1986-12-04

Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give the House notice that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the order of the day for resuming debate on Bill C-22 standing in the name of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), I shall be moving a motion that the debate shall not be further adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 57.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, also 1 should like to advise the House that for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements under Standing Order 82(5) and Standing Order 82(9), the Government considers that yesterday was the fulfillment of an allotted day.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a separate point of order. We were witnesses yesterday to a procedure which I find difficult and of which I should like to apprise the Speaker. I gave notice of it this morning-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I advise Hon. Members that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has given me notice of the point which he wishes to raise. I ask him to do the Chair the courtesy of waiting for a few minutes, because I want to give a ruling on a matter which I think is of great importance to the Chamber and to the workings of Parliament. I will hear the Hon. Member shortly.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will remember that on November 19 a question of privilege was raised by the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). The Hon. Member
expressed himself very forcefully and made it clear that he felt a deep sense of grievance, not only on his own behalf but on behalf of private Members on both sides of the House. It was also made clear during the discussion that his feelings are shared by other Hon. Members.
The Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), who is Chairman of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, and other members of the committee made useful contributions to the discussion which clarified for us some of the problems faced by the committee and the approach the committee has been taking in the discharge of its functions.
The House is operating under a number of new procedures, those relating to Private Members' Business being among the most significant. The concept of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business and the special responsibilities conferred on it are both new and original. There are no precedents to guide the committee. It has a very unusual power-and I stress that it has a very unusual power-in that its decision with regard to the selection of items of business which must come to a vote cannot be challenged. When embodied in a report which is presented to the House, that report is deemed adopted by the House. The committee, therefore, plays a very important role in safeguarding the rights of private Members.
There is a procedural point which I should perhaps clarify before proceeding any further. The items selected by the committee from those in the order of precedence resulting from the draws which take place throughout the session are commonly referred to as "votable items". The fact is that all items in the order of precedence are votable if the House is disposed to reach a decision on them during the time allocated to debating them.
The difference between the items selected by the committee and the other items in the order of precedence is that the former are guaranteed to come to a vote, provided nothing intervenes to prevent it, such as the prorogation of Parliament. They are therefore privileged items. The committee must determine, in accordance with a set of criteria which it has adopted and published in a report, how the selection is made. This is a crucial responsibility. It is not for the Chair to dictate to the committee how it should discharge its responsibilities.
However, the Hon. Member for Peterborough raised an important question: Is it appropriate to use as a criterion the possibility that another committee might take the initiative of investigating the subject matter of a Bill or motion which happens to fall within its mandate? There is no guarantee that a committee will take the necessary initiative. Furthermore,
1760_____________________________________COMMONS DEBATES	December 4, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Gauthier
there is nothing to prevent the House from making a specific reference to a committee even if that committee has an open mandate.
All items of Private Members' Business which were entered in the draw were previously examined and found to be in order. The motion of the Hon. Member for Peterborough which was successful in the draw reads as follows:
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General be empowered to study and report on the arguments for and against capital punishment giving consideration to allowing the question of capital punishment to come to a free vote in the House.

If the House were to adopt this motion, the matter would be referred to the Justice Committee. It cannot be assumed that without such a reference the committee would launch such an investigation. If the criterion I have referred to were to pass unquestioned, there would be numerous motions which would never stand a chance of being selected by the Private Members' Business Committee.
Most new procedures pose difficulties which had not previously been anticipated. The House is the master of its own procedure and can therefore change any with which it is not satisfied. The new procedures relating to Private Members' Business, among others, are provisional in their application because the House wanted to see how they would work before confirming them on a permanent basis. The complaint of the Hon. Member for Peterborough, and the discussion which ensued upon it, clearly demonstrated to my satisfaction that there are aspects of these new procedures which need to be reconsidered. My point, however, is that this is a procedural matter which requires a procedural solution.
In summing up I would say that the Chair appreciated the concerns expressed by the Hon. Member for Peterborough and other Members participating in the discussion. I have to rule though that the matter complained of relates to procedure rather than privilege. However, I would call upon the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure to give early attention to this matter and treat it with the priority it merits.
The new Standing Orders governing Private Members' Business are provisional and the time to deal with this problem is now. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all private Members when I express the hope that an early solution will be found.
I want to thank all Hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I want to emphasize that it is the view of the Chair that this matter is serious, that there are other serious matters coming from the consequences of reform and it is the Chair's very fervent wish that Hon. Members and the appropriate committee take cognizance of the remarks that I have made today and treat the matter with the urgency which I think all Hon. Members feel is necessary.



Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening at 5.45 p.m., the Chair accepted a motion moved by the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), seconded by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), that the House proceed to introduction of Bills, and the Deputy Speaker called in the Members. As is customary, at one or two minutes to six the Government Whip and myself marched up to the Table, bowed to the Chair and at that very moment, the Deputy Speaker said:
It being 6 p.m., the proceedings on the motion before the House have lapsed and pursuant to Standing Order 9(1), the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).
Mr. Speaker, I am not implying that the Deputy Speaker ignored us or did not see us. He did see us, and I think that when he did, he probably took the advice of the Clerk and used Standing Order 9(1) to adjourn the House because it was six
o'clock.
I submit, with respect, that this seems to be an excessively broad interpretation of our Standing Orders, and also that, unlike other countries and other parliamentary institutions, including Great Britain, which has served as a model for many of our practices and traditions, we in this country have the Constitution which indicates in Section 49 that any matter, and I am paraphrasing . .. Perhaps I could read the section since I have it here. I suppose it would be better for me to read it.
This is Section 49 of the British North America Act, which reads as follows:
49. Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a Majority
of Voices-
The Chair will not vote unless there is a tie. In that case, the Chair must vote. And that is in our country's Constitution, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday evening, the House was asked to vote on a motion that had been accepted and certified correct, and as is customary, the Whips went up to the Table, as I said before, but the Deputy Speaker did not see us and he adjourned the House.
Mr. Speaker, I realize that the answer I will get is that there have been precedents since the notorious two-week long bells' incident, when the Speaker was reluctant to put the question because the Whips would not enter the House.

In the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne Citation 217 is citation. In part it reads:
The signal for taking the division is the return of the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip. The Whips march up the aisle and bow to the Speaker before returning to their seats. The Sergeant-at-Arms remains by the Bar, also bowing to the Speaker before resuming his seat. The Speaker then calls the House to order, rises and reads the question-
December 4, 1986

Over recent months, possibly over years, the Table is aware, I have looked into this question, trying to find what rule has been interpreted to allow the Chair to act not according to procedure , strictly, but to take a decision which-and when I inquired this is what I was told-is what is called creative decisions or creative interpretations. When you ask the question what is meant by creative interpretation, the answer is that it is always based on precedent. Precedents themselves are based on interpretations made by the Chair and I accept that. But I ask the Chair under what interpretation, under what rule of law or what rule of this House are we to operate if the Chair has that kind of power to disregard the will of the House when it wants, but still has before it a question which, in my view, by constitutional obligation it must dispose of.
I will not prolong this submission because I think Members in the House will understand that I have been hurt over the years by many things which all of us have accepted, but did not understand so much what they meant or on what they were based. I think it is wrong for a parliamentarian to accept something just because it is based, as we are told, on a precedent going back four or five years.
I think this whole question has to be resolved sometime by you, Mr. Speaker, because you are the Chairman of this group not the judge. You are not to make decisions based on judgment calls. You are supposed to make decisions based on interpretations of our rules. I see nowhere in our rules the authority, either in the new provisional rules or in Beauchesne, that would satisfy me in allowing the Chair, as was done last night, to ignore the Whips when they walked into the Chamber, or for the Speaker to adjourn the House because the Chair said that the motion had lapsed. The motion had not lapsed as far as 1 was concerned. It was before the House. The motion was put and was accepted as being in order. I would ask you, Sir, to look into this whole question and return to enlighten me-

-land clarify the issue so that I have a better idea of what is being done and why.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support 100 per cent the statements made by the Opposition Whip.
We were at the door prior to six o'clock. I believe we were at the Table in advance of six o'clock, because we moved directly from the door to the Table. Prior to that time, I had a conversation with the Deputy Speaker. I was advised that if we were there before six o'clock, he would accept it for the vote. Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly that a wrong has been done. Our Members were here and prepared to vote, and they were not allowed to vote in this case.
I would suggest that you read more of Citation 217, because it refers to Standing Order 9(2). It may be out of date now because of the new Standing Orders, but I would like you to
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
refer to that, because in the past the only time that this would take effect is under Standing Order 9(2), which is the lunch hour.
I feel that my Members were wronged. We were all here and ready to assemble. We have had times, and I apologize to you, Sir, when many of our Members have not properly been in their place at the right moment. I will personally deal with that with my party. I think I can speak on behalf of the Opposition Whip, who will deal with his own Members and get them in their place promptly when we come into the House.
In view of the circumstances I feel you should look at this and review it very carefully. I take votes as high priority items and of great importance to my colleagues. I would greatly appreciate your giving proper thought in review of the situation, and come up with a ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: I heard the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and I want to thank him for his comments. I would like to defer my decision until I have had a chance to examine the matter.

I thank the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell) for his intervention. I will report back to the House as soon as possible.


CONSIDERATION OF DECEMBER 3 AS AN ALLOTTED DAY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point of order. I wish to seek your view on the fact that when the Government House Leader rose to introduce closure on Bill C-22 he also indicated that yesterday was an allotted day for the Opposition on the business of supply. He indicated that that day would be considered to have been a day when that business was in fact conducted. Such was not the case.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of a very important point of privilege debate went on for some time with interventions from all sides of the House. As a matter of fact, the opposition Parties tried to move to Government Orders of the Day to deal with the matter at hand. They were denied that right. As a result, at six o'clock, having never reached Orders of the Day, the House was adjourned. I would submit that the opposition day that was planned for yesterday ought to take place between now and the Christmas recess during the regular proceedings.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention the fact that the allotted day was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) in the House on Tuesday. The NDP Party put down a votable motion for debate. The reason that the House did not get to that votable motion was because of dilatory motions used by the NDP Party to eliminate the Government's right to conduct Routine Proceedings, which is a part of our

December 4, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
Standing Orders. It seems to me that the NDP Party cannot have it both ways. It cannot use dilatory motions to eliminate the business of this House, the Routine Proceedings of this House, and at the same time say that as a result of their dilatory motions we did not get to what they wanted to do. I would suggest to you that it was their own actions which prevented the votable motion from being called. They impeded routine business.
I wish also to suggest to you that there is a danger here that this process could continue through further dilatory motions until next Wednesday which, under the Standing Orders, is the final day of the supply period. It is important that the Chair take into consideration the effect of dilatory motions and tactics, such as are being practised by the Opposition, if we reach Wednesday and we have not had either of the remaining two allotted supply days. The allotment was done Tuesday. If the Opposition chose, through their own motions, not to go ahead with it, then that is their own problem.
I am somewhat concerned because we had consultations during the day with the Table officers. It did not seem to us that there was any single clear-cut bona fide precedent which could be pointed to to decide this. I notice that on today's Order Paper there is the same motion which was placed the day before.
I wish to draw your attention to the proceedings of June 8th and 9th, 1972 when there was an opposition day scheduled debate. The motion was not called because the House agreed to have an emergency debate under Standing Order 43, as it then was, by unanimous consent. The Liberal House Leader of the day, despite strong pleadings from Members, insisted that he would let the emergency debate continue, if the House was prepared to make an order that evening to reduce by one the number of outstanding allotted days.
I wish to draw your attention to Beauchesne, Citation 275(4) which states as follows:
It is one of the fundamental principles of parliamentary procedure that when nothing is done respecting an order of business, it is struck out and cannot make further progress until the procedure regulating its passage has been regulated by the House. Neither the Speaker nor any officer of the House have the power to move it forward.
I think that if you examine that statement, we can argue that the day was allotted, that there was no special arrangement to allow for it to go forward. Therefore, it has been dealt with by the fact that through the dilatory practices of the Opposition in delaying debate on anything, I might add, they have unfortunately delayed debate on their votable motion. I suggest that they cannot have it both ways.
In looking at the votes and proceedings for that precedent I gave you for 1972, there are precedents to suggest that while it got called, it was not proceeded with, therefore, it disappeared.
In closing, I ask you to consider two questions. First, has the allotted day not disappeared as a result of their own actions? That is unfortunate, but they were the masters of their own destiny in those actions. Second, there was also an important consideration because the Standing Orders called for two
allotted days. If they continue to frustrate debate on an important issue, they may find themselves having scrubbed two allotted days, if these dilatory tactics continue.
You have, Mr. Speaker, an important precedent to decide, whether we are going to have Routine Proceedings and other business, or whether by interfering with Routine Proceedings and using that as a delaying tactic they can then come in the next day and say, "My, goodness, we delayed so long that we did not get to what we wanted to do, and said we wanted to do, so we would like to do it again today". I do not think they can have it both ways. I ask you to consider that very seriously.
Mir. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague misunderstood my point. The matter is not so much that we are talking about an Order of the Day that was never reached through the normal process. I ask you to consider Standing Order 82(9) which states:
In each of the periods described in section (5) of this Standing Order-
Section 82(5) reads:
For the period ending not later than December 10, five sitting days shall be allotted to the business of supply. Seven additional days shall be allotted to the business of supply in the period ending not later than March 26.
There are two separate periods during the day for consideration of businesss of Supply. Standing Order 82(9) goes on to
say:
-not more than two opposition motions shall be motions that shall come to a vote.
The operative words, Mr. Speaker, are "that shall come to a vote".
I believe a very important principle is at stake here. For a variety of reasons the allotted proceedings of yesterday did not come to a vote. If we do not ensure that two opposition motions come to a vote during that period we will break a very important tradition of Parliament. In your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider the importance of having the proceedings of two of those allotted days come to a vote.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I concur with the latest argument of the House Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Riis). You will also be asked to decide whether the Official Opposition or the New Democratic Party will be allotted the one opposition day which remains before December 10. Both those days call for votes. As far as I am concerned, according to our rules if a vote is called it must be held. Standing Order 82 says that two of those opposition motions must be voted upon. I insist that the Speaker respect that.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, a decision such as this cannot be made by the Government House Leader. He announced that the Government considered yesterday to be an allotted day and would consider it as such. I believe that only you can make that decision, Mr. Speaker.
December 4, 1986

