1986-11-25

Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to business of the House. There were some initiatives taken this morning to facilitate progress on Bill C-22. Would it be reasonable to request the undertaking of the Government House Leader (Mr. Mazan-kowski) that the Government will not take steps to move time allocation while negotiations are taking place and that we will continue with second reading stage of Bill C-22?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, nothing concrete has been offered at this time. If parties want to provide something concrete, I would certainly entertain it. However, if he is referring to a letter which was sent to me a few minutes ago, the proposal he is making is tantamount to him offering me $1,000 for a $10,000 automobile.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That the House do now proceed to the next item of routine business.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. He does not have the floor. You called petitions. We are on routine proceedings and you did call for petitions. I rose to present a petition. I maintain that while we are on petitions, only petitions can be received. No point of order can be entertained while petitions are being presented.
that has been going on across the way for the last few days. Similar types of dilatory motions have been moved to move to routine proceedings or government orders. Such a motion was moved yesterday. In order to be consistent, Mr. Speaker, this would have to be ruled in order.


Mr. Benjamin:: He already called petitions.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader (Mr. Mazankowski) is right in a way. Yesterday he moved to move to orders of the day. I remind the Chair that there is a specific Standing Order which allows this to be done and specifies how it should be done. However, I know of no specific Standing Order which would allow us to move to another item within routine proceedings. Can the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary tell us where he finds provision in our Standing Orders to do what he has just done?


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the precedent to which the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) referred, which was established on November 7, I bring to the attention of the Chair and my colleagues Beauchesne's Citation 417(1 )(b)(ii) which refers to dilatory motions and includes a motion "That the House proceed to the next business". It is in there quite clearly. We are doing nothing more than following a precedent set November 7.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments. I submit that routine proceedings is an item of business and the effort of the Government to leap over one item of business under routine proceedings is not what is contemplated by the motion which the Government is trying to present at this time. I do not know why the Government would want to blank out an entire item of routine proceedings. I submit again that the motion offered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) is not intended to allow the Government to pick and choose among the various components of routine proceedings.
[DOT] (mo)


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary did have the floor. He had the floor under-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On a point of order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He had the floor. This is consistent with your ruling on November 7 as reported at page 1192 of Hansard. I see absolutely no difference. As a matter of fact,


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do is facilitate the business of the House. We have been frustrated for some 16 hours in trying to move this Bill forward for debate. The purpose of this is to prevent the kind of frustration and phoney procedural points that have been taking place from time to time, and allow debate on this Bill to take place. It is quite in order, under Citation 417, to move the motion that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has just moved. As a matter of fact, it is taken word for word from Citation 417.
1486

November 25, 1986
Petitions
Second, on November 7, a similar motion was presented and accepted under the same category of Routine Proceedings. I submit that, notwithstanding the protestations opposite, this motion is in order and the question should be put.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I believe we need some clarification. When you called for petitions, Elon. Members were standing to be recognized under that order of business. Members had a number of petitions they wished to present on behalf of their constituents. The Parliamentary Secretary rose on a point of order-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He did not.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He did so.


Nelson Andrew Riis: There were no petitions.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He did not. He was recognized, he did not say a point of order. Stop putting words in people's mouth.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It was petitions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognized the Hon. Parlai-mentary Secretary but he did not say "Point of order", nor did I say point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on what was the Member recognized if it was not a point of order? It was petitions. You called petitions. I stood because I had a petition. If he did not have a petition, he had no business being recognized. That is the point.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, what appears to be happening in the House may well have occurred before. However, I submit, with respect, that just because there may be a precedent-that may well be erroneous-that does not mean we should use that precedent today.

Second, I want to take strong objection to what the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) just said about an exercise in frustration, and "phoney". I take objection to that. We all have had past experience-I am not talking to Hon. Members who came here in 1984-with events that took place in the House many times in the last years when we, having been in government, went through what the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister may be going through today. I object to the word "phoney" and to the vocabulary used by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister about the right of Members to either present petitions or use any rules at our disposal to perhaps show our displeasure about some legislation. Certainly, that is exactly what the House is all about.
The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister is imputing motives about what my Party or the NDP are trying to do today. What we are trying to do may be very clear, but it is legal and very acceptable according to the rules of the House.
The Deputy Prime Minister may be extremely frustrated to see that we are not proceeding as fast as he would like, but he is the last person here who should show his displeasure when we remember that we had to endure bell ringing, night and day, for 14 days in the House. That was quite acceptable according to the rules of the House. He is showing his displeasure because we are not passing his legislation immediately, within very few hours. The Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues are calculating some two hours and eleven minutes or two hours and seventeen minutes, or four hours for a very important piece of legislation.
I do not think that kind of vocabulary should be used in the House, to impute motives to our action today, this afternoon, tomorrow, the day after and even next week. It is not our custom to impute motives.
Second, in my view, any Member cannot rise at any time, on any subject, and move a motion. There are certain rules. You were calling petitions and we have petitions to introduce.
I may be wrong, Mr. Speaker, and you will have to decide what is proper at this time, but I submit that it is proper to go through the proceedings. If he could do that today, why did he not do it yesterday? If it was illegal yesterday, why should it be legal today. We are now on petitions and let us see what the rest of the day will bring.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the Hon. Member.


Jacques Guilbault: He was responding to you.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I simply want to respond to the comments that have been made. Perhaps if the Hon. Member were patient he would like what I have to say. I have tremendous respect for the Hon. Member for Saint Denis (Mr. Prud-homme). He has been a distinguished Member of the House for a long time and I in no way want to impute any motives. To the extent that I used the word "phoney" or anything that may be perceived as unparliamentary, I want to withdraw those statements.
However, I do remind him that he is really asking you to propose a sort of double standard in applying the rules. First, the Opposition did not want this Bill presented. They did not want to debate it. Now they want to debate it.
I submit that over 16.5 hours of House time has been spent in consideration of this piece of legislation.
Citation 417 is very much in order. Let me quote Citation 417 (2)(ii):
Dilatory motions are designed to dispose of the original question either for the time being or permanently. They are usually of the following type:
This motion comes directly from these examples. These are the examples:
That consideration of the question be postponed to-
A certain date.
That the Orders of the Day be read.
November 25, 1986

That is exactly what the Opposition did yesterday in a similar set of circumstances. The third one, which is the motion we moved yesterday but was ruled out of order, is:
That the House proceed to (name another Order).
You in your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, ruled that out of order.
The fourth example is:
That the House proceed to the next business.
That is precisely the wording that was entertained on November 7, which you found in order, and which has been presented today under similar circumstances.
The other examples of a dilatory motion are:
That the debate be now adjourned.
I submit that there are clear examples of dilatory motions. This is but one example. I submit that it is in order and the question should be put.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have six petitions from residents of British Columbia and Alberta who have asked me to present them to the House today. These petitions concern the retaliatory tariff that the Government has imposed on imported books. This affects those residents and they do not view presenting these petitions in the House as being a dilatory procedure. It is a very real issue to them and I hope that Members opposite will understand how western Canadians feel about some of the Government's policies that are affecting them, and how they want those concerns to be brought to the House of Commons through their representatives or people speaking on their behalf.
I have these petitions and I ask you to return to petitions so I can present them on behalf of residents of British Columbia and Alberta.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I will not bore you with the details of all of the petitions I have, I just want to make a procedural point. The Chair may or may not rule in favour of the Parliamentary Secretary because it did recognize him on petitions. I thought he had a point of order, too, but I accept the Chair's ruling that he did not say "point of order". However, he did get up on petitions.
In terms of co-operation in the House of Commons and not misleading each other, I do hope that since the Parliamentary Secretary was recognized on petitions that he indeed does have some petitions. To start rising on Petitions and move motions instead, I think will cause some very bad feelings in the House. It will mislead the Speaker-indeed, it does mislead the Speaker because he will think a certain Member has petitions to present which he does not have. It also misleads Hon. Members of the other Parties. If we get into that kind of mess, this Parliament will really get bogged down as it was a few years ago with the ringing of the bells. I make that as a point, Mr. Speaker.
Petitions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to place before you for your consideration two points; first, there has been reference made to a ruling made by yourself, Sir, on November 7. I took a look at Hansard and all that ruling seems to say is that a person cannot be recognized twice on the same day during the hearing of petitions to present petitions. I submit with the utmost respect that that ruling has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue before us.
Second, in Hansard of yesterday I see that after the Government House Leader moved that the House proceed to Government Notices of Motions immediately after petitions were called, the Chair ruled as follows:
The motion is that the House proceed to Government Notices of Motions, which means that, if the Chair should rule that it is in order, a number of items that are in the usual order under Routine Proceedings would not be heard. It is the view of the Chair that that would be inappropriate and that we should proceed from item to item. Consequently, I regret to advise the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister that in the view of the Chair the motion is out of order.
I respectfully submit that what we are faced with today is exactly the same situation we were faced with yesterday which led to the ruling I just quoted. If yesterday, after petitions were called, a motion by the Government House Leader that the House proceed to Government notices of motions was out of order, surely a motion today on behalf of the Government that the House proceed to the next order of business, a motion made after petitions had been called, would also be out of order.
I respectfully submit, Sir, that the ruling the Chair made yesterday with respect to the motion that the House proceed to Government notices of motions is directly applicable in the same way to the motion made today by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, and whether that motion is in order is the question to be decided.


Philip Derek Lewis: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I just have two brief points as a result of comments made by other Hon. Members of the House. I find it odd that Hon. Members of the New Democratic Party who moved yesterday to cut off routine business by moving the House proceed to the orders of the day should today complain if someone moves to move through routine orders of the Day.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We didn't do it after petitions had been called.


Philip Derek Lewis: I just do not see how they can argue one thing one day and another thing another day. Specifically-


Mr. Cassidy:: We moved the motion yesterday. You could have had it yesterday.


Philip Derek Lewis: If the Hon. Member of Parliament who has just recently joined us would let me finish so we can get on with this debate.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Don't be so sensitive.


Philip Derek Lewis: Sensible as opposed to you.

November 25, 1986
Petitions


Mr. McCurdy:: Order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Order.


Philip Derek Lewis: The Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) made the point that he has petitions-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Point of order.


Philip Derek Lewis: -to file with the table. I would point out that under Standing Order 106(3):
A petition to the House may be presented by a Member at any time during the sitting of the House by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Point of order.


An Hon. Member:: He is still on a point of order. Sit down.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are just putting oil on the fire, Doug.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can close off his remarks.


Philip Derek Lewis: I just wanted to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and to the attention of my colleagues opposite who may not be familiar with this particular Standing Order, that under Standing Order 106(3), which refers to petitions, my hon. colleagues will know that rather than tie up the time of the House by filing petitions verbally with the Table, the provision is in the Standing Orders for filing the same with the Clerk of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Chair has heard enough argument and is ready to rule.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is making a ruling. I know the Hon. Member would respect that.
On November 7, 1986, the House was in session. It was under Routine Proceedings, Petitions, and the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) rose and moved that this House now proceed to the next item of routine business. After consideration, the Chair accepted that motion as appropriate and a vote was taken.
The Chair feels the situation is the same today. All Hon. Members will remember that on another occasion, I believe yesterday, the Chair said that in its opinion it was not appropriate that the Government under Routine Proceedings jump over items. That is not the case here. The motion is to move to the next item under Routine Proceedings. I, therefore, decide that the motion is in order.
The question is on the motion of Mr. Lewis, seconded by Mr. Mazankowski, that the House do now proceed to the next item of Routine Business.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the House now proceed to the next item of routine business.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are now at the introduction of bills stage as a consequence of the motion moved by the Parliamentary Secretary. As I am required to do, I am dealing with each of the Bills of which we have notice and in the names of Ministers or Members.
I have not recognized the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) but think that the Minister of Justice is attempting to use this occasion to introduce a motion that the House do now proceed to the next item of routine business. That of course was the motion upon which the House has just voted.
.
The Chair had occasion to consider this general question a few days ago. On November 7, at page 1194 of Hansard, the Chair said:
In the view of the Chair, in these proceedings the House is bound by the Bills as set out in the Order Paper, i think the Chair is bound to advise that we must follow the Order Paper.
Therefore, the Chair so rules and we will continue with introduction of bills.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Hnatyshyn, seconded by Mr. Mazankowski-
Introduction of Bills


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was recognized and-


Some Hon. Members:: No, you were not.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker,-


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am not going into the Bill-


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is the wish of the Hon. Minister of Justice that the Bill stand.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt) moved: for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Canada Elections Act (Leave of Absence).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


John R. Rodriguez: that Bill C-237, be read the first time and be printed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As Your Honour knows, government Members abstained from voting on this particular issue-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is not a point of order.


Mr. Keeper:: What's your excuse?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As you know, Mr. Speaker, normally Bills of this nature are routinely introduced and passed by allParty agreement on a unanimous basis. We regret that there were some differences of opinion across the way. We elected to allow the opposition Parties to sort out their differences between themselves. However, it just illustrates further the games that are going on here which are making a farce out of this institution.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, there is a well-established principle that it is not in order to reflect on a vote of the House, certainly not in the manner-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has taken the point of the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


An Hon. Member:: Explain!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for allowing me to present this Bill.
The Bill is entitled an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act. The purpose of the Bill is to extend-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that this is not a time for a speech, but for a brief explanation.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is to extend the leave of absence provisions respecting a candidate in a federal election to a candidate who is successfully elected as a Member of the House of Commons. It would apply to all employees who come under the jurisdiction of Part III of the Canada Labour Code.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Rodriguez, seconded by Mr. Riis, moves that the Bill be now read a first time and be printed. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member will realize that the Chair is putting the question and that it is not the time to raise a point of order.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Point of order. Mr. Speaker, the Government abstained from voting on this matter. For reasons I outlined earlier, we believe-


Mrs. Finestone:: You are commenting on the vote.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am not commenting on the Hon. Member's vote. I am explaining the disposition of the Government for the information of the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It has been known to happen in this Chamber that Hon. Members insist on the right to come into the Chamber and indicate how they would have voted had they been in the Chamber. We have had some recent experience along those lines. I think the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) can give the reason why Government Members did not vote.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the people of northern Ontario are angry because the Government has caved in to the Americans and agreed to an arrangement for making permanent a 15 per cent cost imposition on our softwood lumber. Whether that 15 per cent is a tariff, an export tax, or an increase in stumpage fees, the result will be equally devastating for northern Ontario. Saw mills are and will be closed. Thousands of jobs will be lost. The industry in Ontario cannot afford the burden of an additional 15 per cent cost. Even if the $600 million or $700 million referred to by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) remains in Canada, it cannot be poured back into the industry without risking a further 15 per cent from the Americans.
We in Canada have the sovereign right to place a value on our natural resources. For the Americans to try to dictate the worth of our resources is a violation of our sovereignty. We should have stood our ground and fought. Instead, we yielded to American pressure. Today we gave in on lumber. Tomorrow it may be pulp or paper. We in northern Ontario feel betrayed and we will not forget this act of unfairness and injustice.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We believe it is the inherent right of every Member in this House, whether on the Government side or the Opposition side, to introduce a Bill. We do everything we can to facilitate that process in every way possible.



NEED FOR LISTING OF INGREDIENTS ON DRUG LABELS

Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Now.


George Albert Proud: One o'clock.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


George Albert Proud: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1.35 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government has made genuine progress in making the environment safer for people who have allergies. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has banned the use of sulphites so that people will no longer risk having an allergic reaction to food which they eat in restaurants or buy at a store.
However, more needs to be done. Every time we take a drug we risk having an allergic reaction because the ingredients of drugs are not listed on the label and we do not really know what is contained therein. One Canadian died this year when she unknowingly took a drug which contained a preservative to which she was allergic. Another Canadian has been near death on several occasions because he did not know that the drug he was taking contained an ingredient to which he was allergic.
These situations could have been avoided if the ingredients of the drugs were listed on the labels. Ingredients of drugs should not be kept a secret. Canada has one of the best ingredient lists on foods in the world. I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) to apply those same standards to medication.

November 25, 1986



AIR CANADA


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, an Air Canada employee in Winnipeg was fired on October 14 on the basis of a drug test. I understand that the worker was not informed that he would have to undergo the drug test performed by an Air Canada physician as part of a mandatory medical examination, and that a number of other applicants for the same job were not informed that they would have to undergo similar testing.
This man was hired on August 15 and worked for almost two months before being fired on the basis of a finding of cannabis in his test taken prior to being hired. An Air Canada official has stated that the worker's job performance was not even taken into consideration. The employee states that he discontinued the use of marijuana when he was hired at Air Canada, and went back to the same clinic which Air Canada, uses for another drug screen. The test revealed no trace of the drug.
I believe that this is an example of indiscriminate drug testing by Air Canada. Air Canada is particularly despicable in its use of the tests for failing to inform applicants that they will be screened for drugs and, in this particular instance, for firing someone on the basis of a two-month old drug test without even giving any consideration to the person's performance record on the job. The Minister responsible for Air Canada should end this questionable practice immediately.


