things, that our Government is attempting to take us out of the uncaring morass that we inherited from a Government the Member supported. We are attempting to change the direction of Canada's economic future. What we are attempting to do is to recognize that which the former Government did under mounds of rhetoric for so many years
and which now affects the lives and the livelihood of every Canadian.
The Liberal Government hid from us the truth about the Auto Pact. The Liberals never told us the truth about the softwood industry. They hid it and buried it. They never told us our industries were in danger. I ask my distinguished friend from Cape Breton, when did he ever hear from a Liberal Government that within 12 months the Auto Pact would come to an end? When did he even hear that suggested? Look at the fishery, the forest industry, the Christmas tree industry. When the hell did we ever hear from you people about the potential danger these traditional industries faced?
The Minister said in response to the Hon. Member the other day that we are doing much. The question is of course serious. If I can go back to questions raised by the Hon. Member a couple of weeks ago, he knows we have a pulp and paper subagreement with Newfoundland worth $46 million. We have a highway transportation subagreement with that province worth $180 million. There was a forest resource development subagreement with Newfoundland worth $48 million. There was a meat processing facilities subagreement with Prince Edward Island worth $10.5 million. There was a tourism development subagreement with Prince Edward Island worth $8.9 million. An industrial competitiveness subagreement with that same province was worth $8.5 million. There was a technology transfer subagreement with Nova Scotia worth $34 million. There was a Sysco modernization subagreement with Nova Scotia worth $157.1 million. We are labouring on and I think I share the Hon. Member's concern with the final outcome. We all listened to Premier Buchanan this afternoon.
I could go on for some considerable period of time but let me simply wind up by saying that we are concerned about the impact of these programs. We are also concerned about the development of new industry and creation of new jobs in the disparate regions of our country.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
35 Elizabeth II

[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]
Tuesday, September 30, 1986

[Stage Direction]
The Parliament, which had been prorogued on the twenty-eighth day of August, 1986, met this day at Ottawa for the election of a new Speaker.