As our House Leader said earlier, more than half of the three hours which could have been used for debate yesterday was taken up with questions of privilege. It is true that the questions of privilege were raised by the Opposition, but at least six members of the Government spoke on them. In addition, the Government used a portion of the three hours for Statements by Ministers. Opposition Members then presented petitions, which is a legitimate process, and then our House Leader moved that we proceed to Orders of the Day. Had that motion been accepted by the Government we would have had time to debate and vote on the Opposition motion. We made the attempt. The Government used as much time as the Opposition early in the day.
I think it is very important that the procedure which the Government has suggested not be allowed to take place. It is quite conceivable that on every opposition day the Government could take action to prevent the opposition Parties from using their allotted days. It is very important that the Government does not prevent allotted days from taking place.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, we have heard good arguments from both sides on this issue. When a question of privilege is raised which involves both sides, both sides should participate in debate on it. I think the argument on that issue should be viewed in that context.
Although I do not have the Standing Order in front of me, I believe that the time taken by a ministerial statement would have been added on to the time for debate on a votable motion. That ten-minute intervention should not be considered in your decision. The fact remains that it cannot be both ways. The Opposition cannot delay the Government's routine business and then say that by doing so they lost out on their opposition day.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief remarks. I do not think that fault should be taken into consideration in your ruling. The allotted day either took place or it did not. Your decision should not hinge on whether one Member or one Party of this House caused the debate not to take place.
Allow me to raise the following hypothesis. What would happen if the governing Party used dilatory procedures in order to delay or prevent the proceedings of an opposition day? Would that day be deemed to have taken place in any event? If such is the case, I submit that opposition days could come to an end as the Government could use various tactics in order to ensure that debate on opposition motions would not take place.
I submit that because we never got to Orders of the Day yesterday the debate did not take place. Had we reached the Orders of the Day for even five minutes, perhaps the spirit of the Standing Order would have been followed. However, because we did not arrive at Orders of the Day, I believe that the Government's contention that the allotted day took place is wrong.
Statements by Ministers


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank Hon. Members for their comments. I will have to defer my decision until later, at a more appropriate time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) of the House of Commons, I rise to table in both official languages, the Government response to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations.


ENTERTAINMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of what might be called harmony in the precincts of Parliament, might I depart slightly from the rules and announce in a paternal way to my colleagues that the Elmwood School choir will be singing at noon in the rotunda of the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is very interested to hear the announcement of the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). The Chair joins with him in inviting all Hon. Members to hear an outstanding choir. Perhaps the Chair can depart a little from the strictness of the rules by also advising the House that one of my daughters was a student at that school.


CANADA'S INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have just tabled a statement on Canada's international relations, responding to the report presented in June by the Special Joint Committee of the House and the other place. That caps an unprecedented exercise in participatory democracy in the development of Canadian foreign policy.

December 4, 1986
Statements by Ministers
Members of the joint committee held hearings across this country, from St. John's to Vancouver to Yellowknife. Thousands of Canadians made their views known, either directly or through organizations, on issues as diverse as arms control, export development, and human rights in South Africa. The committee produced a practical and sensible report, achieved by consensus and unanimous in its recommendations.
The response tabled today has two parts. First is a general statement of government policy in the seven main policy areas that the Special Joint Committee addressed. Second is a detailed response to all the recommendations made by the committee. Those number 121. The statement as a whole provides a picture of the Government's foreign policy. It underlines our commitment to the constructive internationalist approach that we have been pursuing from the moment we came to office.
The Government accepts the great majority of the committee's 121 recommendations and has already carried out some of them. There are a few recommendations that we are unable to accept, sometimes because we believe the remedy suggested is not the best available, sometimes for financial reasons. In each instance, we propose a different or less costly alternative.
[Translation]	!
Mr. Speaker, through the Committee Canadians expressed deep concern about the need for progress in arms control. The government fully shares this concern. We welcome the Committee's support for the six arms control and disarmament objectives enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in October 1985.
With our allies we are working to build on the possibilities for progress identified at Reykjavik. Our common goal is to create a safer, more peaceful world, notably through radical reductions in nuclear arms. Canada is also using its influence to try to prevent the loosening of existing restraints on the arms race in space and on earth. We are playing an active role in multilateral forums. This year and last the UN General Assembly unanimously approved Canadian-sponsored resolutions on the importance of verification to arms control agreements. We contributed to the recently concluded Stockholm Conference, which reached agreements on confidence-building measures that will reduce the risk of accidental war in Europe.
The government agrees with the Committee that Canada has an important contribution to make in the area of peacekeeping. We have added the Sinai to the areas where Canada is helping to keep the peace. Canada is also attempting to play a moderating role in the resolution of regional conflicts. We are strongly supporting the Contadora process in Central America while opposing intervention by third parties. In the Middle East, we are giving strong support to efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute.
The Committee urged that Canada work in concert with the international community to combat terrorism. We are doing
that. The International Civil Aviation Organization recently accepted a Canadian proposal that should lead to significant improvements in airport security around the world. Meanwhile, we are strengthening our domestic defences against terrorism, so that what we do ourselves supports our efforts to persuade others to act.

The committee attached especially high priority to making the Canadian economy more competitive internationally. The launching of the new round of multinational trade negotiations and the bilateral negotiations with the United States hold out the prospect of improving access to our most important markets. The National Trade Strategy, in which we have enjoyed the full co-operation of the provinces and the private sector, is producing substantial results. We are at the same time meeting the committee's recommendations aimed at exploiting the potential of the dynamic Asia-Pacific market. New trade offices, for example, have been opened in Bombay, Shanghai, Osaka and Auckland.
We have paid close attention to the vital role of small and medium-sized businesses in developing our international trade. We will consult with them to see how our export development and our export financing services can be further improved to meet their needs.
The Government is also doing everything possible to meet the committee's recommendations in the area of aid and development. We have set out some broad directions in the statement tabled today. We are maintaining real growth in aid and development funding despite cut-backs in many other areas. We are ensuring that our aid programs focus primarily on the poor of the world. The critical role of women in development will receive greater recognition. The proportion of aid we disperse through non-governmental organizations is already higher than for any other major donor. Canadian youth will be given the opportunity for greater involvement. We also intend to give greater attention to human resource development in our aid programs and to the potential of the private sector in developing countries.
The Government shares the committee's belief that foreign students constitute an important asset for Canada as well as for developing countries. We intend to increase substantially the number of CIDA scholarships. We are seeking to develop in co-operation with the provinces a national strategy to make it easier for foreign students to study in Canada.
The Government today affirms what so many Canadians told the committee, that the international promotion of human rights should be a fundamental and integral part of our foreign policy. The Government has already changed the export control regulations so that they take greater account of human rights considerations. Henceforth, officers in the Department of External Affairs will receive appropriate training if they are being posted to countries whose Governments seriously violate human rights. So will officers at headquarters on geographic
December 4, 1986

or other desks responsible for important aspects of relations with those countries.
The committee made a very important recommendation in favour of establishing an institution to respond to the needs of developing countries which are seeking to strengthen their democratic institutions and strengthen their approach to domestic human rights. We agree. We are now identifying distinguished Canadians to advise the Government on the form and the mandate this new institution should have.

The Committee attached great importance to the northern dimension of Canadian foreign policy. The government is determined to act vigorously in exercising control of our north. We have affirmed that Canadian sovereignty extends to all the waters of the Arctic archipelago and announced regulations establishing baselines around its perimeter. We are committed to construct an arctic class icebreaker.
Our Northern foreign policy will have four dominant themes:	affirming Canadian sovereignty; modernizing
Canada's northern defences; preparing for commercial use of the Northwest Passage; and promoting co-operation with other northern nations.

The Government fully shares the committee's conviction that Canada can and should play a significant role in multilateral institutions. We are working hard to promote the United Nations and to strengthen it by promoting necessary reforms and providing a high level of support. We are now the fourth largest contributor to the UN system, and we play an active and effective role.
Canada, of course, has an especially important role in the Commonwealth and La Francophonie. Next year the heads of Government of both organizations will meet in Canada; La Francophonie in Quebec City in September and the Commonwealth in Vancouver in October. Part of Canada's distinctive identity is rooted in our membership in those two international families, and we intend to make the most of those advantages.
Growing interdependence, "the relentless internationalization of the national agenda", is a major theme of the committee's report. Like the committee, the Government sees constructive internationalism as the only appropriate response to that interdependence. A retreat into insularity would be a tragic mistake. No country can turn back the clock. Interdependence is challenging, yes, but it holds out great opportunities for furthering international peace and prosperity. Just as individuals can accomplish far more by working together, so can nations.
At the same time we must find room for realism, for perspective and for humility. Canada is not a superpower and our national experience has been extraordinarily peaceful and
Statements by Ministers
prosperous compared to that of most of mankind. Internationalism calls for a great deal of understanding and perseverence and for a lot of plain hard work.
Few countries are better placed than Canada to make a significant contribution to international order and development. Few other countries have such close ties to so much of the world, ties of history, family, culture and trade. We see constructive internationalism as confidently building on Canada's strengths and traditions. It is, and will remain, the fundamental foreign policy orientation of this Government.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who last night sent me copies of his statement on and response to the report of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations.

At the outset I would like to say that there are many elements in this response with which I am pleased. However, constraints of time, as one can appreciate today, oblige me to underline what I regard as specific areas for constructive criticism. Maclean's Magazine, as you know, Mr. Speaker, tells us that the Minister is widely considered as an effective and respected statesman. We in the Opposition wish to see him live up to those reviews. If sometimes in the past the Minister's image fell short of the reality, it would be equally unfair, we suggest, if his image should surpass the reality-if he should be painted in a more handsome portrait than he perhaps deserves. If there is, indeed, less here than meets the eye, or meets the ear, then we in the Opposition are duty-bound to draw it to the attention of the public.

Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that in spite of the positive elements of the response, a number of others are a great disappointment to me. Although the response is full of policy statements, especially in the first part, it does not feature fresh creative approaches in many critical fields such as the prevention of the arms race in space, Star Wars as it is commonly called, the drafting of a world-wide treaty banning mutually verifiable nuclear tests, the lack of control over arms shipments, the level of our official development assistance, the Government's timetable to reach an acceptable level, and the role Canada might play in Central America.

These are the principal questions which I wish to address in the few minutes available to me this morning. First, in addressing the question of the Strategic Defence Initiative, star wars, we find at page 47 of the report a recommendation with respect to the observance of the ABM Treaty of 1972. The committee asks that there be a reaffirmation of the ABM Treaty interpreted strictly as prohibiting all but basic research on defensive systems. The response is moderately positive. Yet, we have insisted, and continue to insist, that the Strategic