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



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mrs. Anne Blouin (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend I had the pleasure of joining officers and members of the civilian committee of Squadron 630 of Montmorency to celebrate their 30th anniversary. The cadets of Squadron 630 receive a yearly financial contribution of about $500,000 from the Department of National Defence, which is used to pay for salaries of officers and civilian instructors, uniforms, summer camps, administrative support at the bases in Valcartier and Bagotville, flying classes, and so forth.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the assistance provided by the Department of National Defence, these boys and girls from the riding of Montmorency-Orleans are cultivating a sense of public duty and discipline and a responsible attitude that will certainly serve them well in the future.
I am aware how important it is to have these cadet corps, and I am sure National Defence will continue its support.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Doctor Ken Hare, a climatology expert, says that "the greenhouse effect" is a reality. He predicts that temperatures in the Arctic will rise by as much as eight degrees by the year 2040 and that the planet will be affected, with particular impact on Canada.
As a nation we will have to make major adjustments to cope with the rise in temperature. I urge the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) to develop an action plan on the greenhouse effect. This is a complex and inter-generational issue. We must ensure that as a nation we are equipped to deal with the changes that the rise in global temperature will bring about.
We also ought to help plan a global response and set up the international structures needed to tackle a global issue of such magnitude. Let us hope that the World Commission on Environment and Development will design the international structures necessary to slow down, if not check, the greenhouse effect, and that the United Nations will act on their recommendations expeditiously.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, once again, our Conservative Government is keeping its promises to Canadian taxpayers by maintaining and promoting the universality of social programs, including family allowances. Our Government has made it possible for 756,000 families with incomes of less than $15,000 in 1985 to receive advance payments for 1986 of $300 per child, and this will apply to about 1,300,000 children in Canada.
This year, the maximum child tax credit payable in the spring of 1987 will be $454, an increase of $70, and in 1988 the maximum will be $524. This means that from now on families will no longer have to resort to using the services of tax discounters who in some cases were taking advantage of the precarious financial situation of low-income Canadian families. Mr. Speaker, this is one more example of the sense of equity and justice that guides this Government.
November 25, 1986



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the people of Moncton and the employees of the Moncton shops have more cause to distrust Canadian National and the Government today than they have ever had before. For years, unions representing the workers, the workers themselves, the City of Moncton, and Members of Parliament have begged and pleaded with the Government for accurate information on the future of the shops.
Last week I took such a concern to the President of Canadian National in the Transport Committee. In response to questions from the Member for Moncton (Mr. Cochrane) and myself about whether or not CN was planning to proceed with further lay-offs at Moncton, CN told the Standing Committee on Transport that no lay-offs were imminent.
Yesterday, CN announced that lay-offs would proceed at Moncton due to a reduction in work. I submit that no reduction of work has occurred between last Tuesday and today, and that CN is again using smoke and mirrors to exercise economic blackmail on its employees and on the city, in spite of a job protection clause-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



ECONOMIC EQUALITY FOR WOMEN-GOVERNMENT'S PERFORMANCE

Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canadian history the ten provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) agreed to discuss the economic equality of women at the annual conference of First Ministers in Vancouver. In his statement the Prime Minister focused on existing inequalities between men and women.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals thwarted and derided Canadian women for the last 15 years, and finally it took a Prime Minister like Brian Mulroney to give women in this country a reason to hope for a brighter future. For 15 years the Liberals did nothing but talk and philosophize, promising women that they would gain their rightful place.
In just two years, Mr. Speaker, our Government took action. There are too many examples to mention, and you know them anyway. Again today as I am speaking, three women are being sworn in as senators, three exceptional appointments which, I am sure, will stimulate other men and women who have been
in the other place for too long already. Mr. Speaker, another performance which will be hard to beat at the next election!



REFUGEES


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise as I did last week and once again ask the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) to reconsider his decision on Mr. Akbar Moatamedi. Mr, Moatamedi is a 25 year old Iranian who, for the second time, will be deported back to Iran tomorrow by the United States. Earlier this year, for the second time, Mr. Moatamedi attempted suicide rather than face certain torture and probable death in Iran.
There is a sponsoring group in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, which is prepared to house, finance, and support this individual if he is admitted into Canada as a refugee. He is a university graduate and is employable. Canada earlier won the Nansen Medal Award for its service and work for refugees on compassionate and humanitarian grounds. I would ask the Minister of State for Immigration not get caught up in technicalities, that we recognize as a Government and as a country that we have the potential to save one human life. To turn our eyes away from this individual is to co-operate in this individual's eventual torture and probable death. I urge the Minister once again to have some humanitarian consideration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

[ Translation]



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: In 1968, Mr. Speaker, in this House, the present Leader of the Liberal Party who was then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tabled a Bill to allow generic drug companies to duplicate pills in exchange for a mandatory 4 per cent fee to the inventors. What the Bill introduced by the Liberal leader did not say was that Canada would lose thousands of jobs. Since then, 1968, there has been no research and development in Canada because the Liberals gave the green light to pill copiers. Today, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the system set up by the present Leader of the Liberal Party, some of our sick people have to go to the United States or other foreign countries to obtain the drugs they need.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Liberals now support the socialists against our excellent Bill designed to rejuvenate the

November 25, 1986
Oral Questions
Canadian drug industry shows that they have jumped into bed with the socialists, the former bent on regaining power at all costs, the latter blinded by their negative approach to Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry but the time allotted to the Hon. Member has expired. The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).



INDUSTRY


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the future of the community of Cape Breton hangs in the balance. The future of the Sydney Steel Corporation is determined by both the federal and provincial Tory Governments. The federal Tory Government has a responsibility to the people of Cape Breton to ensure the viability of Sysco. As Mr. Wes Stubbert, a Cape Breton County Councillor, said: "The Cape Breton economy rotates on Sysco's axis. It is the heart of our community and has to be strong. It is the main vein in the economic body of Cape Breton".
The viability of Sysco is in the hands of the federal Tory Government. Sysco needs rail orders. Only the federal Government can instruct CN to order its rails from Sysco. The Government has already established the principle that it is prepared to intervene where large numbers of jobs are endangered and a community is threatened. Such is the situation in Cape Breton-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, one of Canada's leading newspapers, The Globe and Mail, printed today that the Government's direction on proposed changes to the Patent Act concerning the pharmaceutical industry is the right pill for Canada. In an article by Philip Seeman, chairman of the University of Toronto's Pharmacology Department, he states that drug designers have been packing their bags and leaving the country for years.
Canada is simply not inventing new drugs, but we have the capacity to do so. Most countries consider us drug pirates prepared to lay low behind some secure inlet and steal what others produce.
Jobs for thousands of young, enthusiastic Canadian researchers will be produced through hundreds of millions of dollars of R and D. Price stability will be assured by the drug prices review board.
Canadians may wonder what silly parliamentary games have been going on in this House lately. They should tell members of the Opposition to pack their bags and let Canada become a producer, not a pirate.

[ Translation]



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, today, we heard to three Conservative Members. During their first year, people said they lacked the experience, but today, we can say they lack the competence.
The first Member said her Government had done a great deal for women. Unfortunately, the Hon. Member overlooked the fact that her Government was the first to discriminate against women by depriving 80,000 senior citizens in Canada of the spouse's allowance just because they are separated or divorced.
Mr. Speaker, another Member talked about pharmaceutical products, and I think it is clear this Government and these Conservative Members are interested only in big bucks and the big companies. That same Government, with no compunction whatsoever, levies a 10 per cent tax on people's health, taxing the sick to reduce the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, another Conservative Member talked about family allowances. These people had the nerve to de-index family allowances, to take away Canadian families' bread and butter with a 3 per cent cut in family allowance cheques.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. I had the honour of meeting earlier today with the Premier of British Columbia. I told him what I have already told the Prime Minister in this House, that is, plea bargaining with the United States is not the way to handle the lumber issue. It is admitting a case when we have a solid case before the case is brought down and decided.
November 25, 1986


An Hon. Member:: What does he have to say?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you within the rules that the Premier can speak for himself.
The Minister for International Trade gave the strong impression-indeed, she told the provinces-that there was a deal with the United States. That now appears to be reduced to an agreed approach. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what the deal is and explain it clearly to the House of Commons?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be permitted on the beginning of my week in the House of Commons to express my very best wishes to the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition as he goes through a period of travail with which I am only too well acquainted.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: If the hon. gentleman needs any help in getting out of enemy territory, just have him call me directly, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade indicated in Vancouver that there had been an agreement by the majority of the provinces and the federal Government to discuss an approach with the Government of the United States that would not only bring to an end the countervail petition against Canada but which would also allow us to keep in Canada money that might otherwise drain away to the United States. That is being pursued.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, of course I wish to thank the right hon. gentleman for his good wishes. However, I wish to assure him that I have no intention of retaining him as a consultant in this particular matter.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADIAN APPROACH
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it now appears that the so-called agreed approach with the provinces is falling apart. Ontario is not there. It appears that Quebec and British Columbia might well go it alone to apply individually for suspension agreements with the United States. Will the right hon. gentleman tell us that not only does he not have a deal with the United States but that he no longer has an agreed approach with the provinces?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have an agreed approach with the provinces excepting Ontario, and we expect that that agreed
Oral Questions
approach will lead to an arrangement with the United States that will end the countervail and will stop the potential drain away from Canada of hundreds of millions of dollars.


TERMS OF CANADIAN OFFER
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's latest final offer is 15 per cent. Will the right hon. gentleman tell us if the Government would be prepared to go from 15 per cent up to 20 per cent or 25 per cent in order to satisfy our American neighbours?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will convey the Leader of the Opposition's recommendation to the Prime Miniser. However, I do not think this is a week in which the Leader of the Opposition and I want to discuss percentages.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Tobin:: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Official Opposition, unlike some other Right Hon. Members in this House, can count.


EXPORT TAX INQUIRY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Secretary of State has just tried to tell the House that the co-ordinated approach is in good shape. However, as the Leader of the Official Opposition has said, the Premier of British Columbia can speak for himself. He has told the Government it has two days to put it together or the Province of British Columbia and, apparently, possibly the Province of Quebec, will go it alone.
Will the Secretary of State agree that, given the late stage of these negotiations, indeed the only way Canada can satisfy U.S. lumber industry interests is by imposing, contrary to what has been said, an export tax on the Canadian industry?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked whether or not I would agree with that. My answer is no, I would not agree with that.


PROPOSED CANADIAN MEASURES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Minister to put aside his opportunity for making quips for a moment and to tell Canadians exactly what is being proposed. The major players agree that it is impossible to put a stumpage fee increase in place at this late stage. One province and possibly two are threatening to walk away from the co-ordinated position by Friday. Can the Secretary of State tell Canadians in plain, simple language what is it the Government of Canada is doing, if anything at all, besides floundering around in the sea of international trade?

November 25, 1986
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the statement made by the Minister for International Trade:
The Canadian Government has proposed an agreement that would lead to a complete withdrawal of the countervail action by the U.S. lumber producers. In return, Canadian governments would agree to take measures to offset the effect of a 15 per cent countervailing duty. Details of the Canadian measures will be disclosed following further consultations with provinces, industry, labour and the U.S Government.
The Deputy Minister for International Trade is consulting now with provinces-


Some Hon. Members:: She is in Japan.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Deputy Minister for International Trade is consulting with provinces right now in the Pearson Building which, when I last looked, was on Sussex Drive and not in Japan. We will continue that kind of consultation looking for a way to bring an end to the countervail and stop a potential haemorrhage of hundreds of millions of dollars out of Canada to the United States.


CANADIAN APPEAL TO GATT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the Government's trade policy has turned into a farce of flip-flops and U-turns. It is frankly no wonder that the Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member will put his question.


Steven W. Langdon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to note that it was no wonder that the Minister for International Trade has gone off to Japan-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I know the Hon. Member wants to note many things, but the Hon. Member will put his question.


Steven W. Langdon: Will the Minister of External Affairs admit that the Government has caved in on its harsh attacks on U.S. customs surcharges by changing its GATT appeal from Section 23 of the Code, which allows for tough action against the United States, to the toothless Section 22 that only involves consultation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Put your dentures in and answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, after the Hon. Member passed from his statement under Standing Order 21 and began to ask a question, I listened to him with precision. The answer to the precise question that he asked is no.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister has been out of the country too long to realize what has taken place.
Second, I would like to ask if there are sufficient strengths and sufficient commitment in this Ministry to say today to Premier Vander Zalm that, despite his statements of threat to us at the national level, there is one national trade policy in this country and it is set by Ottawa.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the NDP just spent four or five weeks using the House of Commons to attack Premier Vander Zalm. They have reaped the benefits of that particular tactic. I would have thought that they would have learned something from that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They gained another moral victory.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, they gained another moral victory, as my colleague, the Minister of Justice, revealed.
From the beginning, since what was at issue in this question had to do with provincial practices, the Government of Canada has exercised leadership in bringing together all of the parties, the provinces, labour, industry, and the federal Government. That is the approach that we intend to continue, and that is the approach that we expect to have continued by all of the people who are involved in the process.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PREMIER OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Speaker:: In view of the questions and answers that have been given, Hon. Members will know that I am resisting the temptation to recognize a stranger. I call upon all Hon. Members to recognize the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Bill Vander Zalm, Premier of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN SOFTWOOD LUMBER-INDUSTRY'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: If the former Prime Minister is so certain of his support, why is it that the lumber industry, the Province of Ontario, and thousands of people across this country recognize this not as a moral victory, or anything else, but as a sell-out by the Government?
November 25, 1986


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we regard a process which can keep hundreds of millions of dollars in Canada, and can keep jobs in Canada, to be serving the national interest.
May I also say to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor that I was pleased to see him standing up when the rest of his Members were sitting down.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES-FEDERAL JURISDICTION
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: If I may, I would like to pursue the same line of questioning with the Secretary of State. As the Hon. Minister knows, this is a matter that goes very much to the heart of the question of who speaks for Canada in the trade issue.
In the reported statements in the press today Premier Vander Zalm indicated that his province will go it alone by Friday unless there is a deal worked out, and indicated that Quebec may join British Columbia. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs make it very clear in the House that the federal Government would not accept any province undertaking unilateral action to negotiate an agreement on its own with the United States, and that it must be done through the federal Government? I would ask the Minister if the federal Government agrees with the approach being put forward by Premier Vander Zalm?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, obviously on questions of international trade the jurisdiction lies with the Government of Canada, and we intend to exercise that. As the Hon. Member knows, because he too was part of the delegation, this particular Government has recognized that there is no point in our hiding down in foxholes of jurisdiction and using the Constitution to divide the country. Rather we have approached trade issues by trying to bring in all of the parties. We did that with regard to the multilateral trade negotiations under the GATT in Uruguay when the Hon. Member was present, as were representatives of four provincial Governments.
We have done that in the approach to all trade discussions with the United States, including the approach to the lumber countervail. That is the position and the spirit in which the Government of Canada intends to act, and that is the spirit we intend to see respected.


POSITION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. I have no quarrel with the spirit. We are concerned about its application and implementation. We now have a situation where the lumber industry is opposed to the measures taken by the Government, and we now have two provinces indicating that they are going it alone. Will the Secretary of State for
Oral Questions
External Affairs clearly state that the position put forward by the Province of British Columbia is not acceptable? Will the Government of Canada clearly establish in the House what measures and what proposals it in fact is making in the United States so that we will know exactly what kind of deal is in the offing?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, these questions are getting repetitive, and I apologize to the Chair.


Lloyd Axworthy: I just want an answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: I answered his colleague from Newfoundland in respect of what is being sought. He can consult the record on that. I have indicated the position of the Government of Canada with regard to international trade. I also indicated that it is our approach, supported by the Government of British Columbia, the Government of Quebec, and the Governments of all other provinces except Ontario, that we should seek an arrangement with the United States which will bring an end to the countervail and keep in Canada hundreds of millions of dollars that might otherwise flow to the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to say to the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor that I inadvertently interrupted between his second and third questions, and I apologize for that.


LEGALITY OF U.S. DUTY QUESTIONED
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who seems to be handling softwood questions today. Yesterday the Prime Minister said that the 15 per cent offer now on the table from Canada was the "price of playing poker" with Uncle Sam. Since the Minister for International Trade is on record as saying that the 15 per cent preliminary duty is illegal, does the Government still think that the 15 per cent level is illegal?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We think it is an illegal proposal. We think we could prevail upon the process. We think there is a risk, given the nature of the process, that we might not. During the long period of risk there would be a draining away of hundreds of millions of dollars from Canada. We think it is better to keep that money in Canada, to keep security in Canada, and to try to bring a sense of stability back to the Canadian softwood industry.


INQUIRY CONCERNING POSSIBLE RETALIATION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. It seems preposterous to me, and I think to most workers in the forest industry, that when a dealer is caught cheating at cards, as we caught Uncle Sam, that you suddenly ante up $600 million. Do you intend in any way to retaliate-

November 25, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member will correct the question.


James Ross Fulton: Does the Right Hon. Minister plan in any way to retaliate now that we in the House know that we have caught Uncle Sam and the Department of Commerce cheating at cards?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have a view as to the legality of the countervail action. We could pursue that case in the quasijudicial process and in subsequent legal proceedings in the United States which would take a long, long time, prolonging uncertainty in Canada and continuing the drainage away from the country of hundreds of millions of dollars each year. We could do that. We have chosen not to do that. We have chosen instead to try to seek an arrangement which will terminate the countervail and stop the potential haemorrhage of hundreds of millions of dollars out of Canada, and stop an uncertainty which can bring an industry in Canada into deeper trouble.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, months ago we all feared that Canadians would have difficulty opening the locks on superboxes. Now we are hearing from all parts of Canada that Canadians have no problem opening the lock on the superbox; in fact the box door is already open before they get there. Would the Deputy Prime Minister indicate whether the Government intends to compensate people who have lost cheques or other mail in the 304 locations across Canada which were found to have defective superboxes by Canada Post yesterday, right from Vancouver to St. John's, Newfoundland?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, what the Hon. Member refers to is a problem with the installation of certain mailboxes. We are informed by Canada Post that it is being looked after. I understand that later today the modification to these boxes will be made and completed.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, like our Canadian mail these days, that answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.


REQUEST THAT SUPERBOXES BE SHELVED
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Now we know that superboxes have lousy locks, will the Government recognize that this incident is only the tip of the iceberg, that the superboxes should be shelved, and that
Canada Post should get back to delivering the mail to the people of Canada?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that Party was not doing what it is now preaching. Right now Canada Post has a business plan which is before a committee of the House. The whole issue may be discussed there. If members of the Liberal Party are so interested in Canada Post, they can go there and make their representations.


SECURITY OF MAIL-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Canada Post. Last night super mailboxes were wide open. There were no locks or keys. What assurances does the Government have for Canadians that this incident will not repeat itself? How can Canadians feel confident that the privacy and security of their mail will not be breached again?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to try again. Let me assure the House that modifications to those boxes-and I repeat it-will be completed by the end of the day, so the mail will be safe.


COST OF ADVERTISING SUPERBOXES
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, previously the Minister assured us that the use of super mailboxes would be an improvement in service. Canadians want to know that their mail will be secure. Does the Government not believe that wide open mailboxes raise questions about the million dollars the Government is spending to advertise these boxes? Do they not raise questions about the entire super mailbox program?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the NDP would like to scare Canadians across the country. The fact of the matter is that those boxes are secure. The problem-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bernard Valcourt: They find that funny.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: It is like pouring water into a sieve.


Bernard Valcourt: Obviously they do not want the answer, do they? Do they care very much about postal services to Canadians? They do not even listen. There were problems with the installation, not with the design of the boxes. They are safe, so we are informed and believe. The problems which were singled out will be corrected today. That is it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 25, 1986


HUMAN RIGHTS
John Barry Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs. I was honoured to have been at the United Nations last week representing Canada when the perpetual issue arose concerning human rights violations. What position or what action will the Canadian Government take concerning the persecuted plight of the Baha'i believers in Iran?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, a resolution was introduced in the United Nations, which generally has the support of the House of Commons, with regard to the situation of the Baha'i people in Iran. This year Canada is co-sponsoring the presentation of that resolution.
* *
*


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, it was found that community superboxes are not as super as the Government made them out to be. We heard that Canada Post has just checked 7,600 boxes that are very easy to open.
Here is my question: What does it cost to repair and maintain these boxes? How much?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member's question about the cost involved, I will have to make enquiries, and as soon as I get the information, I will see that he receives it.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT ORDER MAIL BE DELIVERED TO HOMES
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, instead of making enquiries-people have been making enquiries at Canada Post for months-why doesn't the Minister order Canada Post to deliver mail door to door instead of wasting taxpayers' money to repair boxes which are neither secure, economical or desirable?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple. The Government cannot do this because the previous Goverment left us with a crushing deficit. It takes money to do that sort of thing.
What we are trying to do is give Canadians-
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: Come on!


Bernard Valcourt: Just listen and you'll learn something. What we are trying to do is give Canadians a good postal service at the best possible price. That is what we are trying to do.


UNITED STATES EXPORTS OF WHEAT TO ALGERIA
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a trade question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Crosbie:: It will be the first one.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It was announced very recently that the Americans are planning to use their Export Enhancement Program to subsidize the sale of 300,000 tonnes of Durum wheat to Algeria, a very important and long time grain market for Canadian farmers. Can he explain to this House why our Government has been so ineffective in convincing the Americans not to go after our markets? Why have the talks and telegrams and telexes, begging, cajoling and pleading, not worked? Why have we been so ineffective?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should know that Canada's sales efforts in the last crop year worked. Not only did our exports of wheat, including Durum, go up, Canada's percentage of world sales went up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: Contrast that with what happened in the U.S. Its exports have gone down and its percentage of the world market has gone down by something like 6 per cent or 7 per cent.
As to what we are doing, the Secretary of State for External Affairs raised this issue as recently as last Friday in his meeting with Mr. Shultz.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the Americans say their fight is with the European Common Market, not with Canada. The sale of 300,000 tonnes of Durum wheat is a very important issue for Canadian farmers. What is the Prime Minister or his Minister going to do to convince the Americans not to go after our markets? What is new? What is he going to do to be effective?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, first the Hon. Member should know

November 25, 1986
Oral Questions
that, as a result of the leadership of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, agriculture is being addressed for the first time in the GATT negotiations. He should also know that this Government will not stand by and see what happened under the previous Government in the early 1970s happen again. We will not see us get into a LIFT program where we back away from production. We are standing by our producers and will do everything we can to maintain and increase our share of world markets.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allraand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and concerns the $124,000 untendered contract to Secor Inc. Yesterday the Minister denied there was a conflict of interest in the granting of that contract. Today we learn that, in addition, Claude Forget engaged three permanent employees of Secor to serve as his personal staff on the Royal Commission. How can the Minister justify this preferential treatment for Secor when that kind of action is in contravention of Article 7(F) of the Conflict of Interest Code?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I said there was no conflict of interest. Again I repeat today that, in the case of Claude Forget, it is a commission of inquiry on unemployment insurance. The other contract awarded to Secor Inc. had to do with the mandate of the Wright-Gaucher Commission. The same company, but two different objectives.
I repeat that, in my judgment, there is no conflict of interest. There is not necessarily a conflict of interest in the fact that a company may have employees working on various contracts and dealing with the federal Government, as in this case.


REASON FOR COMMISSIONING STUDY
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is not familiar with Article 7(F) and he has not answered my question. Why has this phony pork-barrelling contract been proceeded with when the same subject matter has already been studied by the Senate Committee on Youth, the MacDonald Royal Commission, and the Forget Commission?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we can always look into the Hon. Member's allegations. Before anyone begins questioning the quality of studies that have been made we will table them and
the Hon. Member will then be in a position to make a value judgment.


FINANCE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In his speech to the Canadian Tax Foundation last night he stated that "every tax preference in the system will come under very careful study". Does that statement apply to the $500,000 capital gains tax exemption the Government introduced 18 months ago? Is the Government re-examining that tax preference for wealthy Canadians so it can bring tax rates down for the average Canadian taxpayer?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 indicated quite clearly in my speech last night that all of the various tax preferences are under very careful scrutiny. However, I have commented recently that the purpose of the capital gains tax exemption is to encourage people to take risks and start up new businesses. One of the reasons we have had a considerable increase in the start up of new businesses, each of which creates new jobs, is because of that particular exemption.


REQUEST THAT EXEMPTION BE ABOLISHED
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister also said in his speech that "the proliferation of incentives has strengthened the perception that very high income earners do not pay their fair share of tax". Will the Minister send a signal to the average Canadian taxpayer that the system is fair by taking this huge tax preference away from wealthy Canadians and cutting rates for ordinary Canadian taxpayers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 guess I could say I will take that as a representation. I indicated in my speech that we are going to be listening carefully to what various interested Canadians have to say about the process of tax reform. We tried to put a very clear focus on this last night. As I indicated, decisions will be made around the time of the next Budget.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
November 25, 1986

The Premier of Nova Scotia stated that the continued operation of Sydney Steel Corporation is dependent upon its securing a long-term rail contract from Canadian National. He asked the Prime Minister for his support in securing this contract. Will the Minister tell us now that the federal Government will instruct CN to enter into such a long-term contract with Sysco?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for the Government to instruct CN to enter into contracts with Sysco for the purchase of steel. It has been doing it for a number of years. Of course, CN is in a position where it has to stand on its own feet. It has its own financial problems. Traffic is down and has been down for the last several years for the rail companies. Given the circumstances in which CN has to exist it will certainly do its best to see that as much steel rail as possible is purchased from Sysco.
I do not have the time now to give all the figures, but in the present year, at the present time, 28,500 tonnes of rail are on order from Sysco for next year, as I understand it. There is a possibility of more besides.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: CN is also buying 30,000 tonnes of rail from western Europe and Japan. This is our own Crown corporation.


MODERNIZATION OF PLANT
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Province of Nova Scotia says that the modernization cannot continue without such an agreement. Will the Deputy Prime Minister state now that the federal Government will honour its commitment to the modernization of Sydney Steel Corporation, or is this commitment dependent upon market studies during the term of this modernization?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada stands ready to do its part with regard to Sysco, as it always has.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: That's not an answer.


John Carnell Crosbie: With regard to the rail question, the life or death of Sysco does not depend solely on the purchase of rail by CN. With regard to steel purchased outside Canada by CN, 18,500 tonnes of low alloy head-hardened steel-"head-hardened" reminds me of the Hon. Member-which cannot be manufactured-


John Napier Turner: You're a soft alloy.


John Carnell Crosbie: Does the Leader of the Opposition want to give this answer?


John Napier Turner: I could faster than you can. You can't pronounce the word.
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Oh, he knows everything.


John Napier Turner: Oh, come on.


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


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister has been telling Canadians that in opposing this legislation the New Democratic Party is just trying to scare the disabled, the elderly, the sick, and other concerned Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Right on.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware that a colleague of his, the Hon. Member for Kent, is advising constituents as follows: "As I indicated, as matters now stand I see no alternative but to oppose the present legislation"?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: There they go.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if the member of the New Democratic Party and his colleagues are so confident that this Bill will be badly received and will do political damage, they should be joining us in trying to get it to committee in order that all of the facts of which he speaks can be exposed there. If he is confident in his position, why is he doing everything he can to prevent the proper disposition of this Bill by the House of Commons?


FILING OF PETITIONS OPPOSING LEGISLATION
Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Is the Minister aware that in addition to this statement by his colleague from Kent, the Hon. Member for Perth and the Hon. Member for Swift Current-Maple Creek are filing petitions with the Clerk opposing this legislation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That has nothing to do with it.


Neil Young: How much opposition does the Minister have to receive before he will advise the House and Canadians that he will withdraw that obnoxious piece of legislation?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 25, 1986
Oral Questions


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member is aware of an editorial in today's Edmonton Journal which reads:
The Mulroney government's proposals to extend the patent protection on prescription drugs are complex and controversial. They demand careful, rational scrutiny.
Yet the New Democrats and the Liberals refuse to take part in intelligent debate. They are too busy trying to score cheap political points by whipping the public into a frenzy over potential cost increases to consumers.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board). Could the Minister advise what is being done to assure producers of commercial canola seed that they are getting fair grades? Has the Canadian Grain Commission given any thought to some mechanical means of establishing grades which could be used by the buyers?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Grain Commission has a very good reputation for grading. It monitors receipts of canola at terminal positions on a daily basis.
In response to the second part of the Hon. Member's question, the Canadian Grain Commission, along with the industry, has considered some non-subjective means of grading. Discussions on that have been ongoing for a couple of years. I will look into this issue and see what kind of progress is being made.


Mr. Speaker:: I advise Hon. Members that there are still a number of Members rising. As we are running out of time, could Hon. Members make their questions short and could Ministers reply accordingly?



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday CN issued a communique stating that more lay-offs would take place in Moncton because of the impasse with the CN-CGE deal. Since 1985 more than 300 workers have been laid off. The Minister of National Revenue has stated that CN should be used as a tool for regional development. In light of those facts, will the Minister of Transport instruct CN to hold off on lay-offs at the CN shops until a reasonable and acceptable solution can be found?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, a reasonable solution was found and put forward by Canadian National. A most generous offer of benefits was put forward by Canadian National. It was accepted by 96 per cent of the union members in Moncton. It was turned down by two unions, basically by the Machinists Union national executive. I am proud to say that the Government encouraged CN to make this generous offer.
The solution is for the International Machinists Union to reverse its selfish and petty disregard for the workers of Moncton and to accept the offer which has been made by CN.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood for one question.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Transport). According to several members of the task force on the development of the Montreal region, there is a consensus to the effect that Ottawa will choose Dorval as the principal airport for Montreal. Will the Minister accept the pro-Dorval recommendation made by the task force which was set up by the Government itself?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the task force report presented yesterday morning is excellent in many respects. We will consider the recommendations concerning the airports and, at the appropriate time and place, we will hold a press conference when we are ready to announce the stand we want to take about the two airports.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond for one question.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Foreign financiers and the headquarters of Goodyear in the United States have put pressure on their plant in Toronto resulting in the forthcoming closure of that plant in May of 1987. This will effect 1,500 permanent lay-offs.
November 25, 1986

Will the Minister inform the House what action he has taken to keep this profitable plant open? Will he also explain to the House what impact this closure will have on the other Goodyear plants in Canada, in Valleyfield, Quebec, and in Medicine Hat, Alberta?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Toronto plant is Goodyear's oldest tire plant. The Department is aware of this situation. We are prepared to discuss with the company any alternate plan it may have with regard to future Canadian investment. Discussions are presently under way between officials of the Department and the company in order to minimize the impact of that announcement.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville for one question.



APARTHEID


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Province of British Columbia has the worst record of enforcement of human rights legislation. It is also the only province which has refused to join in the application of voluntary sanctions against South Africa. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs engaged in conversations with the Premier of British Columbia to change this situation which is an affront to government policy and the people of Canada, not to mention the blacks of South Africa who are seeking freedom?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of British Columbia and I have agreed to meet tomorrow morning to discuss that question.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Lucky you.



TREASURY BOARD


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, last week, the President of the Treasury Board announced that by the end of November, he would have some interesting statements about the Laprade fund. Will the President of the
Oral Questions
Treasury Board confirm before the House that he will not give in to pressure from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and that the Laprade fund will be reserved exclusively for the only riding included in Quebec economic area 04, which covers the ridings located north, south, east and west of Trois-Rivieres, as was announced previously?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm, as I did before the media, that there was, and is, no plan to change the geographical boundaries of the Laprade zone as defined in 1979, which is basically, as the Hon. Member said, zone 04. There has been no change in the zone itself, and in a few weeks' time, I hope to be able to provide details of the new criteria for access to the Laprade fund.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I have a confidential Government memorandum indicating that parole services in the Toronto area will be privatized not just to the John Howard Society but to several other private agencies as well, in a significant expansion of privatization. Will the Minister indicate why he is expanding privatization to these other agencies as well as the John Howard Society? Will he not agree to impose a moratorium on all privatization plans until the people involved have had an opportunity to comment and appear before the Justice Committee on this dangerous and destructive proposal?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, there has been full and ample discussion with all the parties involved. It is not a dangerous proposal. It is a well thought out proposal that will render better service to the people who are being discharged from our prisons and better enable them to return to society.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. In the former Minister's Bill, the

November 25, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Allmand
Bill prepared last June, Clause 41(14)3(b) provided that multinationals had to manufacture their active ingredients in Canada. If after two years they had not done so, their ten-year protection was revoked under this legislation. The new Bill does not oblige multinationals to manufacture their active ingredients in Canada. Why did the Minister change the original Bill in this respect?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this is typical of the kind of question that should be asked in committee where we could go over it in detail. As I answered when she asked a similar question the other day, we did it because we were asked to by the generic companies and the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association.



NARCOTICS


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The prevention of drug and alcohol abuse among young Canadians is of particular interest to my constituency. The national PRIDE office, located in my riding, and the Saskatchewan Alcohol and Drug Addiction Commission have been instrumental in educating the public on the dangers of this problem. Since public awareness has increased on this issue, will the Minister indicate when the consultations to enforce a national drug strategy, as alluded to in the Speech from the Throne, will begin?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member has asked the question. I want to take this opportunity to commend various groups, including PRIDE which is located in his riding, for the work they have done.
The major component of the drug strategy on which we have been working is the education component. I have said all along that we must consult the various groups, including parent-teacher groups and people in the community who have a lot of experience in this area, because they are the ones who have to proceed with this program. The federal Government wants to help them. Considering some of the work we have done internally, I think that that consultation can begin early in the new year and I hope that we can have the plan ready for everyone sometime in the first quarter of next year.



POINTS OF ORDER


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, in answer to my question during Question Period, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) said that he would be willing to table certain documents relating to the question. Does this mean he is willing to table the Douglas Wright report on youth unemployment, as well as the untendered Secor report? Are these documents that he is willing to table, and will he table them right away?
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the Hon. Member's position that the Minister quoted from the document?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker, but the Minister did say that he would table certain documents relating to the questions that I was asking. I am trying to clarify which documents, and I want him to table them right now.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should advise the Hon. Member that if the Minister did not quote from a document he cannot be forced to table it. If the Minister wishes to table that, of course it is his business.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what I referred to in my answer to the question put by the Hon. Member, what I said was that the research done by SECOR as part of the report to be provided by the Wright-Gaucher Commission, and a number of studies were made, I said: We are going to wait for the Wright-Gaucher report on the integration of young people in the labour market before deciding exactly what the merits are of the research done by the company. This has no connection with the tabling of documents in the House today.