December 4, 1986
Statements by Ministers
Defence Initiative, star wars, is indeed in breach of the first paragraph of Article V of the ABM Treaty.
The best approach for the Government to take would be to insist on compliance with paragraph 1 of Article V of the Treaty which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, has previously been cited in the House. It provides that each Party undertakes not to develop tests or deploy ABM systems or components which are sea based, air based or mobile land based.
We believe the SDI initiative is in breach of that treaty. The Minister may argue that under the letter of the law, as interpreted in some quarters, it is not in breach. However, the role of the widely respected statesman, I say, compels him to speak to the spirit of the treaty, if not to the letter. In fact, I think there is a good argument on the letter itself. This is not a job for Philadelphia lawyers. This is a job for statesmen. The SDI iniative is blocking progress on disarmament, a declarative objective of the Government upon which the Minister has spoken eloquently from time to time. Instead, we have here with this initiative a risk of accelerating the arms race and at the same time siphoning off those precious dollars which could be directed to Third World development or at least put to better use.
Yes, the Minister supports a comprehensive test ban but hedges it with the issue of verifiability and so on. It is time for the Minister and the Government to speak out. They should have spoken out in support of the Soviet moratorium which, as we know, will expire at the end of this month.
We know what a sensitive area the control of arms exports is, and on page 48 of the report we find some language which questions the advisability of a register of exports in these areas. From the Iranian experience, which we have witnessed, we know our systems are inadequate. One of our own manufacturers has now suspended shipments to that country. I ask the Minister to come forward with a stronger policy in terms of the exportation of arms from this country and the use of end user certificates of some kind to put some teeth into the current regulations which in fact were introduced fairly recently. This is an important and critical issue, as we know from what is taking place in the United States at this very moment. Again, I say that response is not sufficient.
Perhaps one of the most important areas is that of our foreign aid, our official development. The majority of the committee felt we should achieve a goal of .7 per cent of ODA by 1990. That has been rejected by the Government. Instead the Government has said we will reach .6 by the middle of the next decade. This simply is not good enough for Canada and it is not good enough for the world.
The most insidious threat to peace on this earth is the growing disparity between the rich and the poor, between the Third World and the industrialized nations. I know about budget constraints. I was in the Government and I have listened on hot lines to people all over the country asking why we should be spending money on Third World developed countries when we have unemployed and all these demands
here. But in fact, as we know, the per capita GNP of all developed countries in U.S. constant dollars grew from S340 in 1955 to $730 in 1980. During that same period, in the industrialized market economies, it went from just under $5,000 to just under $11,000, a gap which increased from $4,600 to $9,800 in real terms, an increasing gap.
Apart from the humanitarian issue there is a much greater issue. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) must sensitize his colleagues and the Canadian public to this issue. It is that the population explosion in those countries will virtually make this world uninhabitable as we know it now unless we reach a zero rate of growth in terms of world population by the year 2000 or shortly thereafter. If that goal is retarded to the year 2075 it is estimated that the world population will be 20 billion by the end of the next century. We know that poverty breeds people, something which has been established scientifically. So there are real interests in the long term in terms of the bias fear, apart from the humanitarian interests and humanitarian needs which are so pressing today.
I would now like to refer to Central America which is my last point. Here is a real opportunity for our Government and for our Minister to show statesmanship. Reference is made to the Contadora process. But at the moment the Contadora process is simply not enough. I think that if the Minister were to stand up and speak honestly in the House he would probably say that he is worried about it, that it is virtually dead and that it needs to be resuscitated. I understand that the General Secretaries of the OAS and the UN have offered to help revive the Contadora process and to give it support. So I encourage the Minister to take a statesman-like position in the great tradition of this country and tell the world that Canada is prepared to support those efforts, to provide peace-keeping if necessary, to provide observers if necessary, to do all possible to bring concerted diplomatic action to the crisis in Central America which risks becoming a Vietnam on this continent. This is a time for an active diplomatic role.
I would also draw to the Minister's attention that there are human rights issues in Central America which have to be addressed. Today I met with the Mission for Peace which recently came back from El Salvador and which has reported that human rights violations are once more on the increase. This takes us back into the area touched upon in the paper of aid to those regimes which suppress human rights. I encourage the Minister to look into that situation and determine whether more effort cannot be made to go to the non-governmental organizations to ensure that the aid reaches the people.
Our Minister has the opportunity, and I believe he has the capacity, to walk in the footsteps of some of the great statesmen this country has seen on the international stage. I refer to Lester Pearson and Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Let him not be timid. Canada does not wish timidity. As the Minister himself
December 4, 1986

has said the report of the special joint committee is replete with ideas-

-which, I must say, reflect the philosophy, ideas and concerns of Canadians throughout the country. Canadians today feel very strongly that, through the Minister and his Government, our country ought to play a leading role on the international scene.
Despite the positive elements ... I am nearly finished, Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me 15 seconds, even less. Despite the positive elements of the response to the committee report, including the commitment to increase the number of foreign students in Canada by sponsoring them through CIDA scholarships, and several aspects of the human rights policy, the Government did not quite rise to the challenges and opportunities I referred to in my remarks this morning.

Mis. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) for having sent his response to the opposition critics last evening, giving us a chance to go without sleep last night in order to read the very comprehensive response that he has provided.
1 would like to note how satisfying it is that this particular reform of the House proceedings has been put in place which requires the Minister to respond to reports of committees within a certain period of time. I think we should ask the relevant parliamentary committee to look into the question of how we can develop time for fuller debate, particularly with respect to a report of such magnitude as was the report of the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations. Indeed, I wish to refer to that report, having been a very active member of that joint committee.
I feel that the Minister's response to the committee has not been as forward-looking as was the committee report itself. Indeed, I am sorry to have to say this to the Minister, but comparing his response to the report of the joint committee is to see how regressive the Government and the Minister are becoming. It is not a response that picks up on the forwardlooking, progressive type of initiatives that the committee frequently recommended. We were unhappy that the committee did not do more in some areas, such as in the area of a Canadian mission in Managua, but also in other areas.
As I read the response of the Government to the committee's recommendations what struck me was that the Minister is moving more toward the Reagan approach to international relations on many matters. When he is not moving toward the Reagan approach I am sorry to say that he is moving toward the Thatcher approach. I am thinking of South Africa in particular. In the few minutes available to me I would like to take perhaps half a dozen of the committee's recommendations and illustrate how the Government in its response has been doing exactly what I have just said.
Statements by Ministers
In response to recommendation 16a with respect to encouraging a reaffirmation of the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty interpreted strictly as prohibiting all but basic research on such defence systems, the Minister's response is that the "Government believes that the first priority of the international community should be to bring about a mutually-agreed and verifiable radical reduction in nuclear forces of the superpowers. The Government will continue to press both the United States and the Soviet Union to maintain the Antiballistic Missile Treaty until an updated treaty is in place". This means that the Minister has accepted the Reagan doctrine of revisionism. That is not what the committee recommended at all, and is something which I found very discouraging to see.
With respect to recommendation 16e regarding the prevention of an arms race in outer space, the Government's response is that "Canada is making substantive contribution to the discussion of this subject at the Conference on Disarmament". The Government states that Canada's verification research unit has commissioned research on space-based verification as a basis for further Canadian proposals. There is nothing in the response whatsoever to show how Canada is helping to prevent an arms race in space from taking place.
On the matter of foreign aid, the Government is again being as regressive as the Liberals were when they were in power. The Government does not accept the committee's recommendation that the goal of achieving .7 per cent ODA by 1990 be restored. Instead, the Government's objective is to reach a foreign aid GNP ratio of .6 per cent by the middle of the next decade. That is terribly regressive and will be a great disappointment to the other members of the committee.
I mentioned South Africa a moment ago. The committee recommended that Canada should move immediately to impose full economic sanctions, seek their adoption by the greatest number of Commonwealth countries and promote similar action by non-Commonwealth countries. The Government has responded by saying in effect that it will impose "limited sanctions as a more fruitful tactic that will strike at apartheid without destroying the South African economy on which the blacks depend". That sounds just like the words of Mrs. Thatcher. The blacks themselves have asked for full economic sanctions and the Minister knows that. He is moving backward on that issue as well.
To use a final example, since I have insufficient time to respond to all of the Government's responses, the committee recommended that Canada put pressure on the United States and the Soviet Union to secure demilitarization in the Arctic region. In the most incredible officialese, and by the way, this response is full of officialese, the Government ends by saying that singling out the Arctic for demilitarization does not seem practicable. The Government does not even say that it will try to talk to the Soviet Union and the United States on this matter.

December 4, 1986
Committee Reports
If one wants to see a complete example of the officialese in this document one should look on page 74 which contains the Government's response to the committe's recommendation that Canada use its voice to vote at meetings of international financial institutions to protest systematic, gross and continuous violations of human rights. After lines and lines of gobbledegook, the Government indicates that it would welcome a detailed examination by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
I feel that the Minister himself has let us down and I feel that he has been let down by his own Department which produced what is effectively a very regressive response to what was, and I think the Minister agrees with this, a progressive report by the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations. The many Canadians who contributed so much to the report of the joint committee, I am sorry to say, will be bitterly disappointed when they realize that the Minister and the Government have not picked up the challenge.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the First Report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Edwards (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture on the reappointment by order in council of Mr. Jean-Claude Delorme as President of Teleglobe Canada and the appointment by order in Council of Mr. Brian G. Armstrong, Mr. Tommy D'Errico and Mr. Michael K. Power as administrators of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The Committee considers that the appointees have the qualifications, aptitudes and abilities required to fulfil! the duties of the positions to which they have been appointed.


BILL C-17-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of breaking House rules, let me add that the great school of Elmwood is located in my federal constituency.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee, I have the honour to present in both official languages the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act and the Income Tax Act
and to repeal the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, without amendment.
[Editor's note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present some petitions. First, many residents of my constituency have signed petitions to say that the proposals of the federal Government to change the Patent Act, especially as far as generic drugs are concerned, will increase the price of drugs for consumers, that they will seriously restrict the ability of many people to purchase the drugs they need and affect mostly those whose health requires the constant use of drugs, and that they will result in an increase in the cost of provincial health care plans and are another good example of the concessions made by the Canadian government to the United States in the free trade negotiations, to the detriment of the average consumer.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition from several of my constituents, a petition which I will summarize. It deals with the book publishing retaliatory tariff the Government has imposed on imported books in the English language. In the opinion of the petitioners, this has limited the access of Canadians to literature and information. The tariff has had little negative effect on the publishing industry of the United States yet penalizes Canada's consumers, book publishers, book sellers, distributors and Canada's culture, and rising book prices have placed a strain on the book acquisition programs and policies of our nation's public and specialized libraries. The undersigned pray and call upon Parliament to rescind this tariff which threatens irreparable harm to the Canadian book industry and compromises federal policy on cultural industries with respect to free trade negotiations.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of people from British Columbia who are very concerned about the proposal to log an aboriginal area on Deer Island just off shore of Port Hardy. That island has been in the possession of native people for thousands of years. It is an aboriginal burial ground and an area of great aesthetic and ecological importance. The petitioners point out that if the federal Government does not act quickly on behalf of Indian people, we will again be forced to see the prospect of native
December 4, 1986

Indian people put in jail for defending property which is rightfully and generally accepted as being theirs.
I would point out that the petition urges the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) to act very quickly to resolve this issue in favour of the Kwakiutl people who are the traditional and aboriginal owners of that property.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present a number of petitions. The first petition is from 1040 First Street East, Prince Albert, where a number of people, mostly senior citizens, have established a cooperative housing project. They call upon Parliament to reject proposals which would increase the cost of prescription drugs in Canada.
I also have the honour to present a second petition on the same subject from a group of citizens who are mostly from Selkirk, Manitoba. They call upon the House to reject proposals which would increase the cost of drugs in Canada.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition, which has been certified pursuant to Standing Order 106, from citizens of Winnipeg. They say that the proposals of the federal Government to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and will severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. Therefore they humbly pray and call upon Parliament to reject proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is also my privilege to present a petition on behalf of people from Manitoba. This is one of many consecutive days on which I have had this honour. These people express their opposition to the intention of the Government to change the Patent Act. They realize that prescription drug prices will increase, and for those Canadian consumers who have restricted ability to pay at the present time, this will be a very undue hardship. Also they recognize that those people who require a lot of drugs will have very high expenses as a result of the legislation. They are concerned that the Government is moving on the legislation strictly as a result of the free trade negotiations with the United States. The undersigned petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to reject proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 34 minutes beginning at 1 p.m.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition which, pursuant to
Motions
Standing Order 106, has been certified by the Clerk of Petitions. The petition is from a number of people in Winnipeg and in Manitoba. It indicates that the proposals of the federal Government to change the Patent Act in respect of prescription drugs will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers. Also it indicates that the proposals will unfairly hurt those Canadians whose health needs require ongoing use of prescription drugs, and that the proposals of the federal Government will result in higher costs for provincial prescription drug programs.
As well it indicates that the changes are another example of the Conservative Government serving the interests of multinational corporations at the expense of Canadian consumers. The petitioners call upon Parliament to reject the proposals which will increase prescription drug prices for Canadians.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions signed by residents of Regina, Saskatoon, and a number of other locations in Saskatchewan.
Starting with the one entitled "Senior Power", these people petition Parliament to reject the proposals of the Government to amend the Patent Act because they submit that it will result in higher costs for senior citizens and for provincial drug plans. They therefore humbly pray that Parliament will in fact persuade the Government to withdraw the legislation.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present to the House. They have all been certified by the Clerk of Petitions. Without going into great detail, because others have described them already, they all concern the book publishing industry and the unfair and arbitrary decision the Government has imposed upon that industry. That being said, I will table several hundred names in the petitions which I have before me.



PATENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
November 24, 1986-The Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council:
That, further to the notice given on Monday, November 24, 1986, by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 117, in relation to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading and reference to a Legislative Committee stage of the said Bill; and
That, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on that day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
[Stage Direction]
December 4, 1986
Order Paper Questions
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Transferred to Government Orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Transferred to Government Orders.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions wiil be answered today: Nos. 34 and 38.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Did I hear the Parliamentary Secretary accurately? Did he say Questions Nos. 34 and 38?


Philip Derek Lewis: Questions Nos. 34 and 38.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I regret to inform him that we were not given notice of those questions. We were given notice of Questions Nos. 25 and 29 today. I am just wondering whether the Parliamentary Secretary could get the numbers out so that we know which questions are being answered.


Philip Derek Lewis: The following questions will be answered today: Nos. 25 and 29.