ALLEGED MISSTATEMENT

['The Chair has heard the representations of Hon. Members and they have heard the representations of each other. I think the point is taken.']
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order arising from Question Period and the exchange between myself and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). I believe he may have inadvertently misled the House. I simply note that from his own Department, specifically Doug George in the GATT Secretariat in his Department, there was confirmation to us that the clauses were changed from Clause 23 to Clause 22 in our GATT appeal, after we originally made an appeal under GATT 23.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that he sent me a note on the question and I replied to him. I listened to his question with precision and care. He asked if the Government had caved in. My answer was no, the Government has not caved in. If he wants to use inflammatory language in the House of Commons he will have to suffer the consequences.
November 25, 1986



Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) made reference to Members of Parliament tabling petitions and it was my impression that he was arguing that the fact that those Members had tabled those petitions reflected their particular position on an issue before the House of Commons. I think that is a disservice to Members of Parliament. I think it is important that it be noted because it has been a longstanding practice in the House of Commons that all of us table petitions, not so much as a reflection of our positions but as a service to our constituents.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) was making his comment in the House of Commons and referring to petitions he was simply saying that the constituents in that constituency were reflecting their concern about Bill C-22. It was not necessarily imputing that the Member presenting that petition held that position. It was simply a reflection of his constituents' view.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has heard the representations of Hon. Members and they have heard the representations of each other. I think the point is taken.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 24, 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 a second time and referred to a Legislative Committee; and the amendment of Mrs. Killens (p. 1378).
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is advised that the last Member to speak in debate was from the Liberal Party. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate, since there is no government Member standing to be recognized, to recognize the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in this very important debate on a matter which affects literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians directly and virtually all Canadians indirectly.
I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have strongly opposed Bill C-22 which is being proposed by the Conservative Government since it first attempted to introduce it this spring. And on a previous occasion when the former Liberal Government made moves to weaken the protection which was accorded to the producers of generic drugs we put that Government on notice that we would not stand idly by
Patent Act
and allow these protections, which were initially implemented in 1969, to be in any way weakened to the detriment of those who are the most vulnerable in our society.
All Members of Parliament have received many representations on this legislation. I want to give a couple of illustrations of the kinds of responses I have received from my constituents as the Member of Parliament for Burnaby. I quote from a letter received from a gentleman and his wife who live on Gatenby Avenue in Burnaby;
Both my wife and I suffer from chronic ailments requiring constant medication. The cost of these drugs is already high, especially to one like myself who is on pension. Any major increase would be an additional strain on our finances.
I urge you and your Party to take energetic measures to block the passage of any legislation that would increase the price of drugs.
I have heard the same thing from many senior citizens in my constituency who live in the Winch Towers, the Vista Towers Senior Citizen's Complex, Doug Drummond Manor, the Hall Towers Senior Citizen's Complex, and from many others I could name if time permitted. However, in the interests of moving along in the debate I will not name all of them. Suffice it to say that these people share a sense of anger and a sense of deep concern that drugs which are already too expensive may increase in price.
We have to ask ourselves why this Conservative Government chooses to move forward at this time with a Bill which would increase the price of drugs to Canadians. What we are told is that if in fact the compulsory licencing provisions which were introduced in 1969 are eliminated it would somehow encourage more research in Canada and create more jobs. That does not make any sense. Before 1969 there was no compulsory licencing, yet Canada had some of the highest drug prices in the world, and before there was compulsory licencing there was a very low level of research on new drugs. Therefore, this myth that somehow there will be a significant increase in the level of research and development is merely a carrot being dangled by the Government and the multinational drug industry in an attempt to obtain protection under the Patent Act.
We in this Party do not buy that kind of corporate bribery. We certainly reject the suggestion that the consumers of Canada, the disabled, the poor, the seniors and those who are least able to afford drugs should be required to bear the burden of this Conservative Government's ideological fixation with paying off American multinational drug companies.
The Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) has said there will be no significant increase in the price of drugs; in fact, he said there will be no increase in the price of drugs. Why is it that the same Minister has refused to make public the cost impact studies of this particular Bill? What does he have to hide? If in fact the studies, paid for after all by the taxpayers of Canada, disclose that there will be no increase in the price of drugs, we all know he would be the first

November 25, 1986
Patent Act
person to table those studies here in the Elouse of Commons. We know the truth, Mr. Speaker, and the truth is that the cost impact studies commissioned by the Government show that the Minister is not levelling with the people of Canada when he says there will be no increase in the price of drugs.
What does that mean in real terms? Let us take a couple of examples of the drugs with which we are dealing. One of the more common drugs used in Canada is the drug Tagamet. It is very widely used by people who have ulcers. One hundred tablets of the brand name drug Tagamet costs approximately $40 in Vancouver. The generic equivalent of Tagamet costs approximately $15.1 know Hon. Members of the House would not want to move forward legislation which could in effect significantly increase the level of drug prices such as Tagamet.
One of the newer antibiotics brand name drugs, Amoxicillin, costs approximately $18. The generic equivalent costs about $9, about half that price. One of the most widely prescribed drugs in Canada is Valium. In Winnipeg, for example, the retail price for 100 tablets of the brand name drug Valium is approximately $15. The retail price for the generic equivalent is just a little over $5.
I think my constituents in Burnaby and, indeed, the people of Canada, have a right to know why it is the Government is caving in to the pressure of the American multinational drug companies. Is it not a fact that the real hidden agenda here is that the Tory Government is trying to grease the skids for its free trade negotiations with the Americans? We know, for example, that Clayton Yeutter, the chief American negotiator on free trade, has put strong pressure on the Canadian Government to move forward, to increase the price of drugs. He said that drug prices will rise. For example, he said:
Any improvements in this area are clearly in the best interest of Canada as a nation. Now in some cases maybe this will raise the price at the retail level of some of these products, but if we're going to have low retail prices based upon piracy it seems to me that's not a sound way to run a country.
At least Clayton Yeutter has the honesty to level with Canadians that the prices of drugs in Canada will rise.
Professor Eastman, who headed up a commission in this area, was very clear that the long-term prices of prescription drugs in Canada will increase as a result of this Bill. The Minister himself has effectively conceded to the consumers of Canada that drug prices will increase. On the one hand he said, no, there will be no increase in the price of drugs to Canadians. On the other hand, when dealing with the provinces, he said: "What I will do is put aside $25 million a year for four years". The reason for that is to cover the increase in the price of drugs to their pharmacare plans. So the Minister is saying one thing to provincial Ministers of Health, and at the same time the Minister is speaking out of the other side of his mouth to consumers telling them there will be no increase in price. If there is no increase in the price of drugs, why on earth does the Minister have to guarantee to provincial pharmacare plans that he will give them more money? The only possible reason for giving them more money would be to increase the profits of the multinational drug companies. We already know
that this has been one of the most profitable sectors in Canadian society.
I would like to take a moment to address the question of a health care system and, more particularly, an industry which is geared solely to the pursuit of profit. I want to suggest that as democratic socialists, and as Members of the New Democratic Party, we believe there are certain sectors of the economy which should not be driven solely by the pursuit of profit and greed but which should be based upon the effective serving of human needs. I can think of no more appropriate sector for that particular philosophical approach than the health care sector. As long ago as 1961 my Party in its founding documents spoke clearly and with great eloquence about the importance of a health care system in which all of the health care needs of Canadians would be served and in which no Canadian would be deprived of affordable health care because he or she could not afford drugs, dental care or decent medical care.
In 1975, at the federal convention of my Party, we proposed and adopted the following resolution. It was arrived at after discussing the deterioration of health care and the fact that the fundamental principles which were the cornerstone of our medicare system were being eroded; fundamental principles which people such as Tommy Douglas, Woodrow Lloyd, Allen Blakeney and other New Democrats and CCFers fought long and hard to establish.
In our resolution we stated that we should be extending federal-provincial cost-sharing of services to include all extended health care services currently provided in some provinces but not others. There are still provinces today which do not offer their citizens pharmacare plans. What this means is that if one is a poor person living in one of those provinces and if one happens to be sick, disabled or dependent upon a particular drug, then he or she will suffer.
I am proud of the fact that it was a NDP Government in my own Province of British Columbia which introduced a pharmacare system in 1973. I hope that Governments all across the country will recognize the obligation to their citizens, and that no one should be forced into poverty because he or she happens to be sick and needs drugs.
One of the essential elements of the health care resolution that was adopted by the New Democratic Party in 1975 was that a NDP Government would assist the provinces to reform the health care system by setting up a Crown corporation to manufacture and bulk purchase low-cost generic equivalents of the 80 most common drugs prescribed. There are some who say that that is a radical proposal. They ask: "What about the free enterprise system? What about competition in the marketplace?" In that respect let us look at the underlying premises of the Patent Act.
By adopting the legislation which is proposed by the Tory Government what we are saying is that the only way that we
November 25, 1986

can encourage the development of new drugs in our society is, effectively to bribe the corporate sector by giving it the exclusive rights to drugs for a period of 10 years. What type of a distorted approach is that to health care? In this country, and, indeed, globally-and I can talk at some length about the abuses of multinational drug corporations in Third World countries where there is the dumping of substandard drugs and, indeed, in some cases, hazardous drugs-it is fundamentally wrong for us to adopt an approach in which effectively we say to the multinational drug companies that we have sicknesses and diseases in our society which we want treated. Our citizens have pains and disabilities which require drug treatment. We want you as a corporate community to assist us in responding to this pain, this suffering and this sickness. The only way that we as a Government are prepared to move forward on this issue is to give you exclusive rights for 10 years to the patent. I say that that is nonsense. We should be adopting a fundamentally different approach.
As a society we should be saying that if drugs are developed to deal with illness, pain and suffering, then we should not have to bribe the corporate sector with guarantees of exclusivity for 10 years to develop those drugs. No. We should be saying to the scientists in our society that we believe the best minds in the country, the best men and women scientists in the country, should be working collectively to develop responses to illness and pain. We should not have to bribe multinational corporations to conduct research in secret laboratories or have scientists working in splendid isolation from one another on cures for the same disease. That approach to health care is fundamentally immoral.
I suggest we have to look at the underpinnings of this legislation. We must recognize that when it comes to the provision of health care services and to the provision of quality drugs this approach is profoundly wrong. I suggest that the Government is caving in to the demands of American multinational corporations without any guarantees whatsoever that there will be any significant increase in research in Canada.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who has led the fight on behalf of our caucus with respect to this Bill, said that there was no significant research done prior to 1969 and the advent of compulsory licensing. The companies about which we are talking are major multinationals, European and American companies which have labs in their home countries. They are not going to do research in any significant degree in Canada. They will do it in labs in their own jurisdictions. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise.
Earlier I mentioned the letter I received from the pensioners in my constituency of Burnaby who suffer from chronic ailments requiring constant medication. I have received letters as well from those who are disabled and who rely on drugs to help make their lives bearable, to help ease the pain. The Tory Government is saying to those who are most vulnerable, to those who depend on drugs to make their lives a little more bearable, that we will increase the price of those drugs. Why? Because we have been promised by American multinationals
Patent Act
that they will create jobs in Canada. I do not buy that promise.
1 do not buy it because there is no evidence to back it up. I do not buy the promise of the Minister that prices will not increase when the evidence is clear that they will. The Minister has not even had the courage to table in the House the studies which were done by his Department at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada which deal with the impact in terms of costs.
In conclusion, I wish to make it clear that I and my colleagues in this Party are proud of the tradition of the New Democratic Party, both provincially and federally, in terms of standing up for an effective health care system in Canada. We will do everything-and I underline the word "everything"-in our power to prevent the Conservative Government from caving in to the pressure of multinational corporations in a way that will result in increases in the price of generic drugs, indeed, in the price of all drugs, an increase which will hit those who are most vulnerable, the sick, the disabled and seniors.
We will not stand by while Tory MPs try to railroad this Bill through the House of Commons using closure. It is disgraceful that Members on the government side are actually seriously prepared to try to ram this Bill through without any type of meaningful debate whatsoever. It is audacious of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) to stand up and say that we are trying to obstruct this Bill. Damn right; we are trying to stop the Government in its tracks with respect to this legislation. We certainly believe that we are speaking on behalf of the people of the country. We are speaking up on behalf of those who say that it is nonsense for the Tory Government to be kowtowing to American multinational drug companies in a way that will result in harm, in pain and in suffering to those in our society who cannot afford it.
I hope that Members of the House will reflect on the substance of the legislation which is before us and that Tory Members in particular will stand up and be counted, as the Tory Member for Kent (Mr. Hardey) has done in saying that he cannot in conscience vote for this Bill. If Tory Members vote for this legislation, they will be voting against the interests of each and every one of their constituents and they will be voting solely in the interests of American multinational drug companies. That will be to their shame.


Neil Young: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I enjoyed and appreciated the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has been serving this House for quite some time. In fact, he became a Member of the House prior to my election in 1980. As such, he has a much greater awareness than I of the dynamics of the House of Commons.
Given the knowledge that everyone accepts the Hon. Member does have about the way this place operates, perhaps he would care to predict how many other government Members will likely join with the Official Opposition and the New

November 25, 1986
Patent Act
Democratic Party in opposing this legislation, as has the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Hardey) who has expressed his opposition to this legislation to his own constituents.
I know the Hon. Member for Burnaby has had a wealth of experience in this place. In fact, he saw Members on the government side come out in very vocal opposition to the Government's attempt to legislate the cost-of-living increases on old age pensions. In fact, it tried to deindex old age pensions and when senior citizens rose up in a united opposition to what the Government attempted to do, it did not take too long for government Members to come out suddenly in opposition to the measure. As a result of that united effort, the Government's attempt was defeated. I predict the same thing will happen to this legislation and I would certainly appreciate hearing the comments of the Hon. Member for Burnaby.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those kind and unsolicited remarks made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches. He has led with courage and distinction the battle on behalf of my Party on a whole range of issues, particularly with respect to the rights of the disabled as our representative on that committee. I am honoured to serve in this Chamber with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches, and I look forward to doing so in the future.
My colleague has asked me about the extent to which the splits, cracks or splinters will start to show in the Tory caucus over the coming months on this particular legislation. I would like to be a bit more optimistic than some of my colleagues on this point but I am very concerned indeed that we may see that Tory back-benchers will not stand up on behalf of their constituents. There will be one or two lonely souls who will be forever consigned to the oblivion of Tory purgatory as a result of having had the courage to stand up and be counted on behalf of their constituents. I predict, sadly, that when the crunch comes and this Bill is voted on, Tory Members will rise one after the other to vote, not as their constituents would want them to vote on this legislation but, rather, to vote against the interests of the disabled, the sick and senior citizens.
Perhaps I could conclude with one example of this. If in fact Tory Members of Parliament had had the courage to stand up and be counted on this issue, they could indeed have stopped this Bill from going ahead. My colleagues from Skeena and Beaches will remember that Tory back-benchers stood up to the Minister responsible for the Post Office by saying that they would not allow the postal increase to go through. They did that because of the heat they were getting from their constituents, but, to their credit, they did do it.
Why are those same Tory back-benchers not standing up for their constituents on this issue? If they do not have the courage to do so in the House, they should at least stand up for their constituents in caucus. They should tell the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) that they will not allow him to destroy the future of the Party, a progressive Party, the Progressive Conservative Party. They should tell
him that they will not allow him to destroy the Party's tradition by bringing forward measures which will not only result in a significant increase in the price of drugs but which, during the next election, will result in the decimation of the Tory caucus in Canada.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) on his excellent remarks. I have two questions on matters that have been raised in this debate. Americans representing large pharmaceutical companies were quoted on the CBC program The Journal as having said they had had knowledge of the contents of this Bill prior to its being tabled in the House. I wonder what kind of conclusions the Hon. Member for Burnaby would reach on where they would get this kind of information and why they would know it in advance. Perhaps they had been involved in some kind of a lobbying effort.
Second, it is well known in this House that the Conservative Party raises most of its funds for electoral purposes from large corporations. Could the Hon. Member draw any conclusions as to why the Conservative Government would bring forward legislation that is so visibly unpopular and yet stands to be of such great benefit to large multinational corporations principally from the United States?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), has raised a very important point. Before this legislation was introduced, the Government consulted. However, government Members left out a few people in their consultations. They consulted with representatives of the American multinationals and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of Canada. They consulted as well with some representatives of the generic drug industry, but the people they ignored in the consultation process were those most affected.
Did Conservative Members consult with groups representing senior citizens? Of course they did not. Did they consult with groups representing the disabled, groups like the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped? Of course they did not. The people with whom they consulted and who saw this draft legislation were not those who would be hardest hit by it but those who stood to gain along with American multinational drug companies.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Skeena, has suggested that this may have something to do with the fact that the Conservative Party receives very extensive funding from large corporations in Canada. I think it would be unparliamentary for me to attempt to impute motives to the Government for the introduction of any particular legislation, but I think Canadians themselves are quite entitled to draw the appropriate conclusions about the very intimate link between the corporate sector and the extent to which the Government is bending over backward to serve its interests and not the interests of the people of Canada.
November 25, 1986


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I totally disagree with the Elon. Member for Skeena. I invite him to examine the record. It is a matter of record from where contributions to the Conservative Party come. I invite the Hon. Member to attend the next fundraising event in my riding and I invite him to look at the list of those who attended the last one which was on Saturday night. It was very successful, I might add.


Svend Johannes Robinson: What's happened to your riding, Bob?


Robert Hylton Brisco: My riding is 100 per cent, Svend. I would suggest you look at your own. Mine has never been in better shape, both geographically and politically.


Svend Johannes Robinson: What about redistribution, Bob?


Robert Hylton Brisco: The Hon. Member wants to avoid the subject of the Bill before us. If he wants to know about redistribution, I can tell him that there were 43 submissions made before the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commission. Every municipality, chamber of commerce and labour union in the constituency came before that panel of judges and said that they should not destroy Kootenay West.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I can see a point of order coming on relevance.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is pretty clear that the Hon. Member, as is often the case, is talking about things totally irrelevant to the Bill before us.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you are aware, and the House is aware, that the question was posed by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), and by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).
In the context of what the Member for Burnaby has said, Mr. Speaker, I would like to revert to the debate that dealt with the child tax credit. There is a similarity, and there is an analogy to the purpose and intent of members of the NDP. If you examine the record and listen to the speeches, you will note that what they are saying is that 25 years from now the child tax credit will be worth $2.25, or $3.50.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are dealing with the drug legislation, we are not dealing with the child tax credit. It seems that the Member's comments are still irrelevant.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair allows analogies from Members to prove their points. However, they may not last too long.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Obviously, the Member for Skeena did not wish to hear the other side of the analogy. Perhaps he will permit me to continue.
The analogy is simply that they were making comparisons that will apply 25 or 30 years from now, and not taking into
Patent Act
account changes in policy, changes in interest rates, changes in inflation, improvements to policy, and the absence of a horrendous deficit, as long as we retain power-


Svend Johannes Robinson: That won't be long.


Robert Hylton Brisco: -and the opportunity to put Canada on a firm financial footing. Given that, the same argument applies in terms of the generic drug argument. The simple fact is that I wish to see students in my riding, and in the riding of other Members of Parliament, involved in the scientific community and research, which is to the ultimate benefit of everyone.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope that the students in the Hon. Member's riding, who might become sick or disabled, would not have to pay exorbitant prices for drugs, as a result of his support for this particular legislation. I suggest that the chances of that happening are far greater than the somewhat nebulous chances that maybe one or two of the students from his riding would be able to get a job in that industry.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member has been around the House for some time. I think that he was probably confused in his analogy. The analogy that he should have drawn to the attention of this House was, rather, with the Tory Government's attempt to deindex old age pensions. That is the appropriate analogy. I know that the Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) wanted to tell the House that just as Tory Members finally came to their senses and spoke out against the deindexation of old age pensions, we hope that the Member for Kootenay West and other Tory Members of Parliament will stand up and be counted and speak out, too, against this increase in the price of generic drugs in Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are against research and development. Shame on you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Edmonton East.


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand up in favour of what the Government is endeavouring to do in passing the new Patent Act, Bill C-22.
This represents the efforts of the Government to increase the level of pharmaceutical research and development in Canada, to ensure fair prices for consumers, and to create more jobs for Canadians. What seems to be wrong with this proposal? As a pharmacist for 35 years, I believe that it is time that we started to work to get more jobs in research, more jobs for graduate pharmacists, more jobs for researchers in our universities, and in the companies that will spend more money for research and development. Among the most important of the objectives is the protection of the consumer. We have stated this over and over again. It is strange that members of the Opposition have

November 25, 1986
Patent Act
their ears plugged and their mouths working diligently trying to disprove the truth.
The Bill ensures that prices will not get out of hand by guaranteeing continued generic competition, by providing for transitional payments to the provinces, and by creating a Drug Prices Review Board. These are sound principles that are contained in this Bill. So why not deal with these one at a time?
Furthermore, by providing a more appropriate length of market protection for innovative products, the patent system will become a more effective vehicle for promoting research and development, and the transfer of technology for the benefit of all Canadians. These amendments are designed as a balanced package of measures to provide improved patent protection of pharmaceuticals, a better investment climate, and continued access by Canadians to reasonably priced drugs. It is very important that we should emphasize "reasonably priced drugs".
With the extended market exclusivity there will be expanded incentive for the creation of new employment opportunities in Canada for scientists and researchers. As a result of Bill C-22, we predict that within the next five to six years there will be up to 3,000 new high-tech jobs. High paying jobs will be created.
As a result of this legislation, there will be a reduction of Canada's dependence on technical developments in foreign countries. Why shouldn't we do this in our own country? Why shouldn't we have the pride of having our own development? The costs are not great. The costs are absolutely minimal. The public will not be obliged to pay the exorbitant prices that have been alluded to by the members of the Opposition.
The Government has received commitments from the industry, and it will increase its ratio of research and development to sales to more than double the pre-policy level by 1995. This means that the innovative sector will spend up to $1.4 billion. This is $1.4 billion in research and development over and above the amount that would have been spent otherwise. This is a commitment. With this new investment, Canada will move into the same league as Japan, Italy, and the United States. We look at these countries and say, "Why can't we be like them? Why can't we be like the Japanese and so effective, or like the Americans?" We cannot do that by piracy. We cannot do that by hiding under the covers of our supernationalistic ways of doing things. We have to be wide open and get into research and development. It is this Government's aim to develop Canadian oriented brand name drugs, to increase innovative effort and put Canada among the leaders in pharmaceutical research. I believe that this Bill is meant to achieve this goal, and it will.
For generic companies this legislation provides continued opportunities to grow and prosper. Generic drugs now marketed in Canada are unaffected by this policy. Furthermore, all existing innovative drugs now on the market will immediately be available for generic competition, provided that the generic company manufactures the fine chemical
ingredients instead of importing them. So we are looking after this area as well. To that end, all existing licences to import will be immediately extended to licences to manufacture. Licences to import and to manufacture will be available to generic drug companies wishing to export the drug.
The aim of these amendments, Mr. Speaker, is to allow pharmaceutical products to enjoy a legislative period of protection before they can be copied by the generic companies. It is important to remember that while Bill C-22 will affect the timing of the entry of new generic drugs into the market, generic companies will still have immediate access to all drugs at the end of the exclusivity period, and upon the expiry of the drug's patent.
Talking of patents, the chairman of the patents committee at the University of Alberta is the dean of pharmacy. The dean is absolutely ecstatic with our proposals. He believes that the Department of Pharmacy at the University of Alberta, as well as other departments, will benefit from this innovative Bill that we have before the House. The dean knows that he will have greater access to more researchers. He knows that the work that is being done at the university will be greatly enhanced. He knows that the University of Alberta will be contributing to the betterment of health care in Canada.
The Chairman of the patents committee has told me that there are patents waiting to be put on the market. However, no one will do that if the pirates are just around the corner ready to pounce on them. This is information from the University of Alberta. What about the other universities? New medications are not being put on the market because companies are not anxious to invest money.
Beyond the continuation of competition from the generic sector, an independent Drug Prices Review Board is to be established to ensure further fair pricing of pharmaceuticals. Under the current Patent Act, compulsory licensing has been used to generate competition to keep down prices and thus protect consumers. However, not all drugs have been copied. According to the Eastman Commission, for those which have been copied it has taken about 11.5 years after the brand name product was introduced for them to get to market. Therefore, consumers are not fully protected. With the proposed legislation the Board will widen consumer protection by looking at all prescription drug prices to determine best the fairness of the price charged to consumers.
Had the Drug Prices Review Board been in effect today, it might have looked at the prices of drugs as they have increased over the last five years. I will use the drug Beclovent as an example. In 1981, its cost was $6.60. Today, its cost is $10.90. Calculating the inflation rate at 34 per cent, it might have cost $8.84. In other words, there was a 31 per cent increase. The Drug Prices Review Board might have looked at it and asked drug companies why the price was so high. It might have asked why it had increased the price 31 per cent higher than the inflation rate over the last five years.
November 25, 1986

Another example would be the heart drug, Lanoxin. It is an inexpensive drug which is used by tens of thousands of Canadians. Its price has increased by $18 per thousand more than the inflation rate. Had the Drug Prices Review Board been in place today, it might have looked at this drug. Then there is the medicine called Dilantin which is also used by tens of thousands of Canadians. It is used for epilepsy. Its price is 185 per cent higher than the inflation rate. Surely this indicates a need to have the Drug Prices Review Board to which reference is made in Bill C-22.
According to the report of the commission of inquiry on the pharmaceutical industry, on the average, Canadian consumers pay about 80 per cent of what their American counterparts pay for the same single source drug or a drug not subject to generic competition. This is not simply the result of generic competition on a narrow range of drug products. It is evident that the bulk purchasing power of public hospitals and the power of provincial health care systems are major factors in the price differential between Canada and the United States. We can expect the trend to continue.
Dr. Harry Eastman will be heading the Drug Prices Review Board which will work in close co-operation with the provinces to ensure that drug prices continue at reasonable levels. Because of the particular interest in maintaining fair drug prices, provincial Governments will have the right to make representations in cases of alleged price abuse directly to the Board through their Ministers of health. The Board will have the power to remove patent protection from drugs priced at excessive levels.
Let us look at Nicorette. How many of us wish to quit smoking? Nicorette are for those people who have quit smoking and cannot stand the strain of not having any nicotine in their blood, so they chew it. It has risen in price by 103 per cent above the rate of inflation over the last five years. Surely it is another case for the Drug Prices Review Board. The provinces would have the right to have the Drug Prices Review Board look into drug prices.
Because the Bill changes the rules to determine exactly when a generic copy would appear on the market, it may have a short term impact upon provincial pharmacare plans which were devised without detailed knowledge of this piece of legislation. To counteract that, the Government is proposing a transitional payment of $25 million per year for the first four years of the policy. This is meant to cover any possible increases in prices which provincial Governments are not prepared to pay through their drug plans. It ultimately represents additional security for individual consumers covered by provincial plans.
Bill C-22 provides a balanced package of measures designed to fulfil a variety of objectives. It will ensure an expansion of investment in research and development. It will ensure fair prices for all drugs for Canadian consumers. It will develop new jobs and opportunities in both research and development and chemical manufacturing fields. Of course it will be to the benefit of all Canadians.
Adjournment Debate
We protect many industries. We from the West have always felt that we have tended to protect manufacturing industries which are particularly based in southern Ontario and in Quebec. In terms of the automobile industry, all Canadians pay extra money to protect jobs in southern Ontario and in Quebec. It is an obligation; it is a right. As a matter of fact, we from the West sell most of our products, if not all our natural resources, at the world price. Sometimes, as was done by the previous Government, they are sold below the world price to the detriment of those of us from the West.
I believe this piece of legislation is good for all Canadians. It will be good for the manufacture of medicines and for research and development in all areas of Canada, although it may be based particularly in eastern Canada. The West and the Atlantic provinces will experience a certain amount or a greater amount of investment in their areas.
In addition to the amendments proposed by the Government in Bill C-22 relating to the pharmaceutical area, there is a series of general amendments in the legislation. In brief, the objectives of the amendments are, first, to modify the Patent Act in order to benefit small and medium sized businesses which are the heart of job creation in Canada at this time. Why do members of the Opposition, in particular those in the NDP, say that it will be harmful to all Canadians? It will be to the benefit of all Canadians. Many more jobs will be created. It is essential that Bill C-22 be passed.
Second, they will reduce the costs Canadian inventors must pay for obtaining patents around the world by ratifying the Patent Co-operation Treaty. That is important because we live not only in a country but in a world of many countries. We must get along with them and they with us. That will be to the benefit of inventors in Canada.
Third, they will introduce a prompt and low cost method so that any interested party can request the re-examination of a patent by the Patent Office at any time during the life of the patent, rather than being obliged to suffer high litigation costs. It will also harmonize Canada's patent system with those of most other countries, making it simpler for Canadians to obtain patents abroad. This is a form of reciprocity which I believe is essential for Canadians, Canadian drug companies, researchers, chemists and pharmacists. I believe it will be to the benefit of the sick and maimed, those who require these medicines.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy 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 Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall)-

November 25, 1986
Patent Act
Regional Industrial Expansion-(a) Sydney Steel Corporation. (b) Initiation of marketing study; the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher)-Copyright-Use of videotaped material for educational purposes; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Agriculture-(a) Government assistance for grain farmers, (b) Government's obligation under Western Grain Stabilization Act.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre that Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mrs. Killens (p. 1378).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question and comment period will begin with the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith).


Mr. Frith:: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the points the Hon. Member has made. Would he care to explain why he as a pharmacist, from a professional standpoint, believes his Government chose to ignore the major recommendations of the Eastman Report? Why has his Government chosen to go far beyond the needs of the industry to the detriment of the consumer?


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the allegation that this Bill is to the detriment of all Canadians. The Bill is intended to be for the benefit of all Canadians. It will mean that we are more self-sufficient in this industry and that we increase research and development of our own medicines in Canada.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I find it curious, as I am sure any rational person would, that in defending the legislation the Government repeatedly tells us that 93 per cent of the drugs currently in the market-place will be unaffected by this legislation. If one examines that statement carefully, one finds that the Government is saying that the old legislation, since it applies to 93 per cent of the drugs on the market, is good legislation. It therefore seems ridiculous to change it, and I would like to hear the Hon. Member address that question.
I am also interested in his purported interest in the stimulation of research in Canada. As I think everyone is aware, but perhaps many Members on the government side are not, there is nothing in this legislation which guarantees that research will be carried out. We have a hope, a prayer and a promise. The Eastman Report provided a mechanism through royalties which would ensure an effective inducement to have research undertaken in Canada. Our position is that that report should
at least be subject to examination before legislation is introduced. How can the Member claim that letters, promises, hopes and prayers are better than a specific mechanism to ensure that research is done in Canada?


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, we have had consultations and made arrangements with all the companies. The companies and Governments concerned have to work together. If we pass laws to cover every single agreement made, we will have nothing but laws, laws, laws. In 1969, after the previous legislation was passed, we experienced, especially in Montreal and in southern Ontario, a great loss of employment among experienced researchers. We want those jobs back. We want Canadians in the forefront of research and development. We want Canadians to develop medicines for the benefit of our country. Why not do that? Why wait for someone else to develop it and then import the ingredients? Let us manufacture them here. We have to work with other countries so we can export our knowledge and our products around the world as well.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question which has preoccupied some of my constituents. On November 20, as reported at page 1361 of Hansard, the Minister said:
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 pharamacare plans-
Does the Hon. Member know, being part of that Government which is trying to increase costs to consumers, why there is a delay in bringing on this group of 41 generics? Is the bureaucracy that heavy? Is it because the Government has put a moratorium on their development?
I would also like to know if he is willing to accept a complete freeze on prices for all drugs for the next year so that we can adapt more easily to this cost increase?


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, once a company is able to put a drug on the market there is a time lag because of government regulation and bureaucratic control. For want of a better word we can call it the pipeline. We had hoped this legislation would go through last June because these drugs would have gone through that pipeline and we would not have had any problem. But we have had this delay and so we have to face the fact there will be a delay before these drugs are available on the market.
The Hon. Member also asked a question about a freeze.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: On drug prices.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Those in the pipeline.


William Lesick: There will be a freeze on those in the pipeline but I thought the Hon. Member said a freeze on all drugs on the market today. There is of course no freeze on drug prices because, as I said earlier, there has been a general increase in
November 25, 1986

the price of medecine as well as many other things. I have quoted several. Ortho-novum has increased by 7 per cent more than the inflation rate. For tens of years women used Ortho-novum for birth control. There will be no problem with drug price increases as a result of Bill C-22. The Minister has made it clear that that will not happen. I just wish to reiterate what the Minister has said and what the Government knows to be true.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will recognize the Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and the Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis) for questions and comments. We will then resume debate with the Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith).


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, it has been quite a number of years since I have worked as a pharmacist. I note that the Hon. Member who just spoke is a pharmacist and I presume he will know recent history. Under the present law, generic drugs can come on the market after the multinational corporations have had exclusive rights for four years. Under the proposed law which the Hon. Member is supporting that will take 10 years.
The price for 100 brand-name Valium tablets in Winnipeg is $15.10. The price for that amount of the generic drug is $5.64. Tagamet is used by people who have ulcers. The cost per 100 tablets of Tagamet is $39.38. The price for the generic equivalent is $15.34. One of the newest antibiotics, Amoxicillin, costs $18.25 for the brand name drug while the generic version costs $9.25.
The system which we have has brought the price of prescription drugs down to less than half of that for brand name drugs. Is that what the Hon. Member's constituents want him to vote against?


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I hear these words-


David Orlikow: These are facts, not words.


William Lesick: People add two things together and get four. It just does not work that way. Of course I am in favour of lower drug prices.


David Orlikow: You're not.


William Lesick: I have dispensed whatever the doctors have prescribed. When the prescription is open, we dispense the medicine which we feel is the better of the two. If it is a generic, so much the better. That saves my clients money. This will not change. All the medicines which we have today will not change at all.


David Orlikow: Six extra years. What about the future?


William Lesick: We will not notice any changes. There will be only minimal changes over many, many years. However, we will provide up to 3,000 new jobs in high tech. The companies will spend $1.4 billion in investments. That will mean jobs in
Patent Act
addition to those for chemists, professors and all others who will be involved in research and development. This Bill will have absolutely no effect whatsoever, as has been stated by the Minister and the Government.