Mr. McKinnon: What was the total estimated cost in budget year dollars in 1983 of the Tribal Update and Modernization Program (TRUMP) and what is the current estimated total cost in budget year dollars?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: The
1983 preliminary estimate was S923M (budget year) based on conceptual (but still not defined) capability options. Current Treasury Board budget approval after definition phase, at contract, is $1,624.8M.
The reason for the difference between the two figures is that the 1983 figure was a preliminary estimate prior to defining the equipment necessary to meet the capability requirement and the current figure is a ceiling price based on a contractual commitment to undertake and complete the modernization.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	In 1985 and the period January to September 1986, did any persons seek
admission as refugees at Canadian points of entry and, if so, how many?
2.	How many were granted status?
3.	(a) How many were refused status (b) how many appealed such refusal
and how many appeals were (i) completed (ii) upheld?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: 1.
From January 1, 1985 to September 1, 1986, the total number of persons in Canada seeking status as convention refugees was 15,150.
2.	Two thousand, one hundred and fifty-seven refugee claimants were determined to be refugees by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee (RSAC).
3.	(a) 4,605 refugee claimants were not determined to be refugees by the RSAC.
(b) 2,854 refugee claimants who received negative RSAC decisions appealed to the Immigration Appeal Board (IAB) for redetermination of their claims.
(i)	The IAB completed 404* redetermination appeals.
(ii)	In those cases where the IAB rendered a decision during the time in question, they upheld the RSAC determination 302 times.
includes allowance to proceed to hearing, dismissals for want of perfection and dismissals for want of prosecution as well as positive and negative decisions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


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


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring a question to the attention of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and to ask for his assistance.
I have had a question on the Order Paper for a considerable amount of time. It relates to the Shamrock Summit in Quebec City. It was there under the old rules. It was transferred to the 45 days under the new rules. The time lapsed at the end of June, and it was reintroduced in September. The 45 day point is certainly very near if it has not passed already.
In view of the fact that the question has been on the Order Paper for over a year, would the Parliamentary Secretary, in the spirit of the new rules of the House, give a commitment on when the answer will be forthcoming?


Philip Derek Lewis: Soon, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 4, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That, further to the notice given on Monday, November 24, 1986, by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 117, in relation to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading and reference to a legislative committee stage of the said Bill; and
That, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on that day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of regret that I rise to put this motion. As Your Honour can appreciate, we have had a number of discussions, but have been unable to reach agreement under Standing Order 115 and Standing Order 116. There have been extensive negotiations with the Opposition House Leaders in an attempt to get some form of realistic time allocation for the advancement of the debate on this Bill. We realize that it is a complex issue and that there are various points of view on the matter. The Government has been frustrated by the fact that the Opposition Parties have used every tactic, every dilatory motion and every conceivable attempt to circumvent and subvert the process of parliamentary democracy and to subvert what is really the essence of this institution.
If the Opposition Parties are so concerned about this Bill, why not debate it first and send it on to committee to have a thorough and thoughtful airing of all the contents? The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) has indicated his willingness to be available at any time, to make all the studies and background information available so that not only Members of Parliament but Canadians right across the country can have the full meaning of this legislation and discern the full impact of it.
We have gone through a series of interruptions, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to document them for you briefly. We had difficulty introducing the Bill. It was only through procedural expertise that we were able to introduce the Bill. On November 6 we had leave to introduce the Bill and on November 7 the Bill was actually introduced. Four days were spent on second reading on November 20, 21, 24 and 25. On so-called dilatory motions and events there have been some 13 hours, almost 14 hours, of valuable time of this House wasted through votes and procedural wrangles. That does not augur well for this institution.
Time Allocation
I have a tremendous amount of respect for this institution. I have respect for individual Members wanting to express their points of view on their own behalf and on behalf of their constituents. In this case Parliament has been frustrated to a large extent and actual debating time has not been as long as we would have liked because a tremendous amount of time has been wasted, about 23 hours in total. Thirteen dilatory motions have been proposed. Ten hours and eight minutes have been spent just on voting, Mr. Speaker. If you consider the cost of operating this place at S1.1 million per day, it becomes-


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would it be equitable for the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) to give us the cost of ringing the bells in the last Parliament, something which was never done? This is a serious concern for elderly citizens in Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. I am sure the Member will have an opportunity to make his presentation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wanted to take issue with that particular point he should have done so at the time. I watch Members of the New Democratic Party. They have come up with no original tactics. They have borrowed most of them from other Parties.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You wrote the book on dirty tricks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I simply want to point out the reasons and the justification for the Government moving in this manner, albeit regrettably, Mr. Speaker.
As to actual time spent, the waste of time and the dilatory procedures that have been invoked on this institution, the Opposition House Leaders, myself and representatives of my office have been trying to work out some kind of an agreement. We started on November 26 trying to reach a realistic timetable for the passage of this legislation, including the allowance of time for the legislative committee to travel across the country to hear witnesses. That proposal was advanced by the New Democratic Party. It was a condition the New Democrats put to us. They also asked that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs provide the necessary information on the studies to which he referred to back up some of the statements. He agreed to do that. We wanted as well to get some agreement with respect to report stage and third reading. We tried in earnest to work out an agreement but it was not possible.
We proposed consideration of this Bill in all aspects, including committee travel and assurances that all representatives who wanted to appear before the committee would be heard. We suggested a logical timetable of February 15, which is more than two months. This Bill has been around since June, 1986.


Don Boudria: No.

December 4, 1986
Time Allocation


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Not officially, but the Bill has been in the public domain for consideration. It is not new. There has been debate even though it has not always taken place during the course of the allocated time. This issue has dominated a good portion of Question Period.
We have been reasonable in trying to work out a realistic and sensible solution. Having failed, I regret that we have to move in this fashion and I commend passage and acceptance by all Hon. Members of the House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I cannot say that I am surprised by the move of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). We are not surprised by the Government utilizing tricks about which it has become quite expert. Some of us believe the Tories wrote the book on all the dirty tricks that can be used.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Deputy Prime Minister is using very creative accounting when he says that this debate has been going on for some time. The fact is that in total we have spent six hours and 47 minutes on this most important Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there was one hour and thirteen minutes remaining in the eight-hour period normally allowed, during which Members may use debate to explain their positions. I think all Members will agree that at the second reading stage we are considering the principle of the Bill. And to prevent us from continuing consideration of Bill C-22, which we feel is a bad piece of legislation that should be withdrawn . .. We wish the Government would understand that public opinion, that Canadian men and women don't want to be saddled with measures as regressive as this one. And speaking on behalf of-


Mr. Charest:: The National Assembly is unanimous.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -speaking on behalf of those Canadian men and women you are constantly ignoring, we want to make this Government understand what is so wrong with this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Minister, who may not have had time to familiarize himself with the Bill, I may recall that with this Bill, the Government wants to amend the Patent Act where it concerns pharmaceutical products. These are major amendments which, according to many experts and many Canadian men and women, will increase the price of pharmaceutical products for the consumer and also, for many people, make it less likely they will be able to purchase drugs.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 is also a bad Bill because it will affect the neediest, people who cannot afford to buy these drugs and who often have to forego good medical care because the price is too high. And here is a Government that says no, we are going to remove the protection consumers enjoy because generic products are competing with the pharmaceutical products manufactured by the multinationals.
Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes I have left, I would like to try to explain to the House that the argument that this legislation will stimulate research and development does not hold water. It does not stand up to an objective assessment. We all know, we have heard it in the course of debate, and Members have said that the multinationals have made profits. And these are not my words, but the Task Force on Pharmaceutical Products has often said in its reports that the drug companies were making a reasonable and sometimes very substantial profit, thank you very much, from their operations. My point is that there has been no undue competition from the companies manufacturing generic products and that the existence of these companies has not kept the others from making a profit. But, Mr. Speaker, there are some aspects which should be stressed besides saying that it will mean increased costs for consumers and provincial Governments which, in many cases, pay for drugs used by elderly citizens-


An Hon. Member:: Read the Bill.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I beg your pardon, does the Minister want to speak? I regret, Mr. Minister, but look at the facts: Nova Scotia said it did not want it. They said so the day before yesterday, keep up with the news.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 entails additional expenditures for the provinces. As a matter of fact under the provisions of the Bill the Government will give the provinces $100 million over four years to compensate them for these additional outlays. The $100 million are a tacit admission that the provinces will have added expenses as a result of this measure. It is also the best proof and example that the Government is yielding to American pressure just so Canada can sign a free trade agreement with the United States no matter what it may cost. To this end the Government is quite prepared to sell, give or abandon absolute control over the Canadian market to the multinationals, and we know this is bound to have a negative impact, Mr. Speaker.
I realize that I do not have much time, barely a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, but I had drafted a whole speech because I thought I would be here tomorrow and have my 20 minutes to explain the research and development issue, because this is where we must force the Government to come clean. We have no proof that the multinationals have invested in research because, even though they may have been posting good profits until now, they have not done any drug research in Canada. As anyone would expect, they do that where they are headquartered, in the United states or elsewhere in Europe. They do no research in Canada because the market is too small. They keep saying that the Canadian market is made up of only 25 million people, whereas they have 225 million in the United States and
December 4, 1986

it is much easier to carry out medical research in that country. This is why I think we are being misled when told that in the future, thanks to Bill C-22, the multinational drug companies will take advantage of the new Canadian situation to create jobs and launch scientific research and development projects in this country.
Hogwash, Mr. Speaker, nothing in the Bill guarantees that and gives Canadians any reason to believe that the multinational drug companies will promote research and development in Canada. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, but again the Government is taking the gloves off and resorting to closure. And considering their overwhelming majority, 211 against 40 and 30, a total of 70 Opposition Members, they do have the big end of the stick. Once again, Mr. Speaker, they are using their majority to push through a Bill which we feel is bad and regressive and should be withdrawn.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: I am in agreement with the statements of the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) regarding the Government going ahead today with the time allocation. Mr. Speaker, I wish to say to you very clearly that it is almost without precedent that the Government has introduced a closure motion after only three hours of debate on second reading of any Bill in the House of Commons.


Mr. Gagnon:: That is wrong.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: An Hon. Member says that I may not be right on that point, but I would like the Hon. Member to pull out the facts and point out where I am wrong. I have been in the House since 1968, and I cannot recall a time when the Government has brought in time allocation after only three hours of debate on second reading. That is all we have had on second reading of the Bill dealing with pharmaceutical changes in this country. So it was without precedent. It is not fair, and it is not just. I am sure that even the government Members themselves are not too happy with this. It is a question of the Government trying to cut off fair and proper debate. The Parliamentary Secretary himself, when he was in opposition, was very concerned about closure and time allocation. Here the Government brings in time allocation after three hours of debate on second reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is without precedent in our parliamentary system that time allocation should be introduced after just three hours of debate of a bill on second reading-three hours only. It is most important that we have debate on that issue which is so essential to senior citizens here in Canada, to the sick, the families, the single-parent families, etc. It is most important that we have an in-depth debate. However, the Government has decided to cut the debate after only three hours at second reading stage.
Time Allocation

This Bill is very important. It is very important for the pensioners. Pensioners are now organizing against this particular legislation. It is also an important Bill to many poor people, because with the increase in the price of pharmaceuticals it is the poor people who will suffer. It will not be the wealthier Canadians who suffer. It is very unfair that the Government is bringing in closure at this particular time.
In many ways, it is also a turnaround for the Conservative Party. They sat in opposition year after year and complained about time allocation being brought in, sometimes after a Bill was in second reading for several days. Yet now when they are in Government they are even worse than the Liberal Party was when they were in Government, in terms of the allocation of time in the House. Once again, this shows the Canadian people why the Conservative Party is falling faster in the polls than any Government in the history of Canada has fallen. We have never seen a Government fall so quickly in the public opinion polls all across the country. One reason is that they often mislead the Canadian people, and this is just another example when it comes to freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the House of Commons.
The reason that we were delaying getting to the time allocation motion is that the Government has done an impact study which shows that by 1995 the annual cost increase of drugs will be some $650 million per year. Canadian people should know that the Government's own study shows that the annual cost increase of $650 million per year will cause difficulty for ordinary Canadians. That is why we have been stalling in getting to this time allocation motion. That is why we have been saying that we need time for a full and free debate in the House, and a full and free debate across the country in terms of a parliamentary committee.
During the negotiations that broke down yesterday, I thought we had offered a pretty reasonable package to the Government of a little more debate on second reading, a committee which would travel to major centres to hear from ordinary Canadians about the pharmaceutical Bill, and then a reasonable time on third reading. The Government has rejected that, because it wants to impose a limit on all stages of debate on the pharmaceutical Bill.
You have been here as long as I have, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot recall a prior occasion when a Government has tried to impose a limit on all stages of debate, maybe with the exception of the energy Bill a few years ago when the bells rang for some two weeks. That was a real crisis. We have never had that happen before. At that time there was an agreement to end the debate in that way. If there was a guillotine, this is really it.
We in our party want the Government to do two things. First, we want them to release the studies that have been conducted on the impact of changing the patent laws on the price of drugs in Canada so ordinary Canadians will know what they will be hit with in terms of drug prices. The Party
1774

December 4, 1986
Time Allocation
across the way preached year in and year out about freedom of information for Canadians. Now that it is the Government, why will it not provide that information to Canadians? Why this secrecy? Why does the Minister not release the impact studies? Why does he not tell Canadian people what he knows about what will happen to drug prices? What is the Minister afraid of? The Parliamentary Secretary says he is afraid of Harvie.
The second thing we want is a parliamentary committee that will travel to the cities of the country to study the impact of this Bill. What does the Government have against a travelling committee which would allow ordinary Canadians to have a say? Ordinary Canadians cannot come to Ottawa to have their say. Most people cannot afford to come here.