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending a high tech conference in Saskatoon the other day. The issue of our science and technology deficit of $12.5 billion was raised there. If we were to reduce that deficit to zero, we would reduce our unemployment situation by 120,000 people, which amounts to 10 per cent of our unemployed. I am not suggesting that all of this will be done by this legislation. However, I think this legislation moves in the right direction.
There is a major university in my constituency. I was interested to read some comments in The Globe and Mail this morning by Philip Seeman, the chairman of the pharmacology department of the University of Toronto. I think this person knows what he is talking about. He says that drug designers have been packing their bags and leaving this country. He said that in recent years 19 drug companies have stopped conducting research and frozen their investments in Canada. The scare squad in the NDP is suggesting that the roofs of senior citizens will cave in on them as a result of this legislation. That is absolutely false. If there are any increases, there will be protection from them.
I know that there is a major university, the University of Alberta, in the Hon. Member's city. Does he expect that some of the spin-off contract research and development may take place at the University of Alberta as a result of this legislation? I certainly expect that that will be the case in my riding.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ravis) for that question which is very important to those of us from western Canada, particularly those of us from Saskatoon and Edmonton. My colleague is right. We cannot hide under the blanket of fear which has been thrown out by members of the Opposition, especially those in the NDP. We must move ahead and develop. This will mean great things for the University of Saskatchewan, the University of Alberta and the University of British Columbia, which has a faculty of pharmacy as well.
It is very important that we start expanding our research and development. Our scientists will be better off. We will not lose our high-tech people to other countries as we have in the past, especially after the 1969 Patent Act was passed. Over 300 such people left Montreal because there were no longer jobs for them. There will be more jobs in Saskatoon, at the University of Alberta, and in Edmonton in general. Bill C-22 is going to help provide them.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, I will preface my remarks by saying that I view with some skepticism the words which have just been mouthed by my colleagues from Saskatoon and Edmonton. Government members purport to be committed to the concept of research and development, particularly in the scientific community. The

November 25, 1986
Patent Act
Members who have just indicated their so-called support for research and development ought to look to their Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) for solace after the debates we have had in the House of Commmons this autumn with respect to the cut-backs at the National Research Council which will affect universities across the country. However, I stray from my thesis. I will turn to a discussion of Bill C-22 which is before Parliament today.
In the next 20 minutes I hope to be able to convince my colleagues in the Conservative Party that the proposed changes to the Patent Act go too far. I hope to be able to convince my colleagues in the New Democratic Party that they should change their position as they presently support no change. To support no change flies in the face of all the debate which has ever taken place in the House of Commons. It is clear that Governments introduce legislation as a result of a need for change. That need for change is brought about by various interest groups in our society. These interest groups are often competing.
I have heard my colleagues on all sides of the House argue for the need for jobs. Who among us will oppose the creation of jobs for the youth of the country? Who among us will oppose the need for increased funds for research and development? I suspect that no one will, Mr. Speaker. Once a Government has tabled a piece of legislation, it is up to the other political Parties to determine what position they will take with respect to it. During the course of the debate on this Bill, some Members of the Conservative Party have quoted statements I have made on behalf of the Liberal Party in my capacity as health and welfare critic. As well, they have quoted other statements the source of which I frankly do not know. I wish to respond to those charges that have been made during the debate.
1 strongly believe that the Liberal Party's position on Bill C-22 can be logically and intellectually defended on the basis of the major recommendations in the report of the commission of inquiry on the pharmaceutical industry, commonly known in the political world as the Eastman Commission. Those recommendations fundamentally form the basis upon which the Liberal Party makes its position clear about the needed changes in the industry.
I want to explain why we require change to the 1969 Patent Act and I hope that the force of my logic will convince Members of the House that the Liberal Party's position is the correct one.
We accept the need for change. We accept one of the Eastman Commission's major findings that to some extent the 1969 legislation did go too far.
First, let us review the history of this subject so that all Members may have the same basis upon which to make a proper assessment of the law. The odyssey began with changes to the Patent Act in 1969. The Leader of the Opposition was
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at that time. After three major studies in Canada, the Government of the day decided it was time to change the Patent Act to allow more competition into the market-place. The Government of the sixties had found that the pharmaceutical manufacturers of Canada had unwarranted profit levels and unwarranted periods of exclusivity with respect to their own patents. Therefore, changes were made to the 1969 Patent Act.
I note that one of my colleagues who is in the Chamber this afternoon, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs responsible for the launching of the review into revisions to the 1969 Patent Act. He established the Eastman Commission which, I submit, must be the foundation upon which any Government must base the change, the purpose and direction of the 1969 law. Surely no one can argue that the Eastman Commission represents the largest source of inquiry into the impact of the 1969 laws on the pharmaceutical industry, the research and development, and its impact on job opportunities for our university graduates.
In summary, the Eastman Commission Report represents the state of the art in information with respect to the pharmaceutical industry in Canada today.
I want to refer to some of the major findings of the Eastman Report. For example, he found that the 1969 Patent Act amendment has not, as expected, been detrimental to the profitability of large multinationals. In fact, he found that the profitability in the pharmaceutical industry exceeds every other industry within the major sectors of the Canadian economy. In terms of growth, he found that there has been no difference in growth in job opportunities between the pharmaceutical industry in Canada and that of the United States.
I think we do a disservice to the debate to use the rhetoric of anti-American sentiment. I do not think it does much to advance the quality or intellectual raison d'etre of the Bill. Second, I will not resort to using examples of drugs that have become completely outpriced in Canada because it also clouds the decision-making that must occur with respect to Bill C-22.
The Government of the day introduces a Bill before the Parliament of Canada because it believes there is a need for change as a result of the competing interests that are subject to that legislation. The concern is, to what extent is change necessary in the industry?
I believe the only way we can properly assess the need for change is to base it on the recommendations of the Eastman Commission. Let us use research and development credits as an example. Conservative Members in particular argue that this Bill is necessary because it will allow a tremendous increase in the amount of money that the pharmaceutical industry will commit to research and development in this country. I would assume, therefore, that they anticipate that more jobs will be created for graduates from our universities, providing meaningful employment in their area of expertise in the scientific community. Eastman said that we should be
November 25, 1986

increasing the royalties that are paid to the pharmaceutical manufacturers in Canada from 4 per cent to 14 per cent, to create a very large pool of research and development funds that would be allocated back to the pharmaceutical manufacturers on the basis of their R and D commitment in this country. I will deal with research and development more specifically later.
I indicated that the Eastman Commission found that there was no effect on the profitability of that sector, and that the 1969 legislation had in fact saved consumers in this country $256 million per annum. One must respect the findings of the Eastman Commission after 18 to 24 months of intensive study of the industry. It is important to note what is said about the 1969 legislation. Let me quote the following from page 30 of the Eastman Report:
Despite the considerable achievements of these policies, the Commission recommends some major modifications and extensions. The process leading to authorization for marketing should become more rapid and more consultative.
In other words, despite those major findings, he recommended modifications and change. That is why I am fundamentally opposed to the position taken by members of the New Democratic Party. They should realize that the recommendations of a commission of this importance which studied the results of the 1969 legislation should be seriously considered by every major political Party. Eastman goes on to state:
This modified Canadian system for the pharmaceutical industry would make Canada a more attractive site for pharmaceutical production and research.
I have no qualms about that at all. He says:
The relative attraction of Canada for the industry compared to other countries will increase further in the foreseeable future because of the growing trend for Governments of most industrially advanced countries to interfere directly and forcefully in the activities of the pharmaceutical industry.
He goes on to point out that in his opinion Canada is not well placed to become a major world centre for pharmaceutical research or for the production of active chemical ingredients. That is very important because the Liberal Party's position on the pharmaceutical legislation reflects the major findings of the Eastman Commission. That is why the Liberal Party takes the following position: It supports the introduction of a four-year period of exclusivity for patent holding firms during which time a generic company would be precluded from obtaining a licence to import, coupled with a hefty royalty increase, amounting to approximately 14 per cent of a licencee's sales which would be paid into a pharmaceutical royalty fund and returned to the pharmaceutical manufacturers of Canadian members, according to the amount of R and D undertaken in Canada.
I am suggesting that this Bill goes too far in looking after the interests of the pharmaceutical manufacturers of Canada, and does not go far enough in protecting the needs of the consumers in this country. Clearly, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) either does not understand the Bill or is deliberately hiding from Canadians the effects of this Bill on manufacturing and pharmacy prescription prices in Canada.
Patent Act
If we were to take the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Minister at his own word when he says that the cost of drugs will not change by one penny, why is it that his own Bill has provision for $100 million in transitory payments, $25 million a year, which will be given to the provincial Ministries of Health to cushion the impact which this proposed legislation will have on provincial Governments which have the constitutional responsibility for the delivery of pharmacare? I submit that the Minister knows full well that he is simply playing with definitions, that in fact this Bill will increase the cost of drugs to consumers and will have an impact on provincial Treasuries as well through the Ministry of Health expenditures.
For the life of me, I do not understand why the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs simply does not say it is going to have that effect. He defends it on the basis of the need for change so we can have greater opportunities for our young people coming out of universities and more commitment toward research and development. The point I am making is, how can a Government, after accepting the report of a commission, which is one of the most widely respected with respect to the pharmaceutical industry in Canada, totally ignore the major recommendations of its report and go far and beyond the recommendations?
The Eastman recommendations, in my opinion, represent a balanced view between the needs of the industry, which I believe are legitimate, and the consumer. I have listened to my colleagues from the Province of Quebec who have eloquently argued the need for a change to the pharmaceutical Act so that there can be some degree of job protection for the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario which, to some extent, is the heart of the pharmaceutical industry. I accept that argument from my colleagues from Quebec. In addition, I accept the argument from my colleagues from all three political Parties in the House about the need for more commitment to research and development. That can be attained just as easily by accepting the recommendations of the Eastman Commission as it can by implementing the law being proposed under Bill C-22.
Clearly our position, as a Liberal Party, is somewhat between the position taken by the New Democratic Party and that taken by the Conservatives. The question is, which one of us is correct? That will be at the heart of the debate. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have accepted the determination of the Eastman Commission that Canada is not well placed to become a major world centre for pharmaceutical research and for the production of active chemical ingredients. However, we could increase the royalty funds on generics from 4 per cent to 14 per cent and could in effect create a sizeable fund for research and devlopment, perhaps not as a world class centre, which is the point today's Government is making, but certainly it would aid in the creation of jobs for our young people in the pharmaceutical industry and in the scientific community.
Where I find it difficult to accept the argument is that the Government had to go beyond the recommendation of the

November 25, 1986
Patent Act
Eastman Commission to the point where it almost doubled the degree of exclusivity recommended by the Commission. In addition, I must confess I have some difficulty with the Eastman Commission accepting the position of the Chairman of the Drug Prices Review Board. It seems odd to me that the Conservative Party, which came to power with the philosophy of deregulation, is now bringing forward a piece of legislation which is going to complicate the pharmaceutical industry. It is going to put into effect another layer of bureaucracy and regulatory mechanisms in order to ensure that consumers are not going to be ripped off by this law. If the Government was concerned about the consumers, why did it not just simply implement the recommendations of the Eastman Commission?
The Eastman Commission's recommendations would have allowed better opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry, yet it would have gone a lot further in protection of consumer affairs without the need to resort to a regulatory mechanism than what is represented in this law.
I therefore appeal to my colleagues on all political fronts that when this Bill does finally manage to go to committee, we will be allowed the fullest opportunity to call witnesses. I want to find out from those witnesses whether or not they agree with the recommendations made in Bill C-22, as proposed by the Conservative Government, or if they are more in favour of a balanced view represented by the recommendations of the Eastman Commission. I believe very strongly that intellectually the arguments which have been marshalled by the Eastman Commission could be used to represent a balanced view for the needs of consumers and for the industry. As I said earlier, I respect the needs of the industry, but I happen to disagree that it requires 10 years of exclusivity to achieve its goals and aims.
Finally, I suspect that the reason the pharmaceutical manufacturers of Canada have hurried to such a great degree in pressuring the Government for the implementation of Bill C-22 is not only tied up, to some extent, in the free trade negotiations with the United States, a fact I view as deplorable, but that, in addition, the 1969 legislation, coupled with the changes recommended by the Eastman Commission, would have become a model piece of legislation in other jurisdictions throughout the western world. That, I believe, is at the heart of the matter. What the pharmaceutical manufacturers of Canada fear most is not the impact the Canadian legislation has on their percentage of world-wide sales but the impact the Canadian legislation would have if enacted by European countries or by consumer advocates in the United States. What they fear most is the impact of the 1969 Patent Act in other jurisdictions.
In conclusion, I believe we should look at how best the Canadian Parliament could serve the needs of consumers, the needs of the pharmaceutical industry, the needs of the young to have access to jobs in the scientific community, and the need for jobs. I submit that what we should be doing is bringing forward a piece of legislation which reflects the major recommendations of the Eastman Commission and not the legislation proposed by the Conservative Government.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) several questions. He referred to the 1969 legislation passed by the Liberal Government when the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) was the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Hon. Member said, and he knows, that it worked very well. It saved the people of Canada tens of millions of dollars. Why, then, was it necessary to open up the whole question? An article which appeared in the August-September issue of This Magazine, written by John Sawatsky, goes over the history of what happened. Mr. Sawatsky gives as the reason the fact that Liberal Members of Parliament were putting the pressure first on the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), and then on the following Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the former Hon. Member for Nickel Belt, and she appointed Professor Eastman mainly to neutralize the pressures she was getting from Liberal Members of Parliament. I am sure the Hon. Member for Sudbury has read this article, and I would like him to comment. Mr. Sawatsky is talking about discussions which went on last June about the former Bill. He wrote:
Then, behind the speaker's chair on the floor of the Commons, Cote quietly met with Liberal MP Doug Frith, a Sudbury pharmacist who serves as his party's caucus chairman and critic on social policy. They cut a deal in which Frith agreed not to oppose Cote's interim legislation. The Conservative-Liberal agreement suddenly made temporary legislation politically viable. "Only the NDP will bitch," they agreed.
That is a very serious charge. Finally, I want to put to the Hon. Member that we are not debating Professor Eastman's recommendations.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: You want no change?


David Orlikow: On the contrary. If the Government had brought in a Bill based on Professor Eastman's recommendations-


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Oh, good.


David Orlikow: -we could have discussed those recommendations.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: That's what I wanted to hear.


David Orlikow: But we are not debating that. If and when the Government brings in that type of legislation, we will look at it clause by clause and probably support a good part of it. But that is not what we are debating. What we are debating is a Bill which gives the multinational corporations just about everything they want. That is why we are opposing it.


Mr, Frith:: Mr. Speaker, I believe I should probably begin my response by asking a question. I find it passing strange that the New Democratic Party finally admits that it would be in favour of a Bill which would reflect the findings of the Eastman Commission. That does not differ at all from the position of the Liberal Party, a position I have taken consistently throughout the last two years. I have listened to my
November 25, 1986

colleagues from the Province of Quebec who have legitimate concerns about the impact of the 1969 legislation on the pharmaceutical industry in their province.
The so-called secret deal that was made behind the Speaker's chair is simply this. The Minister of the day was finding out whether or not we would be amenable to the recommendations made by the Eastman Commission. I say it publicly to Ministers opposite that if they wish to amend this legislation to reflect the major recommendations of the Eastman Commission then we would not be in full debate in this Elouse on this particular legislation today.
I also wish to indicate to my colleague from Winnipeg why it was that the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs established the Eastman Commission in the first place. The establishment of the Commission came about as a result of a request made at a federal-provincial conference held in the early part of the 1980s signed by every one of the provincial Ministers which indicated that they wanted to have an inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry established because of their concern about the impact of the 1969 legislation on research and development levels in Canada. The then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Hon. Member for Papineau, acceded to the request.
As I have indicated before, I think the Eastman inquiry represents the highest state of information that we can possibly attain in Canada with respect to the state of the pharmaceutical industry. My Conservative colleagues opposite would do well to change their minds with respect to the proposed legislation.
[ Translation]


Mr. Leblanc:: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I fail to understand why today, after so many years, the Liberals still do not realize they made a mistake when they passed legislation which did not protect our drug research and researchers. At the time, we the people of Montreal could predict that tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, and today we can still see the empty buildings vacated by companies which did drug research. They are responsible for this and during those seven years they did not have the courage to backtrack and introduce the kind of legislation we are advocating today.
I can appreciate the position of the New Democratic Party, with their socialist approach and conviction that the Government should control everything. But I do not understand the Liberal Party, they are supposed to be in favour of liberalization. It is very difficult to understand. Why should this debate last so long? Why so much protest to make the debate last as long as possible and to mislead people?
Should we have more unemployed or people who can afford to pay for drugs? That is the main issue. What are we going to do with unemployed people if they cannot pay for drugs? The best thing is to have people with money to pay for them. That is the point.
My question is simple. Why didn't the Liberals, why didn't your party have the courage to table a Bill as sound and well
Patent Act
drafted as the one we are tabling today? Why not say: Yes, we will let people invest in research and development and at the same time, we will control prices in the long term? Why don't you agree with this position?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Because, Mr. Speaker, we are not stupid.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: I think the Hon. Member is mistaken in his allegations about unemployment in this industry. After examining the issue for eighteen months, the Eastman Commission found that the 1969 legislation did not affect the employment situation in the industry, and Mr. Speaker, I think that if the Conservatives want a higher level of research and development in this country, it would be much easier to change the royalty system in the industry, as recommended by the Eastman Commission, by increasing royalties by 14 per cent. To me, Mr. Speaker, this would be much easier and more effective than the legislation we have now.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief comment with respect to the speech of the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) and, in particular, in response to a question raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).
This Party has certainly long fought for an affordable health care system. It was never our position back in 1982 or in 1983 that the provisions that were brought in in 1969 to deal with what were some of the highest drug prices in the world should in fact be changed in the absence of compelling evidence that there could be significant improvements, both in the quality of drugs offered to Canadians as well as enhanced research, without jeopardizing the prices paid by consumers.
Certainly, if one is given a choice between the Draconian proposals put forward by the Government and the provisions of the Eastman Report, then clearly the Eastman Report is preferable. I wish to make it clear, speaking as one Member of Parliament, and I know I speak on behalf of my colleagues on this point, that I am not satisfied that the very high levels of profits of the multinational corporations in the drug field should be further enhanced by any changes to the 1969 compulsory licensing legislation.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: In conclusion, I rest my case. I began my treatise this afternoon hoping that I could convince some of my colleagues that the Eastman Commission's recommendations were the route to follow. I have now found during the debate, and I appreciate it very much, that my colleagues from the New Democratic Party now admit, as the Liberal Party does, that the Eastman Commission represents the direction to follow in terms of the pharmaceutical industry in Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Charlesbourg (Mrs. Tardif).
1518

November 25, 1986
Patent Act


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to express my personal satisfaction with the tabling of this Bill by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) I also want to take this opportunity to mention the support received from the Federation de I'Age d'Or du Quebec. The president of the Association, Mrs. Rose-Aimee Leblanc, sent a letter to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I would like to quote some passages from this letter:
On behalf of the Federation de I'Age d'Or du Quebec, I would like to reiterate our support as expressed on many occasions for the changes in the Patent Act announced by the Government. The Federation de I'Age d'Or du Quebec is agreeable to having an adequate period of exclusivity guaranteed for new drugs.
The present legislation is unfair and discriminates against researchers and scientific experts in the pharmaceutical industry, because it denies them the protection enjoyed by other industrial sectors and by researchers in other countries.
We are convinced that these changes in the Patent Act are necessary to stimulate research and find discover new drugs to treat diseases for which a cure has yet to be found such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, AIDS and various cardio-vascular diseases.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the pride Canadians feel in what they do and their pride in the quality of their products, and to how important it is for Canadians to be involved in pharmaceutical R & D.
The purpose of the Bill before the House today is to ensure that consumers will pay reasonable prices for drugs and that the pharmaceutical industry will meet its commitments to engage in research and development, and we see these two objectives as the primary objectives of the new legislation. To ensure these objectives are achieved, the new policy provides for establishing an independent Board that will review drug prices and monitor investments by the drug companies. The Board will have a very important role. The Review Board will consist of five members, and will be chaired by Dr. Harry Eastman himself, who is a professor in the Department of Economic Science at the University of Toronto. Dr. Eastman was chairman of the Commission everyone is talking about today which submitted its report in May 1985. All members of the Board will be appointed by the Governor in Council for a period of five years and may be reappointed for one further year. Members must be persons without any interests in the pharmaceutical sector. I think this guarantees that hearings held by the Board will be used to hear the complaints or requests of consumers. The Minister may also, if he so wishes, establish an advisory panel to be composed of members of the various groups concerned, which will advise the Minister with respect to the appointments of members of the Board. I think that is also a useful addition.
To guarantee that drug prices will be fair, every patentee of a invention shall provide the Board with information on the prices of patented medicines manufactured or sold by the patentee. To determine whether drug prices are excessive, the Board must consider factors such as the consumer price
index-if there are price increases in other sectors, there may also be increases in the pharmaceutical sector-the price of such products in other countries, which is also an important factor, the price of similar drugs in Canada and, if necessary, we could go even further, the cost of making and marketing drugs and such other factors that in the opinion of the Board are relevant. When the Board's experts indicate that a given price is excessive, the Board will establish a maximum. If a company persists in selling the product at a price above the established maximum, the Board may, after holding public hearings, rescind the period of protection against imports of generic equivalents or the manufacturing thereof. Furthermore, the Board may rescind the period of protection granted for other drugs produced by the company. I may recall that although public hearings will be held, the Government's purpose is to keep procedures simple and to hand down decisions as quickly as possible.
The Board will be working in close co-operation with the provinces. We are all aware of the interest the provinces have in drug prices. Provincial Health Ministers will have the right to appear before the Board and explain their position.
Public participation is also important since the public can advise the Board of any case of allegedly excessive prices. In certain cases, investigations will result directly from inquiries from the public, while at the present time, members of the public have no idea to whom they should complain. The hearings held by the Board will not constitute an exclusive forum for the pharmaceutical companies. The general public will be able to attend.
The Bill also grants real powers to the Review Board. This will enable the Board to offer greater price protection than is now possible. Many drugs have no competition from generic products. Consumers therefore have no idea if they are paying a reasonable price for these products. I think that we all know that, only 7 per cent of all prescription drugs now have a generic equivalent. This means that there is no generic equivalent for 93 per cent of all prescription drugs and that it is therefore impossible to verify the prices of these products. The Board will be responsible for reviewing the prices of all drugs now being sold to determine whether the consumer is paying a fair price or not.
The Board will also review the price of drugs well before generic equivalents are available. This is also an important factor. The Board will put pressure on companies to lower prices as soon as the drugs appear on the market. This is another major improvement over the situation which has existed since 1969. Today, prices go down only when a generic product comes on the market. From now on, the Board will be able to determine as soon as a product is put on the market whether its price is excessive and ask that it be lowered. Consumers will not have to wait for a generic product to come on the market to benefit from competitive prices.
It is very important to note also that during the average period of 11 years and a half between the time a patentee offers a new drug on the market and a competitor develops its
November 25, 1986

generics, there is absolutely no competition on the level of prices. The Board, therefore, will have to protect consumers both during this period and following the introduction of generics.
Another responsibility of the Board will be to see to it that patentees meet their R & D commitments. They have agreed to double their R & D investments within the next ten years. To ensure that these corporations fulfill their promises, the Board will be empowered also to collect and analyze information on their R & D activities. The Board will annually prepare and submit to the Minister a public report on the performance of the industry.
Let us mention also that the legislation provides for two formal review of the policy. The first one will take place four years from now, that is in 1990, and will be carried out by the Cabinet. The Government will be able to issue an order in council to reduce or revoke the protection period granted to the patentees who fail to keep their promises.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the part we expect this independent board to play is an important one for consumers as far as the prices of medicine are concerned. It is important to note as well that the legislation provides also for a second thorough review of the policy ten years from now. I suggest that we set out the course and provide ourselves with some points of reference so that this policy will be reassessed in order to avoid the recurrence of situations such as we have known since the implementation of the 1969 legislation, because nothing was done to meet the expectations of both consumers and scientists.
As I recall my previous experience, I think that consumers did complain quite often about drug prices ever since the legislation of 1969 has been in force.
Mr. Speaker, it being close to 5 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(a), I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing the debate on Bill C-22.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Mrs. Tardif (Charles-bourg), seconded by Mr. Tremblay (Quebec East), moves that the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing the debate on Bill C-22.
The motion as proposed is in order.
1 will read the relevant Standing Order:
In putting the question on such motion, the Speaker shall ask those Members who object to rise in their places. If twenty-five or more Members then rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn, otherwise, the motion shall have been adopted.
Will those Members who object to the motion please rise in their places.
And the count having been taken:
Missing Children Search Act


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In the opinion of the Speaker, twenty-five Members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 9(4)(b), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.

Order, please. It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   MISSING CHILDREN SEARCH ACT MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West) moved: that Bill C-234, an Act to require assistance in the search for missing children, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as the motion indicates, I have presented to the House of Commons Bill C-234 respecting the search for missing children. This Bill was presented on a previous occasion to the House of Commons. It has been widely discussed among those interested in the subject of missing children.
I wish to advise you of the reason that I seek approval for this Bill on second reading. For many years in the municipalities and across each of the provinces, the problem of missing children has caused great consternation and difficulties, not only to the parents of missing children, but to the authorities that under our social system are responsible for young persons.
The provinces, through their legislative assemblies and their Governments, have been unable to provide a suitable solution to the problem of missing children. For this reason, I attempted to draft in a Bill suitable for passage through the Parliament of Canada, a solution to the problem of missing children. It is important that Parliament understand that it does have jurisdiction in this matter. Heretofore it has been considered that the problem of missing children was the concern of the provincial Governments and the legislative authorities of the separate provinces.
However, I wish to point out to the House of Commons that Parliament has already taken responsibility with respect to children under the age of 16 years. In Section 197 of the Criminal Code it is made very clear that every parent, foster parent, or guardian of a child under the age of 16 years is under a legal duty to provide the necessities of life to that child.
In order to perform and implement that obligation under the Criminal Code, it follows that as part of our criminal law jurisdiction we should provide a parent or guardian with the method to ensure that the child remains under their care and

November 25, 1986
Missing Children Search Act
control, in order that they can perform their legal duty. It is under that authority that I drafted and presented to this House as a Private Members' Bill, Bill C-234, which has the short title Missing Children Search Act. I will just state briefly, because I have indicated the contents of the Bill on other occasions, that the Bill is to authorize a parent to in turn give authority to a police officer to search for a missing child, that is, a child under the age of 16 years.
What is important is not that we regard the specific provisions and words of this Bill, but that we grasp the subject matter of it, and recognize that there is a huge problem. The Parliament of Canada, if it has any legislative authority, should exercise it in favour of a resolution of the problem. Even if the House does not see fit to give second reading to this Bill and reference to a legislative committee, I would be more than content if the House of Commons would see fit to refer the subject matter of this Bill to an appropriate committee. I think the appropriate committee would be the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. However, I will leave that to the determination of the House.
I wish to make a couple of remarks that very graphically bring to the attention of the House of Commons and the Canadian public the concerns that have resulted in the introduction of this Bill.
When I first introduced this legislation in the House of Commons, I made the statement that police forces across Canada could tell you whether your motor vehicle was stolen or missing, but they did not keep any record of missing children. I was challenged on that point. Unfortunately, it was true. Since then the Solicitor General has directed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to add missing children to its CPIC register. To a certain extent, the problem has now been resolved.
I wish to present some other facts so that Members will know the extent of this problem. Of the 11 children whom Clifford Olson admitted killing, only one was a subject of a police search. That is the extent of the difficulties that arise from police involvement in searches for missing children. I am trying to bridge that gap and bring parents and the police together, so that missing children will be found and a search will be conducted immediately.
In the few moments I have at my disposal, I wish to say that there have been many people who have concerned themselves and made it almost a career to deal with the problem of missing children. I mentioned Judy Cullen, with whom I have had a number of discussions. I also wish to refer to Mr. and Mrs. Gary Rosenfeldt, who have been crusaders in this field. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.
I wish to present to the Parliament of Canada, and the people of Canada, one case which I think typifies the problem. It is the case of Jeffrey Murray, who went missing in January of 1986 from his home in the Halifax-Dartmouth area of Nova Scotia. Ten months later this 14-year-old boy was still missing.
I wish to quote the following from a media account of Jeffrey Murray's situation:
At first RCMP, treating Jeffrey's disappearance as a runaway case, did receive tips there were a few local sightings of Jeffrey, but they were unable to track him down.
Finally, Mrs. Murray and her husband Robert,
-made the difficult decision of signing Jeffrey's guardianship to the province, giving police power to arrest their son and bring him home.
That is a very poor solution, Mr. Speaker, to a very real human problem. In order to receive police assistance and empower the police to search for one's own child, a parent in the Province of Nova Scotia-and it is the same in most of the other provinces in Canada-has to in effect make a complaint that his or her child is a delinquent and that they require public assistance by way of guardianship. That is the solution that the provincial legislators have provided. It is not a good enough solution. If the Parliament of Canada in the exercising of its authority under the Constitution of Canada can provide a better solution, then I think that we should at least explore it.
I have suggested the device of a parent being able to authorize the police to make a search. That is one suggestion. There may be better suggestions. I would be the first to recognize a better form. What there has to be in any solution to the problem is the ability of parents to enlist very quickly the aid of the police forces in their community and across Canada in the search for a missing child. Why should they do that? It is because it has been established time and time again that runaways or children who leave their homes and go missing become almost inevitably the victims of crime. Anyone, including the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) if that is his position, who tells me that there is not a connection between missing children and the criminal law of Canada simply does not know what he or she is talking about. Missing children become, almost in every case, victims of violence or victims of crime. In the best of cases they are simply inducted into a world of outlaws in society; they become outlaws. If we visit major urban areas across Canada, we see graphic evidence in this regard on every main street from Halifax to Vancouver including St. John's, Newfoundland.
We are trying to respond to a real problem. The solutions may not be perfect, but at least it is a start. I enlist the assistance of all Hon. Members of the House in attempting to determine a course of action which can be taken under the laws of Canada to resolve this very serious social problem.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some very brief remarks with regard to Bill C-234. At the outset I should like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) for taking the initiative and for being concerned about a particular problem which is national in scope. I had the pleasure of speaking to the predecessor of this particular Bill, Bill C-230, when it was given first reading in the House on March 20, 1985. I said then-and I say it again today-that
November 25, 1986

the Official Opposition, the Liberal Party, is supportive of the general thrust of the legislation. We believe that the subject matter of the legislation ought to be considered by the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
All too often in the House, given the nature of our parliamentary system, there is considerable partisan debate. I believe very strongly that the problem of missing children in Canada is the type of issue where we can all set aside any partisan concerns we may have and work together to develop some effective legislation or an effective solution to the problem.
Again I congratulate the Hon. Member. Indeed, I commend the Government for some of its actions on this important subject over the course of its mandate.
As we know, the former Solicitor General announced in December, 1985 several initiatives to address the particular problem of missing children. For example, it was announced that there would be a central registry on missing children. The press release indicated that the RCMP would be creating a central registry in Ottawa to assist police forces and concerned agencies across Canada in locating and identifying missing children. Also it indicated that the registry would be linked with the Canadian Police Information Centre which had online terminals in almost all police departments in Canada. It would also be linked with similar information systems in the United States and through Interpol to the rest of the world. The plans were to have the registry operational by July, 1986.
As I speak this afternoon, I am not clear on whether or not the central registry is fully operational. However, I believe it is a step in the right direction. I think the Government is truly concerned about the particular issue.
As the Hon. Member for Halifax West pointed out, there is no national legislation in Canada to deal with the problem of missing children. There is such legislation in the United States. Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, over 2,000 children are reported missing every year in Canada. It is a large number of children. The Canadian police information computer usually has an accurate record of the number of missing children. Of course the 2,000 figure is an estimate. At any given moment in time there are approximately 2,000 missing children. While the CPIC usually has an accurate record of the number of missing children, as I understand it the circumstances of their disappearance are not included in that computer. At times we are told that police departments may enter incomplete descriptions or conflicting information.
Missing children fall into three categories-runaways, stranger abductions, and parental abductions. Contrary to popular belief, most police departments do not wait a prescribed period of time, for example 24 hours, before recording a child is missing. My information is that generally police departments treat each case individually, taking into consideration factors such as whether the child is known to be a runaway or whether there are feuding parents and parental abduction is likely. At times precious little can be done with
Missing Children Search Act
regard to a missing child when there is parental abduction. Of course there are stranger abductions. They are of paramount concern. It is an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada.
As well, when we are dealing with runaways, while some children may rebel and decide to run away from home, we know that at times they all too often fall into the hands of certain degenerate elements in society and begin a life of crime, whether it be prostitution or drug peddling. There are those individuals in society who decide to use runaways. Of course runaways are very vulnerable to exploitation by different people in society.
We all know that Canadian corporations are eager to become involved in the search for missing children. Many corporations in Canada are prepared to offer financial assistance. However, I believe the bottom line is that the Government of Canada and we as parliamentarians have a responsibility to ensure that as a Parliament we do whatever we can to ensure that the problem is dealt with. While the Government of Canada has taken certain initiatives for which I commend it, I do not believe we have gone far enough.
There is now a central registry on missing children. The Government has declared a National Missing Children Day on May 25 of each year. Pilot studies are being initiated in different Canadian cities. I believe, as does the Hon. Member for Halifax West, that there is a need for national legislation. At the very least, there is a need for the subject to be debated and discussed at the national level here in the Parliament of Canada through the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. Once the matter is referred to that particular committee, the committee will have the opportunity to invite various groups and individuals in society to come forward, such as the Canadian Centre for Missing Children. That is a voluntary organization in Edmonton. I would like to commend it publicly for the work it has done concerning missing children. In particular I would like to congratulate it for the literature it has produced on the subject. I believe it is doing some very fine work and I would like to hear from its representatives. I would like them to come to the committee to discuss their concerns so we as parliamentarians can decide how to deal with this national problem.
As the Hon. Member pointed out, the issue should be addressed by the Parliament of Canada. While different provincial Governments are discussing and dealing with it, we have to recognize that the problem is national in scope. When children go missing they often cross provincial borders. Therefore, we have a need for national legislation.
I have some technical concerns regarding this Bill. I have asked the Library of Parliament to review the legislation and provide me with a report on its potential legal problems. However, nothing should stop us from dealing with the subject matter in committee. Therefore, I would like to move that the subject matter of Bill C-34 be referred to the Standing