Mr. Andre:: That is what we were elected for.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister says that that is what we were elected as Members of Parliament to do. On many occasions in the history of this Parliament public hearings have been held throughout the country on important issues. Last spring a committee held hearings in five or six cities on two-price wheat. I believe this Bill is important enough that public hearings should be held on it in the regions of Canada in order that Canadians can have a say on how this legislation should be developed. I see nothing wrong with that. I do not know why the Conservative Party wants to block the freedom of expression and freedom of speech of Canadians. That is exactly what the Government is doing by bringing in time allocation and denying us the right to travel.

Mr. Speaker, I know many people, and there were many who signed petitions throughout Canada. In my own Province of Saskatchewan, thousands of people have signed petitions expressing their fear of an increase in the price of drugs in Canada. They would like to have public hearings held in Saskatchewan. The same thing goes for Quebec. Quebecers of both sexes want to have public hearings in Montreal and Quebec City, in order to make their views known to the Government.
We have here 58 Conservative Members from Quebec, and I wonder why Quebec Members do not want public hearings in their ridings so they could hear the views of their constituents.

It is only normal that ordinary Canadians should be given an opportunity to express their points of view on such an important Bill.
The Government is going to cut off debate. We will have a few more hours for debate on second reading. A committee will study this Bill, probably right here in Ottawa. The groups in western Canada which represent ordinary people and the poor cannot come to Ottawa to make presentations. Ordinary
Canadians have a right to express their points of view in parliamentary committees.


An Hon. Member:: They will.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Hon. Member says that they will. However, we have no guarantee that this committee will travel across the country and hear from ordinary Canadians. We were elected by ordinary Canadians and they have a right to have this parliamentary committee travel to their areas so that they can make their points of view known.
For those reasons I cannot support time allocation and I am very surprised that the Conservative Party is supporting it. We have had only three hours of debate at second reading. I would like the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to cite all the precedents they can find of a Government serving notice that it will impose closure after only three hours of debate. I do not think there are many examples of that. I wonder why this Party, which advocated freedom of information and more democracy, would want to cut off debate at this time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I guarantee that the New Democratic Party will hold its own hearings across Canada. We will do whatever we can to mobilize public opinion against this Bill which will increase the price of medicine and pharmaceutical commodities for ordinary Canadians. If ordinary Canadians fight against this Bill we will be able to do with this Bill what we did with the proposal to deindex old age pensions in June of 1985. The people of Canada will not forget this in the next election campaign.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will not reiterate the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) about time wasted, which comments destroyed the arguments of the Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) before he even made them. One wonders where the Member for Yorkton- Melville was when the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of the hours and days which have been wasted by the Opposition.
Another delaying tactic was used by members of the Opposition Party which is deserving of remembrance by all who recognize the fundamental importance of our democratic system. I extended the courtesy to the opposition Parties of informing them that I intended to move first reading of this Bill on November 6.1 did not have to extend that courtesy. We could have introduced the Bill for first reading with no warning. However, I did extend that courtesy. The NDP used that knowledge to try to prevent the Government from introducing the Bill for first reading.


David Orlikow: That's right.


Harvie Andre: That has never happened in our democracy before.


David Orlikow: We never had such a bad Bill.
December 4, 1986


Harvie Andre: The most fundamental of principles governing this institution is that no matter how reprehensible or unacceptable are Bills or motions which Members of the House of Commons wish to propose, they have a right to introduce them in the House. That fundamental democratic principle is as old as democracy itself and the New Democratic Party violated that principle. That is deserving of mention. That has never happened before.
As a result of their abuse of my courtesy there are now all kinds of reasons for us not to be courteous to the Opposition. We are aware that our Standing Orders dictate the practices of the House. However, we also have a tradition of courtesy, of reasonable behaviour toward each other. Through its actions the New Democratic Party has said that it is not bound by the common practices of decency and fair play. Unfortunately, that will set a precedent for the future behaviour of Governments toward the New Democratic Party. Unfortunately, this institution is the loser as a result. Our parliamentary system has been severely damaged by the New Democratic Party and its contempt for centuries of tradition and practice.
The New Democratic Party was reluctant to have this Bill introduced for first reading, to carry on with second reading debate, and to have the Bill referred to committee. I suspect the reason for that is that down in the solar plexus they know that this is good for Canada. They do not want to be asked why they are opposed to something which will result in more research in cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, Alzheimer's disease, and cancer.


Mr. McCurdy:: Why don't you tell the truth?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I would appreciate if the Hon. Member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. McCurdy) would make his questions or comments through the Speaker rather than in this manner. If the Hon. Member wants to speak I will recognize him next. The Hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre).


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, during the November break 1 was in Vancouver and met with people from the Terry Fox Foundation.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Oh, come on.


Harvie Andre: The Terry Fox Foundation has gathered several millions of dollars to promote cancer research. They have, in co-operation with the Welcome Foundation, established Pacific Pharmaceuticals at the University of British Columbia. They have already acquired and are acquiring more scientists to investigate and attempt to discover cures for cancer.


David Orlikow: Good.


Harvie Andre: They believe that it is absolutely essential to their activity and success that patent protection be provided in this country. Why does the New Democratic Party not believe
Time Allocation
that is essential? If the whole world did as the New Democrats wished, and abolished patent protection, there would not be the present levels of research into cancer, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy and Alzheimer's disease. That research is going on because the rest of the western industrialized world recognizes patent protection. They recognize that the discoverer of a drug has created something of value and owns it. Apparently the New Democratic Party does not recognize that.
I heard the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) talking about our obligations to the rest of the world. Why does her Party believe that Canada has no obligation to the rest of the world in terms of medical research? Why do they believe that Canada has a right to sponge off the rest of the world when it comes to medical research? Where is this sense of internationalism that they talk about? How do they justify excluding Canada from that medical research?
Let us consider the question of intellectual property. The New Democratic Party says that it is concerned about the consumers. If we were to allow generic book publishing and generic record publishing, we could probably save Canadians a few hundred million dollars. We would also have no Canadian authors, but the New Democrats may say that is all right because they read foreign authors anyway. We may not have Canadian songwriters and composers and other artists to the same extent, but they will say it is okay because they listen to foreigners anyway. Why does the New Democratic Party not be consistent and suggest that we abolish all intellectual property, including books, records, songs and everything? We certainly could save the consumers a lot of money, but in the process we would destroy Canadian creativity.
By not having patent protection for drugs we are in essence saying that Canadian scientists and Canadian researchers who search for the cures through these drugs are not really appreciated by this country and that what they do does not have much value because we will not recognize patent rights, but will sponge off the rest of the world.
Let us consider the health care of Canadians. For instance, the latest discovery is AZT, which looks like a promising treatment for Alzheimer's disease. Americans are now participating in these treatments, albeit at the research stage, and receiving significant benefits. Why is this not happening in Canada? We do not have patent protection laws. What will those Members say to the families of Alzheimer victims who are in that position? I see that you want to call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am not calling it one o'clock because we are going until 1.34. However, the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Don Boudria: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.

December 4, 1986
Time Allocation

Mr. Speaker, I have paid very close attention to the remarks the Hon. Minister has just made. He was saying on the one hand that he was under no obligation to notify us before introducing his bill for first reading and that it was simply out of his great generosity and kindness that he had given members of the Opposition advance notice of his intention to introduce this bill.
Preaching virtue today, the Minister also told us how we should respect our parliamentary traditions and Standing Orders.

It is very interesting to hear the Mmister, the Conservatives and the Government preaching to us about the virtues of respecting the Standing Orders. That is a little hard to take, coming from a political party that stormed the Speaker's chair not many years ago. As I was listening to the Minister's remarks, I wondered where he was on the day some Tories stormed the Speaker's chair. He told us that we should respect the Standing Orders, and accused the Opposition of being obstructionist.


Mr. Belsher:: What would you call it?


Don Boudria: I suggest to Conservative Members opposite that we have only had two hours of debate on this Bill. The Member opposite who is heckling has not even had the opportunity to participate in the debate yet. Therefore, I am standing here today to protect the rights of that Tory Member, because I want to hear his speech. That is why I believe it is extremely unfair that all Members have not had an opportunity to make their contributions to this very important debate.
Let me digress for one moment-


Philip Derek Lewis: How will we be able to tell?


Don Boudria: -and talk about the issue of generic drugs itself. I know this upsets the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader (Mr. Lewis) who has just been groaning and making other selective noises which I do not care to describe in any further detail.


Philip Derek Lewis: It is just as a result of your speech.


Don Boudria: I remind him that our Party is not against increasing research. Of course the Liberals want to increase research, as do all Members. As a matter of fact, the previous Liberal Government, in its wisdom, appointed the Eastman Commission. However, the Tories took the constructive remarks made by Dr. Eastman, altered them and included more in order to please the multinational, primarily American-owned, foreign companies. The President of the United States came to the Shamrock Summit in Quebec City a number of years ago and probably made a cozy deal with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). That is why the Bill with which we are concerned is not in the interest of Canadians.
The issue is not one of opposing the protection of intellectual property rights. Doctor Eastman suggested a specific period,
approximately four years, to protect those property rights. However, we must also protect the consumers because they are the ones who send us here. They are the voters. Not many multinationals voted for me, for you or anyone else in the room. The people of Canada sent us here to protect their interests and that is why it is important for us to speak to this motion and indicate to the Government that two hours of debate on such an important issue is insufficient.

That is why the Government should withdraw its motion, Mr. Speaker. We should allow the debate to continue, so that all Hon. Members may take part in this debate, for instance the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Grondin) who wants absolutely to make his contribution, but who, unfortunately, is not likely to have the opportunity to do so. Tory members opposite are so silent. We have heard the expression "silent majority", Mr. Speaker, but we have now a new definition for it and it is sitting right in front of me.
These Tories give a new meaning to the expression "silent majority". They are very silent indeed. I hear the Hon. Member opposite heckling. He, of course, is a member of that very vast silent majority, those people who never speak in the House. I challenge the Hon. Member to make his contribution to this debate, if the Government House Leader permits him to do so, because we are going to have all the debate stifled, not just the debate of the opposition. Government Members will not be able to contribute to the debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this Parliament. That is the respect the Tories have for the rules.
The Minister told us a little earlier today that we have to respect the Standing Orders. He said that only a few minutes after I brought to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that a Standing Order, whereby the Government had to answer opposition questions within 45 days, had been broken on three separate occasions. It involved questions I posed earlier today.
This Government, the Conservative Party, is in no position to preach virtue to anyone. It should act as an example and obey the rules itself. The Government should not try to stifle debate and do all the other things it does to get itself out of potentially embarrassing situations, like trying to stop members of the Opposition from speaking. The Government should know better by now. It has received a raking in the public opinion polls lately and one would think the Conservatives would realize their mistake and respect our parliamentary institution. But obviously they have not, and that is unfortunate. Perhaps they never will. The people of Canada gave the Tories a chance and now Canadians are sorry. The people of Canada said to the Tories, you made a lot of promises, 338 of them, so give it a try, but they are sorry now.
December 4, 1986


An Hon. Member:: Have you counted them? Count them up?


Don Boudria: I will gladly respond to the noise coming from the Hon. Member opposite. I have right here the book of 338 Tory promises to which I referred a few moments ago. At the rate the Government is going now it would take it until the year 2026 to deliver on all of those promises.


Philip Derek Lewis: We'll be here, don't worry. With your support, we will be here.


Don Boudria: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in 1988 the Tories will not be here so there is a small chance they will ever have to deliver on the rest of their promises.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very pleased to have an opportunity to enter into this debate for a short time and put into the record the nonsense we have been putting up with over the past few days. This House has been delayed and delayed and delayed as a result of the dilatory tactics of the opposition. We have spent 22 hours and 42 minutes, not in debate but in dilatory motions. We have spent 10 hours and 8 minutes on divisions because the opposition refuses to allow a full and complete debate on this Bill.


David Orlikow: No, you want to limit the debate.


Philip Derek Lewis: I could read all of these times into the record but I see no reason for embarrassing the opposition any more than it already is.
I want to deal specifically, riding by riding, with some of my colleagues in the opposition. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what does the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) say to the employees of the Abbott Drug Company which produces drugs and does research? How does she explain to them that by filibustering this Bill she is delaying the research and development which would be done by the Abbott Company?


David Orlikow: It never did it before.


Philip Derek Lewis: I will now make direct reference to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) who will have to go out and tell the employees of Continental Pharma why he is filibustering the Bill which would put more research and development into his riding.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is very disturbing when an Hon. Member rises in the House and misleads the House on matters proven not to be the case by Canadian history. The American multinational drug companies have withdrawn their investment in this country. They have never made-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. I do not believe that is debate and I do not consider it to be a point of order.
Time Allocation


Philip Derek Lewis: When I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I was discussing the employees of Continental Pharma who will be asking the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East why he and his Party are blocking this important Bill. We move over one or two ridings to that of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) who has the Jouveinal Company in his riding, another drug company which is involved in research, trying to make better drugs for Canadians. He is part of the filibuster of this Bill. There is another company in the riding of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, the A.H. Robins Company, which would invest more in research and development.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Sure they will.


Raymond John Skelly: I have a bridge for sale out in my car.


Philip Derek Lewis: Let me move to the great Province of Ontario, if I may, and consider Park Davis in the riding of the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille). Where is he? When is he going to stand up for the employees of Park Davis? We then move to the riding of York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) where the Rorer Chemical Company does research and development, but the Hon. Member for York South-Weston does not want this research and development done in his riding. I move now to the Ayeth Company which is represented in the ridings of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). Where are these Hon. Members? Why are they blocking debate on this important Bill?
We are talking about research, Mr. Speaker, and development. We are talking about $1.4 billion injected into the economy of Canada.