November 25, 1986
Missing Children Search Act
Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for further consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It has been moved by Mr. Nunziata, seconded by Mr. Gauthier:
That Bill C-234 be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
The debate will continue on the amendment with the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party to support the amendment before the House and the motion that this very important subject matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. I will be brief because I do not want in any way to deny other Members of this House an opportunity of voicing their concerns.
I hope the motion will be adopted because as one Member on the Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, I can think of few subjects which are more appropriate for consideration by that committee than the one brought forward today by the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby). I want to take this opportunity to commend the Hon. Member for his tenacity in moving forward on this subject. I have looked back over the records of this Parliament and I know he has raised the issue not just in Private Members' Hour but also during the Adjournment Debate. On one occasion he said, and I quote:
I want to present to this House as many times as I have the opportunity the subject of missing children.
It is to his credit that he has persevered.
We can all relate to the sense of anguish and despair faced by the parent of a child who has disappeared. We can relate to the frustration and anger they feel when they believe that perhaps the police have not responded as quickly as they should have. We can understand and empathize with those who are angry with the fact that in many cases when a child is abducted and taken out of the country, the parent in question is in effect told there is no possible way of dealing with that abduction.
There are three different forms of child abduction that we deal with under the general scope of this Bill. The first is the child who chooses to run away. The second is the child abducted by a parent. The third is a child abducted by strangers. It is very difficult indeed to know what sort of numbers we are dealing with. We are certainly talking about hundreds and hundreds of children. For example, as of January, 1984, over 1,200 children between the ages of 10 and 16 went missing. An additional 160 under the age of 10 were also missing. I suspect those figures under-represent the extent of the problem. However, what is clearly beyond the shadow of a doubt is that this Parliament must recognize there is a problem and that the subject matter should be studied by the committee.
I want to join with my colleagues in commending the initiatives taken by the former Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), in this area. Approximately one year ago he announced the creation of a central registry on missing children, a Canadian information centre on missing children, and the establishment of a National Missing Children's Day, as well as consultation through a national conference on this whole question. Those are all important initiatives. It is also important not to lose sight of the fact that while legislative structures are important, we have to examine why children are running away. Too often these children are fleeing from absolutely intolerable conditions at home. They run away as a last resort. Certainly we as a society have to recognize the problem and examine responses. Too many children are fleeing from abuse, whether it be sexual, physical or phsychological. I suggest that it is essential to put in place the resources necessary to deal with the problem. Legislation on the subject of sexual abuse of young children is now before Parliament. As a member of the legislative committee studying that problem, I know we look forward to improvements being made to the legislation, both in its definition of offences and in improving the ability of young children to communicate their story in court.
I also believe that while it is important to look at the legal structure, the committee dealing with this subject must also call witnesses to give evidence about why children in larger and larger numbers are leaving their homes. We have to examine, for example, the question of violence in the family. We have to ask ourselves, as I said during the debate on Bill C-15, whether we are prepared to continue to tolerate a provision of the Criminal Code which allows children to be beaten by their parents or guardians. We have to ask ourselves if perhaps the time has not come to move beyond that, as has been done already in Sweden.
I want to commend the groups which have been active in this area. They have been vocal and they have put incredible energy into dealing with this problem, often at great personal expense. I think of, for example, the group known as Mothers Against Abduction and Mcrder. This is a group of mothers who in many cases have experienced personally the tragedy of the loss of a child. Sharon Rosenfeldt, the mother of one of the victims of Clifford Olson, is active in this group as well as in Victims of Violence and with the Canadian Centre for Missing Children. I believe we owe a debt to the organizations, and the individuals who work so hard within them, which have helped push this matter. Today it will be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
In conclusion I would like to indicate on behalf of my Party that we urge government Members to allow the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General to consider this important subject matter. It is long overdue for consideration. The Member for Halifax West has been a vigorous advocate in this area. In addition to the subject matter of this Bill, I hope the committee will consider very seriously the preventive
November 25, 1986

measures which society must take to ensure that our most precious resource, our children, are not in a situation of having to flee or being subject to abduction.


Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join with my colleagues today during Private Members' Hour to discuss the Bill and the amendment to it. There are four things which I think are very serious in Canadian society. They are drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, pornography, and missing children. I believe that these four things are attacking the social fabric of our society. I commend the Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) for the efforts he has made to ensure that this Private Member's Bill will be referred to the appropriate committee.
In the past, the tragedy of missing children only came to our attention through the media. Today there is a greater awareness of missing children through pictures in bus shelters, post offices and newspapers. I have even included them in my quarterly householder to my constituents.
Today, in addition to the Bill, I want to dwell on the vital part which the community can play in the tragic saga of missing children. Community volunteers aid in the search for children and in educating parents and children to try to prevent child abduction and runaways. I would like to speak about a program in my constituency which I think presents a partial solution to this problem. Governments at all levels must work with our volunteer agencies. The program All About Me ID was commenced in Saskatoon a couple of years ago. It was shown on national television about a year ago. The objectives of the program are to provide an accurate and complete description and identification of children and, perhaps more important, to educate parents and children about preventing abduction.
The All About Me ID program started in March, 1985, in Saskatoon with a massive volunteer effort co-ordinated by Saskatoon media and Child Find Saskatchewan. With the help of hundreds of volunteers and retired RCMP officers, and with donations from many corporations and volunteer organizations, this program was put into place. Approximately 45,000 passports were issued to Saskatoon school children in a major campaign. That includes a large majority of the school-aged children in our city. The program also registered 17,000 children in the rural areas surrounding Saskatoon. I am pleased that there has already been a decrease in the number of cases reported to the police.
As you are probably aware, Mr. Speaker, each year in the neighbourhood of 1,000 to 1,200 children go missing. While many of those children have only forgotten to call home while they are out after school with playmates, last year five children were never found. As far as I am concerned, that is five too many.
The All About Me ID program is also under way in Prince Albert where over 7,000 children have already been registered. Plans are under way to implement the program in Calgary. I learned today that a radio station there has undertaken to give
Missing Children Search Act
the program a boost, much as it received in Saskatoon. The campaign is also under way in the Province of Quebec. In Saskatoon all costs associated with the production of the passports were borne by volunteer and service groups in the city. At present the passports cost approximately $1.50 each.
I do not have a copy of a passport with me, but it is basically a piece of paper about eight inches by 11 inches folded three ways. Inside it has a picture, fingerprints, and all vital statistics pertinent to the particular child. The passport is the property of parents who make it available to police in the event the child goes missing. Of course, the fingerprints and picture become the key elements of the passport.
With the enactment of the Bill currently before the House, police agencies across the country would be brought in to assist in the search for missing children. The All About Me ID passport will be of great assistance in the search. By providing police with ready-made identification and vital fingerprints the All About Me ID program eliminates a burden for them and puts the search in motion much sooner. Time is always of the essence in abduction cases where the trail grows cold very quickly.
The All About Me ID program has a preventive component as well. There is a list of 12 precautions contained in the passport. They may appear to be pretty basic, but I believe they cause many children to go missing. For example, never leave a child unattended. Remind children never to talk to strangers or accept candy from them. Make sure children know the telephone numbers for their home and for the police station. Encourage children to tell parents of encounters which are threatening to them. Tell children to go to Child Find if the worst happens. Help can be found there. I think the Child Find organization is one of the better known national organizations with agencies in every city.
The Bill before the House today is of vital importance to the well-being of all Canadian children. When my hon. colleague introduced the Bill for first reading in March, 1985, he stressed that this Bill "would ensure the assistance of police officers and searchers and encourage the participation of other agencies and the public". It is high time this action was taken. My own City of Saskatoon has proven that a co-ordinated effort of volunteer agencies can provide an invaluable service to the police. This type of action would occur on a nation-wide basis with the enactment of this Bill. Both the City of Saskatoon police and Child Find Saskatchewan feel that they have an excellent working relationship which is of great benefit in the searches for missing children.
By enacting this Bill we must not assume that the entire burden of finding children who tragically go missing will fall on police agencies. They already have limited resources and manpower. We would be defeating the noble and vital purpose of this Bill if we strained those resources by placing the full responsibility of search and find on the law enforcement agencies. Through this Bill my colleague intended to encourage joint participation by families, communities, volunteer organizations and law enforcement agencies across the

November 25, 1986
Missing Children Search Act
country. The R.CMP registry is now in place. I am pleased that that has happened. From Ottawa we are now co-ordinating with police forces in every province of Canada.
My own community has proven that this entire co-ordination effort is possible. I applaud such successful action. I urge the House to support this Bill and refer it to the appropriate committee so that the Government can encourage community actions like those taken in Saskatoon to become national in scope. By working together, police, individuals and communities can fulfil the intent of the Bill currently before the House and end the anxiety of so many Canadians.


Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to say a few words on this very important matter in Bill C-234. As Members know, the Government is very cognizant of its responsibilities in this very important social issue and has already taken concrete steps to put in place legislation and procedures to deal with this matter. Certainly more remains to be done, and, as in other areas of government responsibility, this important social issue requires regular review to ensure that the legislation and procedures of the day remain effective and appropriate.
It would be very gratifying if some single Act of Parliament, some specific piece of legislation which we could all support, would deal with the problem in a comprehensive and effective way. Unhappily, this is not the case. The matter is complex, touches on many social issues, and invokes a host of legal views and constitutional principles that are very often conflicting in nature.
We are all aware of the pain and the grief to the parent or guardian and other family members, the injury or hurt to the missing child himself or herself, when these unfortunate events occur.
Children absent themselves from their homes or residences for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it is forcibly, sometimes voluntarily. All tools at hand must be employed to determine the whereabouts of a missing child, and, where appropriate, return that child to its home. Obviously, our various police forces can and must play a significant role in the location process. Effective federal legislation is an important part of the formula. Heavy handed legislation, on the other hand, can only give birth to endless litigation and is counterproductive.
Bill C-234 contains several clauses which give me considerable difficulty. I very much hope that the appropriate committee will consider some of these clauses closely when it has the opportunity to do so. In particular, I single out Clause 7(3) which states:
When a warrant is reported in respect of a missing child, the parent of the child or any police officer or member of a police department may enter and search any place or premises as though the warrant was a warrant to search for the child issued under the Criminal Code of Canada.
1 am confident that every member of the House, as would any normal thinking member of Canadian society, would have every sympathy for a parent or guardian searching frantically
for a missing child and would, in most conceivable circumstances, co-operate willingly in the search. However, to enact legislation which gives the right of search of private property by a parent or guardian without any reasonable control or limitation seems to me to fly in the face of many of the protections accorded private citizens under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A distraught adult, at whatever the hour, day or night, brandishing a piece of paper and demanding his or her right to search my home or business, would give me pause for thought. Who is this person, how credible is his or her story, what abuses to my security or privacy are put at risk by giving free entry? How am I to know, how is some elderly widow or anyone else to know, whether the warrant, assuming the claimant has produced such a piece of paper, is valid or legal, or indeed an invention?
Clause 5(4) of the Bill mandates that every police officer who receives or acquires knowledge of the warrant shall assist in the search for the missing child. Again, I suggest that the proposed legislation is very heavy-handed. Police forces have many responsibilities, both demanding and conflicting. Those responsible for the day-to-day, indeed minute-to-minute, allocation of police time frequently have to make unhappy choices. Is this legislation intended to place in the hands of a distraught parent the incentive to bring criminal action against each and every policeman or policewoman not perceived to be searching diligently?
Surely those in charge of any local police force must have the authority to allocate resources as circumstances dictate. However well intentioned this subclause may be, in my view the wording would create many more problems than it solves.
A third area of concern is one that is not addressed in the Bill. What happens when the child voluntarily absents himself or herself because of child neglect or abuse? Under what circumstances is a missing child returned to his or her parent or guardian? Is it on all occasions, some occasions and, if so, which ones? If a neighbour's child comes to me with some reasonable story of abuse, am I required by law to return that child to the parent or guardian, or do I have the option of consulting appropriate authorities? According to Clause 7(3) which I described earlier, I am obliged to allow free access to the parent or guardian to my private property. Do I now have a fight with the parent over the child? Indeed, do I not have a responsbility to that child?
I have every sympathy with the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) in his desire, indeed the desire of all Canadians, to see appropriate mechanisms put in place for the speedy and safe return of children who are legitimately identified as missing. No doubt, others will speak about the need for well thought out co-ordination of the various police forces and agencies who need to be involved. Co-operation is most certainly required in areas where legislation is inappropriate or ineffective. While Bill C-234 addresses some of the important issues, in my view it is defective, particularly in the areas I have illustrated. Time constraints do not allow me to explore some of the other areas.
November 25, 1986

I congratulate the Hon. Member for Halifax West in bringing this forward. I hope the committee will look at this proposal carefully and make the appropriate changes, because 1 have concerns about the wording of some parts of the Bill.


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member on his very serious concern for the plight of missing children as expressed in Bill C-234. Missing children are a major concern in our society. As politicians, we cannot ignore the anxiety being experienced daily by so many Canadian families.
By introducing this Bill in the House, the Hon. Member has demonstrated his desire to help missing children and their families. His is a noble gesture. However, I believe that in its present form, the Bill does not answer its avowed purpose. One example, Mr. Speaker, is that it fails to consider the fact that many children run away from home because they have been victims of physical violence, mental crualty or sexual abuse. By doing everything we can to return these children to their parents we are not necessarily acting in their best interests.
Since under the Constitution, responsibility is shared in this area, the police come under both federal and provincial jurisdiction. Should a federal Minister give instructions to a police officer or a police force, he would clearly be ultra vires. Even if that were not the case, any legislation in this respect would require extensive consultation between the federal Government and the provinces. Indeed, some clauses such as Clause 7(3), could probably be challenged successfully under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under the provisions of the clause, a warrant signed by a parent or parents would apparently be the equivalent of a search warrant issued by an officer of the court upon receiving a sworn statement. Once issued, the warrant would allow proceeding with search and seizure while ignoring the requirement for reasonable cause.
Furthermore, the Bill does not take into consideration recent measures to improve police procedures for intervening in this area, such as the creation of the RCMP's Central Registry on Missing Children and instructions from the RCMP to all detachments advising them to act immediately on all reported cases of missing children.
Currently, there is no evidence, Mr. Speaker, to support allegations that the police are not acting as they should in reported cases of missing children. In fact, police forces across Canada are providing the best of co-operation where the central registry is concerned. Research projects being conducted by the Department in four Canadian cities will also enable us to assess police action on reported cases of missing children. That study, once completed in March 1988, and the experience gained with the RCMP's central registry should provide the information needed to determine whether any additional legislative action is needed in that area.
This of course does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think something should be done for missing children. In that
Missing Children Search Act
area, this Conservative Government which I am proud to be part of has been and is still doing pioneering work. The Government already has acted on its commitment. In August 1986, for instance, the Solicitor General officially opened the central registry for missing children. By linking all police forces across Canada, that registry significantly contributes to effective steps being taken nationally to address the problem of missing children.
This however is merely a first step, and the Solicitor General has promised to co-operate with all the agencies involved in order to find the most effective, long-term solutions to the problem of missing children. Moreoever, thanks to the efforts made by a number of agencies and levels of Government, progress to some extent has been achieved. National and provincial groups such as Child Find Ontario and Enfants-Retour, to name but those two, have made us more aware of the problem and have provided valuable services to the victims and their families. The circumstances surrounding the disappearance of children vary. However, all those children have one thing in common-they are all in danger.
Children who have been abducted by strangers are most obviously in danger, and such incidents make front-page headlines. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, they are rare. Still a child abducted by his mother or father after a divorce is also in danger, especially so if the parent involved decides to go in hiding to avoid being found.
As to run-away children, they have to survive in a cold and harsh world. They may have run away because they were sexually abused, illtreated or neglected, but once they hit the streets they may very well face worse conditions, easy prey as they are for pimps and drug pushers. They might even engage in criminal activities-breaking and entering or shoplifting, for instance-just to feed themselves, Mr. Speaker.
As a rule, police will be the first to be told a child is missing and it is their responsibility to decide whether a search ought to be organized and to find ways to warn other local, regional, national and even international police forces so they too will be on the lookout.
But, Mr. Speaker, what coordinated measures can we take? How do we go about coordinating searches to find thousands of missing kids? The establishment of the registry is a first constructive step, but obviously we still have a lot to learn. We are still not fully aware of the extent and nature of the problem, let alone the best ways to solve it. Greater police efficiency is only one part of the solution, Mr. Speaker. We need more communication and co-operation at all levels. The search for a missing child has to involve social agencies, a large number of departments at all government levels, volunteer organizations, professional associations and the private sector.
In April last, for the first time in Canada, representatives of all the groups concerned with the problem of missing children met in Toronto at a national seminar on missing children organized by the Department of the Solicitor General. The

November 25, 1986
Adjournment Debate
object was to better identify the problem and to open discussions on how to co-operate in finding solutions.
The Solicitor General agreed to provide further opportunities for pooling information, discussing experiences and establishing national strategies for all parties involved in child welfare and concerned with crimes committed against children.
It is also important, Mr. Speaker, to foster parent awareness of the need to caution children against the dangers of the streets. To that end, parents of course must themselves be better aware of the dangers involved.
Mr. Speaker, in the few seconds I have remaining, I believe that by unanimous consent we should refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the amendment of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Nunziata) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the motion as amended carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, the order is discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.