Mr. Crombie:: How many jobs?


Philip Derek Lewis: We are talking about 3,000 new jobs. I am glad the Hon. Member asked that question. With the multiplier effect this figure would take us up to 9,000 jobs in Canada. Why is the NDP and the Liberal Party against jobs? Why are they against jobs in research and development? Having failed to answer that question, let me ask a more important question. Why is the NDP Party and the Liberal Party against research and development which will produce cures? Why is the NDP Party against a cure for cancer, for Alzheimer's disease, for Aids, for all of these things which put Canadian lives at risk? What does the NDP Party and the Liberal Party have against finding cures for disease?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that within the House of Commons there are certain expectations with respect to courtesy and the dignity of debate. I have heard no one rise and talk about the CPP or the LPP. The name of the Party I represent proudly is the New Democratic Party. Those who cannot say all of those words together sometimes refer to our Party as the NDP, but it is never referred to by anyone with an ounce of common sense as

December 4, 1986
Time Allocation
the NDP Party unless that individual completely misapprehends the English language.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis).


Philip Derek Lewis: I will try to regain my train of thought. However, I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the sight of a socialist in a vest looking like a banker just throws me right off. That is probably why I referred to my hon. colleague as being a Member of the NDP Party.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It does challenge your stereotypes, doesn't it?


Philip Derek Lewis: A vest, Mr. Speaker, with-what is it-seven or eight buttons; I cannot believe it.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Yes, and none of them are in my head.


Philip Derek Lewis: The Hon. Member is in traditional banker's costume.
Having dealt with that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to the editorial in today's issue of The Gazette of Montreal which states:
-the opposition campaign not only ignores the moral and economic justification for the drug bill... it also overlooks the inadequate health care resulting from the law as it now stands.
It is our job as legislators to try to find the best drugs and best cures for Canadians. We believe that the research and development which will result from this Bill will provide those cures. It is beyond me and the members of my Party why the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party are standing in the way of that research which could ultimately benefit all Canadians and which could then be sold throughout the world. For that reason we are proceeding to tidy up this debate nicely. After one more full day of debate we will be able to put the matter into committee so that everyone can be heard.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, to some it comes as a shock that the Government has chosen to impose time allocation. However, it does not come as a shock or as a surprise to me. Were I standing in the shoes of the Government and were I not an adherent of higher principles with respect to the House of Commons I would have been tempted myself as a member of Government to recommend that closure be imposed. We have heard from an hysterical Government represented in defence of this Bill by an hysterical Minister who has produced the most awful, hysterical arguments that I have ever heard in defence of anything.
It is difficult to know where to begin in an attack on the nonsense that we have heard this morning. One thing that is evident in all that we have heard is that this is a Government that wants to cut its losses. This is a Government that now knows that it has out there among the people of Canada-not
just within the ranks of the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party-a terrible fight on its hands, because this is a Bill that Canadians recognize is not in their interests. This is a piece of legislation which is payment for extortion. This is a Bill that is not motivated in the interests of health care. It is a Bill whose vaunted contribution to research cannot be found in the Bill and therefore cannot be defended. This is a Bill that was demanded by the President of the United States. It was demanded by the Vice-President of the United States who just happens to be a former Vice-President of Eli Lily. It is demanded by the Chairman of the President's Advisory Committee on Trade, Mr. Pratt, who happens to be the Chairman of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer of Pfizer of the United States. This is a Bill demanded by Mr. Yeutter who says that his patience is wearing thin. This is a product of concessions by a Government that lusts after a free trade deal, the virtues of which have not been demonstrated with respect to Canadian welfare.
It is no wonder that we have had such hysterical arguments from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre). In terms of his arguments and his advocacy of this Bill I understand why the Government wants to limit his utterances, his involvement and his public exposure. A Minister who does not know the difference between copyrighting rock and roll music and jelly beans and patented products and medicines is a Minister whom I would also want to have hidden somewhere. Closure is but one way of ensuring that not too much more will be heard from him.
One must listen to the arguments of the Government with respect to this Bill. We are expected to believe-and this would be amusing if it were not so tragic in its implications for Canadians-that a bunch of multinationals before 1969 had complete patent protection and did not have those nasty little scavenging generic drug companies to foul things up. It was a virtual joy for them in Canada because Canada had among the highest drug prices in the world. My God, what a horrible tragic situation. Some three commissions and committees looked at the situation and stated that something ought to be done. Two of the committees and commissions recommended that there be no patent protection at all. That was awful, unconscious of the concerns of the Canadian people and devoid of any responsibility with respect to the needs of the people who required those patented drugs. One would have thought that those drug companies that had very nearly the highest profits in the world would have carried out fantastic amounts of research under the circumstances. The fact is that they did not do a thing.
We are now being told in 1986, after 17 years of generic competition-17 years in which Canadian drug companies have faced vigorous competition which has created among the lowest drug prices in the world-that if we go back to the pre-1969 era these drug companies will all of a sudden rush in and start doing research. If you believe that, Mr. Speaker, you believe that this Government will be re-elected next time around, and everybody knows better than that.
December 4, 1986

The Minister says with vigour, between periods of panic in the House, that this Bill will produce thousands of jobs for Canadians in research. He says that it will cure the difficulties for university researchers to which the Government has contributed significantly. But if we look at the Bill what do we find? Do we find anywhere at all the word "research"? Do we find anything at all in the Bill which requires that research be done? Are there incentives anywhere in the Bill for research? Not at all. What do we have? We have promises.
So we have this Bill which has nothing at all to do with research. We also have a bunch of letters offering a prayer, a hope and a promise that there will be research. What kind of research will it be? The Government says that we will be doing a lot more of the same if this legislation is passed. That means that not a tiddly-wink of basic research will be done as a result of this Bill.
We know the motivations of the drug companies. The drug companies want to stop in its tracks any possibility that other countries around the world will copy our legislation. In the United States, a Congressional committee suggested that if the American drug companies did not clean up their act they would face legislation similar to Canada's. Other nations around the world are engaged in similar considerations.
The Government is not only trying to mislead Canadians, one can suspect that it has been extorted to take this action and it has foolishly, perhaps in panic, come to believe the awful untruths which are evident.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party has been represented by several speakers in this debate on time allocation. The Hon. Member who just spoke is known to me for his interest in science and technology, research and development and things that are pretty important to the essential components of this Bill. The reason we have to limit endless discussion on the Bill is that it represents three things. It represents health care, it represents jobs and employment, particularly in research and development, and it represents freedom. Let us talk about health care.
Back in 1965 when I had the privilege of going to the University of Western Ontario Medical School and graduating from that school, I used to walk on campus and look at a small building called the Collip Building. That was the building in which Banting and Best used to work in connection with the University of Toronto. They were responsible for discovering insulin.
Just last week at the University Hospital of the University of Western Ontario a very exciting discovery was made indicating that perhaps Alzheimer's Disease is linked to herpes. Discovering that and being able to trace back the origins of
Alzheimer's disease to a herpes virus would be a pretty important discovery for Canadians in general and something of which the Canadian scientific and medical community would be very proud.
I will limit my remarks now and carry on-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have eight minutes left in debate when Orders of the Day are called.

It being 1.34 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2.00 p.m. At 1.34 p.m., the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express the outrage of Canadians at the way the Government is allowing Canada Post to reduce its services. All Canadians pay the full price for full service. All Canadians have the right to benefit from full service.
The Government may try to deny that there has been any reduction in services, but the facts speak for themselves. Thousands of rural post offices in small communities throughout Canada will be turned over to the private sector. More than 1,700 will be amalgamated into larger ones. More than 9,000 post office jobs will be lost in rural Canada as a result of the changes. People living on rural sideroads will lose the direct delivery of mail. Instead they will have to travel upwards of 50 miles to get their mail from the not so super-duper mailboxes introduced by the Government.
Canadians have come to expect secure, daily door-to-door delivery of mail to their principal residences. Therefore I call upon the Government immediately to instruct Canada Post to improve and expand its services and to stop at once any attempts to reduce further post office services to Canadians in any way. In particular, I urge the Government to stop abandoning the people of rural Canada. It is a cold, unfair, and callous act by a Government which is not concerned about rural Canada.

December 4, 1986
PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY	[DOT] <1405>
RESOLUTION OPPOSING AMENDMENT OF PATENT LAW	[Translation]


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to put on record the views of an organization in Manitoba which represents most farmers belonging to commodity groups in that province. Keystone Agricultural Producers wrote a letter to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) in which it was indicated that it had "unanimously adopted a resolution calling for our organization to vigorously oppose proposed amendments of the drug patents act, which would allow chemical manufacturing companies patent protection of 10 to 17 years on new pharmaceutical drugs".
They sent the letter not only because farmers as consumers would have to pay higher prices, but also because of the following:
-it is our belief that any measures which may be taken with respect to pharmaceutical drugs may have significant implications with respect to the production and pricing of pesticides.
Of course pesticides are important to farmers in food production. The Minister should withdraw the Bill, as was proposed by Keystone Agricultural Producers.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government recognizes the regional difficulties of northern Ontario. I am pleased to say that since 1984 northern Ontarians have received attention they failed to attract under the previous administration.
The initiatives the northern Ontario caucus and Cabinet are presently considering are indicative of the importance we place upon the region. They are not the reactive, short-term solutions of the past Liberal Government, or policies which only react to the boom and bust cycle of the northern economy. They are a responsible approach by the Government in its attempt to build upon the strengths of northern Ontario resource-based industries.
Our Government has given northern Ontario and its unique problems the recognition the region deserves. We will continue to work with the people to create a more stable future for northern Ontario.



FORESTRY


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, next Saturday, December 6, the Universite du Quebec en Abitibi- Temiscamingue will grant for the first time in its short history an honorary Ph.D. to Mr. Jean Perron, President of Normick Perron, in La Sarre. This happy initiative will express the gratitude of our community to a man and a family who have written an important page in the history of North Western Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, in my region of Abitibi-Temiscamingue, the name Perron evokes such things as building, entrepreneurship and success. The marvelous success of Normick Perron these last few years is the result of the determination, the work and the ingenuity of its administrators.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the people of my community in thanking Mr. Jean Perron for his involvement in our affairs and for his contribution in making La Sarre the forestry capital of Quebec.



NEED FOR EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY POLICY

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, a study carried out this fall by the federal Department of National Health and Welfare shows that, in the field of education, where women used to have the advantage over men, men have tended to close the gap and even to reverse the trend, while in the areas where men held the advantage, progress has been very slow.
On the other hand, the study shows that the gap between the percentages of men and women attending university has been substantially narrowed, but the study also shows that this is not really significant. Indeed, in the more economically profitable fields of education, the gap between men and women has widened. In other words, women are gaining in the fields of education deserted by men, but few women are making gains in non-traditional areas.
Mr. Speaker, a true policy of equal opportunities must promote the emancipation of women in all sectors and not confirm their confinement to structural ghettos.
December 4, 1986



ASA AND ASPIRIN PRODUCTS-CALL FOR BAN AS CHILDREN'S MEDICATION

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying to see that Britain has seen fit to halt the sale of all children's ASA and aspirin products because of their link to Reye's Syndrome, a rare but often fatal childhood disease which develops in children and teenagers after a viral infection, such as influenza or chicken pox. Reye's Syndrome is fatal in about 20 per cent to 30 per cent of cases, and many survivors suffer serious brain damage.
It has been pointed out that children who are given ASA for influenza and chicken pox run a 25 times greater risk of contracting Reye's Syndrome than do children who do not take these drugs.
Health and Welfare Canada only requires a warning on ASA products cautioning parents against using them to treat flu or chicken pox in their children without first consulting a doctor. I fervently believe that this policy should now be changed and that Canada should follow the leadership of Britain in banning all ASA and aspirin products in their use against viral infections in children and teenagers, such as chicken pox and influenza. I call upon the Government to look into this matter and to bring forth positive action to get this done.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, on November 24, 1986, the Seafarers' International Union went on strike against Coastal Canada, a tanker vessel on the Great Lakes, in order to obtain a first contract for their 17 members. Unfortunately, the Government of Canada is directly involved in one case and in the other has taken sides on the issue. The tanker is currently chartered to Petro-Canada.
On November 27 the Coast Guard was used to ferry scabs to operate the striking vessel. First, I call upon the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) to instruct Petro-Canada to suspend the charter with this ship until such time as the dispute has been resolved. Second, I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) to instruct the Coast Guard that under no circumstances will Canadian Government vessels be used to assist in the deployment of scabs to this vessel. Finally, I call upon the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) to use Section 171, Part V of the Canada Labour Code, and impose a first contract on the parties.



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, there must be a bureaucrat in the Department of Finance who is determined to permit the banks to market insurance. I say this because every Minister of State for Finance since 1981 in one way or another has advanced a proposal to permit the banks and other financial institutions to sell various types of insurance policies. If it happens, when making a loan or by checking the expiry dates on collateral loan items, banks could corner the market by tying the insurance in with the granting of the loan. What are we trying to do? Create another monopoly?
O)
If we make this change, we will throw thousands of people in this country out of work, and lose the excellent expertise that the insurance industry has developed.
The banks should do their own thing like making loans, accepting deposits, and expanding credit. I say scrap this proposal and stop worrying the daylights out of the thousands of splendid Canadians who are efficiently handling insurance, and tell the bureaucrats to jump in the lake.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, unless there has been a recent follow-up to the letter of the Grand'Mere shoe workers union president, an unlikely occurrence if I judge by the information I have, I would urge the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) to honour the commitment made to these workers during a meeting at La Rocaille Motel last September 26 in the presence of the Member for Trois-Rivieres and the then Conservative candidate.
You promised these workers that they no longer had to worry because they would be eligible for benefits under the Labour Adjustment Program, even if you had to overrule some of the board decisions.
Mr. Speaker, at least seven or eight workers between the ages of 47 and 53 experienced much difficulty to become eligible and, for a technical reason which was raised by the board but which can be quickly settled, they were even refused under LAP.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister of Labour to take action in this case, and I should like to be advised of what he intends to do about the letter of the union president.

December 4, 1986



S.O. 21 TRADE LIBERALS' POSITION ON FREE TRADE

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, according to this morning's Toronto Star and La Presse, Liberal delegates were fiercely divided after a lively two-day debate on free trade.
In a bizarre sequence of events, delegates adopted a resolution in favour of free trade and then supported a policy opposed to free trade. This turnabout elicited some bitter criticism from former Liberal Minister Donald Macdonald, who called his party's position inconsistent. "To outsiders we must look pretty stupid", said Mr. Macdonald, adding that the Liberal Leader, who avoided committing himself, "will now have to get to work with his caucus, where most of this nonsense comes from".
The Liberal Leader's speech on liberalisation of trade with the United States showed his tacit approval of my Government's initiative. However, that was not the position taken by the critic for international trade or the critic for external affairs.
Canadians must realize the tremendous confusion among Ottawa Liberals on a number of important issues.



FISHERIES


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, Texaco Canada plans to drill on the Georges Bank in Atlantic Canada beginning next year. This area is one of the richest sources of fishing in the world. The scallop intake provides half the total value of all fishing for Nova Scotia. Georges Bank is extremely sensitive environmentally. In an effort to protect both jobs and this fragile resource, the Newfoundland United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1252, and the fishermen's union, are calling for the Bank to be named a marine sanctuary.
The only research that has been done to date to study the impact of offshore drilling in this area has been done by the Canadian Oil and Gaslines Association. I join my Atlantic New Democratic colleagues in their concern that this is less than reassuring. The Government should provide Atlantic Canadians with an independent report to study the impact of offshore drilling on the Georges Bank.



FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, a number of small businessmen in my constituency who sell general insurance, and many of their customers, are worried about a federal proposal which would allow banks and other financial institutions to sell general insurance.
Allowing banks and trust companies to sell insurance could introduce unfair competition into the insurance market, in that many people could feel pressured into buying their insurance from the bank with which they deal. The major banks are already very powerful. I share the concern of many of my constituents that the banks could eventually dominate certain areas of the insurance business, and some small businesses would be wiped out completely.
Small businesses are a vital part of our economy. Insurance is a complicated commodity. Independent agents have worked hard and successfully to give their customers the best possible service. I hope that the Government will not pass any legislation which would threaten such small businesses.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, it is discouraging to see that the Government has already accepted the Forget report's recommendations on annualization of unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, not so long ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated that he wanted the rich to be richer, and now he has found a way for the poor to be poorer. It would be totally unacceptable for the Conservative Government to accept this recommendation. It would have the following consequences, for instance in Quebec, where a father of two would have to go on welfare to get $435.
I would ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister to stop the consultations and stop the spending. This is what Canadians think: they say no to the Forget report and annualization, and yes to sound, positive recommendations.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: In 1968, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Government introduced a bill dealing with the
December 4, 1986

pharmaceutical industry which made it possible for generic companies to copy various new drugs.
It was the current Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) who, as the then Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, introduced this Bill which proved so detrimental to Canadians.
Since that legislation, the pharmaceutical industry has declined in Quebec and Canada; Liberals have exported our jobs abroad instead of our goods and services. What is even worse, we, as Canadians, are no longer able to find here the most advanced medicines. Foreign companies refuse to sell them here for fear of their being copied.
However, because I still trust a number of Liberal Members, today I ask the Leader of the Liberal Opposition to allow the Hon. Member for Mount Royal, a physician, to deal with the legislation we have introduced keeping in mind her former clients as well as the three prosperous drug manufacturers in her riding of Mount Royal.
In a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, we will see whether the Liberal Leader is gagging his troups.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention and the attention of this House to the still unresolved problems surrounding the Star-Kist plant in Bayside, New Brunswick. The plant is still closed, the people are still out of work, and the unemployment insurance benefits of many of them have run out.
Next Sunday at 6.30 p.m. an outdoor church service will be held at the Star-Kist plant to focus attention on and show concern for the plight of the workers and the community. The Government has a responsibility to help the workers. The Government must find a way to reopen this plant as soon as possible.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Emmployment
Oral Questions
and Immigration with regard to the Forget Report. The Government tried to deindex old age pensions, it cut family allowances, and it is now going to raise drug prices as a result of the legislation currently before the House.
I believe the country has the right to know what the Minister meant when he said yesterday, "Admittedly, the present unemployment insurance system does call for changes". What does the Minister have in mind, or does he know what he has in mind?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Government would not have bothered to create a commission, the Forget Commission which worked for over a year and a half in order to submit a certain number of recommendations to the Government, if it had not realized there were a number of things in the system that ought to be improved and should be given careful consideration in order to increase the efficiency of a system that costs us $12 billion a year.
The report has been submitted, and the Government, as I said yesterday, is going to take a very careful look at all relevant studies so that on May 15, it will be able to give Canadians an outline of what it intends to do with the unemployment insurance system.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this has been a great commission. We have had six commissioners, three minority reports, and four supplementary statements. That reflects the same confusion as appears in the ministerial ranks.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Yesterday the Minister refused to commit himself one way or another on the report. The Minister of Transport, in his usual forthright fashion, said that he rejected those recommendations categorically.
In view of the division within ministerial ranks, would the Prime Minister tell us what his Government's intention is with respect to this report? Is the Government, as the Minister of Transport suggested quite clearly on television, going to reject the recommendations of that report?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend is accurate. There is a majority report, a minority report, and two supplementary statements. It is like the Liberal position on trade.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I suppose that indicates the complexity of the unemployment insurance issue as seen by a distinguished commissioner, Mr. Forget, who was a member of the Cabinet


December 4, 1986
Oral Questions
of the Liberal Government of Quebec, and a very distinguished member of that Government. Yesterday the Minister produced a statement in which he indicated that the Government will reflect upon some of the recommendations and will provide a global response to them at or about May 15. I think it is reasonable in the circumstances that we hear from opposition Parties and others in the country.


John Napier Turner: Perhaps the Prime Minister could tell us how coherent his Party is on the issue of capital punishment and what he will do about that.


Mr. Forrestall:: What are you going to do about it?


John Napier Turner: Our position is quite clear.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: What is it?


An Hon. Member:: Let's hear it.


John Napier Turner: When will the Prime Minister respond to the efforts of some his ministerial ranks to fulfil a commitment he made to the Canadian people? But that is another matter.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REIMBURSE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
John Napier Turner: I have another question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Apparently that report cost $6 million, and the bill has been charged to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Is the Goverment going to reimburse the Unemployment Insurance Commission to compensate the people who, after all, contributed to the Fund?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thought the Leader of the Official Opposition would be better informed. I am sorry, but the Commission cost $5.2 million. I hope that figure is now official. It was yesterday, and I hope that all Opposition Members on the New Democratic side will stop referring to $8 million. The figure is $5.2 million.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, there comes a time when an agency or a company decides it might be useful to reassess its internal operations in order to improve its efficiency. Generally, such companies fund these studies and assessments from their own resources. That is why, and we had the authorization of Treasury Board, we felt that unemployment insurance funds should be used to pay for a study that would improve the service given by the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


ANNUALIZED CALCULATION OF BENEFITS-REQUEST THAT MINISTER REJECT RECOMMENDATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Ailmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the Minister stated in the House, as reported at page 1753 of Hansard:
-our purpose is not to reduce federal contributions to the unemployed.
The Minister of Transport said something similar outside the House. If that is the case, why does the Minister not immediately reject recommendation 23, the annualization method of calculating benefits, which will in fact reduce payments to the unemployed, especially those unemployed who do not have skills and who have great difficulty in finding work? Why does he not reject that recommendation immediately and be consistent with what he said in the House?
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, I also told the Hon. Member that the Government intended to make a serious study of the unemployment insurance system. Of course, the Liberal Party has a knack of examining reports within a day and a half and drawing their own conclusions from a report that took a year and a half to complete. We shall see what those conclusions are.
As far as we are concerned, we are keeping an open mind and neither rejecting nor accepting any recommendations for the time being. We are going to consider them within the general context of the assessment of the system and we shall retain what is good and drop what is not. And after doing so, on May 15 we intend to present conclusions that will reflect the Government's position.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Ailmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, we therefore cannot believe what the Minister said in the House yesterday. Since the Forget proposals have very serious implications for the provinces because they would transfer thousands of unemployed to provincial welfare rolls, what plans does the Minister have for meeting with the provinces? Does he intend to have a federal-provincial conference on this matter before May 15 so that the provinces can have real input on something that will hurt them very seriously?
Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that we have an excellent relationship with the provinces. I will be meeting with my provincial counterparts in January 1987, when the discussion will of course centre on unemployment insurance. At this meeting we expect to hear the views of the provinces, to make better progress on this issue, and to meet the expectations of the provinces as well as we can.
December 4, 1986


REGIONAL EXTENDED BENEFITS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. As the Minister well knows, the Forget Commission in its complete heartlessness recommends cutting out some $3 billion of revenue going to those parts of Canada which are already most adversely affected by high unemployment, resource communities right across the country, in the main. Will the Minister now guarantee that the Government will not accept the recommendation of abolishing regional extended benefits provided by the Unemployment Insurance Commission? Will he show a little compassion if Forget did not?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already told the Leader of the New Democratic Party, or that I have repeated what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance said. They said: There is no question of reducing federal Government contributions to the unemployment fund. So there is absolutely no justification for resorting to scare tactics. Let me make this quite clear from the outset: The Government has no intention to overhaul the unemployment insurance system to the detriment of workers.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT DECISION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has said in the House, and outside, that the Government is going to wait until next May to make a decision. Since the Commission cost $5 million, has been working for 18 months, had 475 briefs submitted to it plus an additional 1,500 written briefs, could the Minister tell us why we need more time to study this? Was the Government not elected to make a decision? Has it not heard? Why will it not make a decision now?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, if a commission asked hundreds of Canadians to appear- I will use your argument. If a commission spent $5 million and travelled throughout the country to listen to Canadians, will the Government respond in half a day?


FUTURE OF POOR REGIONS
John Edward Broadbent: That is the point of the original debate. There is no need to study the matter for another few months. The Government is fully aware of the situation in the Atlantic Provinces and in Quebec, and one thing is clear: benefits must not be reduced in these regions. That is clear. Now my question to the Minister is this: Will he
Oral Questions
now guarantee that regional benefits will be maintained in these poor regions?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I represent a region where unemployment benefits are very important. One thing I can guarantee my colleague is that there is no way this Government ... Unlike our friends opposite we had the courage to set up a commission of inquiry on a controversial issue, and all commentators say it took political courage to do it. And so we did. Yesterday I even set the date, the first time a Government does this. I will unveil the Government's proposals on May 15, and I am sure that Canadians are not afraid. We have the courage to say we will state our position, and we are not afraid that our recommendations might not be in their best interests.


SITUATION OF EARLY RETIREES
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Mr. Prime Minister, I know that you do not want to reply to the question dealing with senior citizens. It is quite obvious. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, and now the Minister of Employment and Immigration have said that the purpose of improving the Unemployment Insurance Plan is not to reduce federal contributions to unemployed Canadians. If what the Prime Minister says is true, will he tell us now, in view of this statement, that the Government has no choice but to reimburse the 50,000 workers who took early retirement and who lost their unemployment benefits?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Hon. Member was a reasonable man. I told him yesterday that I would reply to this question tomorrow at noon. There is no need to try and give the impression that you are going to force us to give you some answers. It has nothing to do with you. I am the one who shall give the answer, and it will come from this Government.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, we have just discovered a new Charlie Brown. The Minister and Prime Minister have had the gall to say that the purpose of the review is not to reduce contributions. They cut off the benefits of these poor retirees one year ago, and they now want these people to believe them.
Can the Minister tell us why, after misleading the senior citizens and the sick, his government should have the confidence of the unemployed today since they were misled about consultation on the Blue Paper? We want frank and clear answers.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said in my statement
yesterday . . . Mr. Speaker, I shall not attempt to speak at the same time as the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. It would be impossible.

December 4, 1986
Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday in my statement that I would answer that question tomorrow at noon and that I would make a statement. Not a single Canadian, not a single reporter asked that question this morning. Everyone has understood that the reply will be made tomorrow at noon, and I think that, if you make a small effort, you will understand it yourself.


POSSIBLE EFFECT OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON ATLANTIC REGION
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It has to do with the Forget Commission Report. None of the briefs from the provincial Governments recommended either the elimination of the regional extended benefits or the implementation of the annualization of benefits. The impact of such measures on the economy of Atlantic Canada would be $660 million. For example, an unemployed person in St. John's, Newfoundland, who worked 20 weeks and who is receiving $240 under the present system, would receive $102 if the Forget Commission Report recommendations were implemented. Because this has created some uncertainty in Atlantic Canada will the Minister take the opportunity to give an unequivocal commitment now that the elimination of regional extended benefits and annualization will not be implemented by the Government?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have read the same report as my colleague. Sure enough, I noticed that the figures were high. However, instead of doing some sort of haphazard analysis, I think that the issue should be considered as a whole. We should try to consider that as a whole, and not take one item one after another but make a comprehensive assessment as any responsible organization would do and when taking stock of the situation, provide policies which will respect, as stated, the unemployed.


REGIONAL EXTENDED BENEFITS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I know that trying to get a commitment from this Government is like trying to walk across an ocean full of whipped cream on snow-shoes.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Author?


Charles Joseph Clark: No originality.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Hon. Member might consider that with the onset of winter it will become easier.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister says that by May 15 he will give a response, which means that all of the people in the Atlantic region will have to live with another sword of Damocles over their heads waiting to know where the Government stands on something that is so important to them. I wish to give the Minister the opportunity to stand here in his place now and commit himself not to eliminate the regional extended benefits and not to put annualization into place. He will not be out of line with the provinces in Atlantic Canada if he does so.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the Government is taking the required time, which is relatively short, to assess the proposals and has been considering during the past year and a half both a majority report and a minority report which you know about and has clearly undertaken not to lower the benefits paid to the unemployed. Once again, we are as much aware as you are of the needs in the Atlantic Provinces. The Prime Minister has undertaken, as I said, to take into account in the proposals which will be made in May the regional and economic facts of this country in which we live.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER REJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The Minister of Transport has rejected categorically the Forget Commission Report. The Minister of Employment and Immigration does not support him. Will the Prime Minister demonstrate some real leadership with regard to the recommendations of the Forget Commission, stand in his place today and tell the working poor, working Canadians and the unemployed, that he will not accept the recommendations of the Forget Commission, thus terminating extended regional benefits, thereby costing Atlantic Canadians $660 million in terms of their economy? Will the Prime Minister provide some real leadership with regard to a very important issue?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend would look at the statement issued yesterday by the Minister he would see that it states:
The Government does not endorse the Forget report nor any other, and it will not respond directly and specifically to the Forget report recommendations.
Except, as mentioned by my hon. colleague, on May 15. That is a pretty straightforward and not unreasonable position to adopt in view of the complexity of the situation. I would think that my hon. friend would want to support the Government in this type of mature approach.
December 4, 1986


SITUATION OF SELF-EMPLOYED FISHERMEN
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the test of leadership is to take difficult decisions during difficult times.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: You may laugh across there-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will address the Minister through the Chair.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Self-employed fishermen are troubled and worried about their future. Will the Prime Minister stand in his place today and give an undertaking to the House that there will not be a termination of UI benefits for self-employed fishermen? Or will he allow his Minister of Transport to stand out on the wharf alone with regard to helping the people of Atlantic Canada? Make up your mind, Mr. Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, fishermen and forest workers in Atlantic Canada are concerned because the only approach you find to a basic problem like unemployment insurance is to scare people. That is what you are doing, and you cannot do anything else. You cannot do a thing!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind all Hon. Members, both those who are asking questions with vigour and enthusiasm and those Ministers who are answering with equal vigour and enthusiasm, to conduct their exchanges through the Chair.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what I want to suggest to the Hon. Members opposite is this: it is not good enough to play on people's fear by saying: You will do this, you will do that. Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday we would receive-


David Charles Dingwall: Have some guts and make a decision.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask all Hon. Members to let the Minister reply.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that an intelligent and serious examination of a matter like unemployment insurance requires that every option be assessed, and then only those that suit Canadians best be chosen. Instead of
Oral Questions
scaring people, try to co-operate with that serious examination we want to undertake.


ELIMINATION OF REGIONAL EXTENDED BENEFITS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
The Minister knows the Forget Commission recommended eliminating regionally extended benefits. If that recommendation were to be accepted by the Government, the people of Quebec would lose $ 1 billion.
Is the Minister now ready to tell Quebecers he will reject that recommendation by the Forget Commission?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I told my fellow Quebecers the Government was working on a study of unemployment insurance, and that it would again take into account the monies that have been invested in that system. I repeat what the Prime Minister has said, and what has been repeated on a number of occasions: there is no question of reducing the monies, the funds we are investing in the unemployment insurance plan.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT REJECT RECOMMENDATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of anxiety has been caused by the Forget Commission, and not by Opposition Members. Yes, a great deal of anxiety has been caused by that former Liberal Minister, Mr. Forget.
Can the Minister now tell Quebecers that he will reject that recommendation? That recommendation is very important for Quebec's future and for the constituency of Manicouagan, which has a high unemployment rate.


An Hon. Member:: They will be getting a prison!


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Hon. Member on the unavoidable insecurity problem caused by such a Royal Commission of Enquiry. I think everybody agree with that. This is why I said earlier it was regrettable that the Hon. Member should exploit that insecurity to try and suggest all sorts of things.
Clearly, in our assessment of the situation we will spare no effort to try and consider that there are people-and there are many of them in Canada, unfortunately, because not everybody is working-who have to live with the unemployment insurance problem, and we will endeavour to provide them with the best possible benefits. This Government's only intention is, not only to give them the best quality, but to improve as much as possible on what we are already giving them.

December 4, 1986
Oral Questions


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of State for Finance. Insurance people and consumers in general across the nation are worried and disturbed over the continual and continuous suggestion that banks be permitted to sell insurance. Is the Government planning to proceed with this ridiculous plan?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his inquiry. The insurance companies have been making strenuous representations to me, representations just as strenuous as the one made by the Hon. Member. I have heard their concerns and, as the Hon. Member knows, our policy will be announced in a very few weeks.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Both the Wallace Commission report on part time employment and the Forget report which was tabled yesterday recommended that the number be reduced of weekly hours required for men and women working part-time to obtain unemployment insurance entitlement.
Considering that 72 per cent of part time employees are women and that equality in the labour force is one of the priorities of this Conservative Government, could the Minister tell us whether he accepts these recommendations and whether he is going to implement them now?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend knows just how much I have been aware, both as Secretary of State and Minister of Employment, of the need to enhance the role of women on the labour market.
I think, therefore, that the gist of the recommendation is interesting. But you ask whether I am going to implement it right away? Obviously, the answer is no.
Within the discussion framework which we have established from the start, how do we approach a recommendation such as this? I suggest that the issue of both the status of women and women on the labour force will have to be one of the priorities, if not the top priority, within the recommendations we are going to make about the unemployment insurance issue.


WOMEN IN EMPLOYMENT-MINISTER'S POSITION
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the Minister say women and employment will be one of the priority recommendations. Indeed, I should like to remind the Minister that women contribute to the unemployment insurance account $39 million more than they collect from it.
I should like to hear the Minister reiterate that, indeed, one of the main recommendations in his report next May will deal with women and employment.


Benoît Bouchard: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker and my hon. friend will kindly admit something. That over the past two years, the Conservative Government has managed to increase the rate of participation for women, for instance in the Jobs Strategy Program, from 35 per cent to 49 per cent. The results are there.
I certainly agree to do just that. Given that women in the labour force is a priority in the matter of unemployment insurance, the Hon. Member will certainly admit that the situation is much easier for a Government which has such a good record regarding women's issues.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF NOVA SCOTIA, QUEBEC, ONTARIO, AND BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Ronald Giffen, Attorney General of Nova Scotia;

Hon. Herbert Marx. Quebec Attorney General and Minsiter of Justice;

the Hon. Ian Scott, Attorney General and Solicitor General of Ontario; and the Hon. Brian Smith, Attorney General of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Post Office. The Government has given us superboxes which are supposed



December 4, 1986

to be safe, secure, and sure. Now we have superkey which opens all doors and any door. There is no stopping superkey. When will our mail be secure? When will we get superlock? Is there a "Keeper of the Keys" on the government side?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, there are some people who ask questions and do not want to hear the answers. That demonstrates their seriousness.
What is happening right now at Canada Post is a serious matter and the Minister responsible for Canada Post and myself are equally concerned about the lack of quality control in the installation of these mail boxes. Therefore, the Minister responsible has spoken to the corporation and has ordered it to get on with the quality control system which will ensure safe delivery.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bernard Valcourt: If I may add, the Minister has asked Canada Post that no new boxes be installed until this mechanism is in place.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT WANTS TO PLACE MAILBOXES IN RURAL AREAS
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. Why does the Minister want to have those same boxes in rural areas? They will be located at some 100,000 houses in rural areas. Why put them up in rural areas when they are inadequate in urban areas?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party . . . First, there are things that should be made clear. Those famous mailboxes were first introduced by the previous Liberal Government, and now they are not good enough. They did it.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why those mailboxes have to be put up is that the previous Liberal Government left thousands of Canadians without any service in some communities. They had to run to the Post Office at five in the afternoon, closing time. But this is now over.
Oral Questions


UNITED NATIONS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At the United Nations this week, the Canadian Government made a major shift in a vote on a very important Middle East resolution dealing with the peace process in that region. The chief of the political section of the Canada Commission at the UN said that the reason for the change in the vote was to "bring Canada into greater balance between Arab and Israeli views". What imbalance was there previously which this official said had to be corrected? Does this presage a major shift in Middle East policy by the Canadian Government and is this the reason why the Government of Canada changed its vote?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is one of the questions on which the Liberal Party is not yet divided. Naturally we will wait to see what happens.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, it is.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are they divided on this too? Oh, I am sorry. I do not keep track as closely as the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
The reality with regard to the resolution introduced in the United Nations is that the proponents of the resolution have moderated their language to the point where Canada no longer opposes the resolution. Canada continues to encourage direct negotiation between the parties to the dispute and believes that there are circumstances in which an international conference could facilitate such direct talks.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that this would be one of the questions the Minister might treat seriously, which is not his customary practice.


CANADIAN POLICY
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same Minister. Canadian officials have described the vote as a significant shift in Canadian policy. What shift is going on? Are we clearly supporting a continuation of a policy of bilateral talks between the Arab and Israeli nations to seek a peace settlement? If that is the case, will the Minister instruct his officials to correct their statements so that there will be no misconceptions about where Canada stands on this important issue?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my statement on the question was unequivocal and clear. The Hon. Member can count on that

December 4, 1986
Oral Questions
statement. I should tell him that I was congratulated last night by one of his colleagues in the Liberal Party for the position taken by the Government. It was the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis. It indicates that he at least believes the position Canada has taken in this circumstance is an appropriate position. I hope there is some unity on this question in the Liberal Party.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last year the Government said that senior citizens across the country supported it in its attempts to reduce the deficit by reducing old age pensions. Yesterday the Minister indicated to the House that senior citizens were being confused by opposition politicians over the drug patent legislation. Is the Minister seriously suggesting to the House and to Canadians that the senior citizens with whom I met in the Atlantic provinces in the last three days, and the organizations of senior citizen groups from across the country with which I met this morning, are confused when they say that they totally understand the Government is pushing them to the wall and that, if it goes through with the legislation, drug prices will increase?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to read again from the comments of a responsible individual who has looked at our proposed legislation, Dr. Philip Seeman, head of the Pharmacology Department of the University of Toronto. He said: "Senior citizens are being seriously misled by politicians who tell them prices will sky-rocket or their provincial drug plans may be cut, but they are being denied goods which could improve their life". I am seriously suggesting that senior citizens are interested in more research on Alzheimer disease, cancer, arthritis, cystic fibrosis, and all other diseases which so affect quality of life. We have a package which will do it in a way that provides enormous net benefits to Canada. This is why I think seniors and all Canadians should be in favour of it.


Neil Young: That from a Government which just slashed millions of dollars from research.


COST IMPACT RESEARCH
Neil Young: Mr, Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Is the Minister trying to tell Canadians that senior citizens and their organizations have not conducted detailed research into the cost impact of the Bill on seniors, disabled Canadians, Canadians with young families, and particularly provincial Governments? Is he really trying to tell us that these senior citizens are confused? That is insulting.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, over 85 per cent of Canadians are covered by drug plans and 95 per cent of senior citizens. A professor from the University of Ottawa wrote:
As a Pediatric Clinical Pharmacologist, I have been acutely aware that many pharmaceutical substances are not available in Canada as licensed products for children as a result of previous patent and licensing policies.
I applaud your efforts in this regard and feel that your new policy is both appropriate and a step forward for the Canadian pediatric population.
In other words, for children. Is the Hon. Member seriously suggesting that Canadians are opposed to better drugs sooner for Canada's children?


Neil Young: What about the seniors?


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Canada Post. He knows that the Government's plan to close thousands of rural post offices and to fire 9,500 postal workers will devastate much of rural Canada. Is he aware that 80 per cent of these postal jobs are now held by women? Would he consider withdrawing a plan which discriminates against women in rural Canada?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise of the Hon. Member's question. There is no question about closing rural post offices. The business plan contemplates passing over to the private sector small post offices in communities, over a 10-year period. It will mean better service and more locations for Canadians. This is what it will mean. As for the business plan, I am informed that the committee just completed its hearings this morning. I shall await its report to the House before I comment any further.


Maurice Brydon Foster: The committee did not complete its work; it was cut off with closure by government Members.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER POSTPONE CLOSURES
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister prepared, on behalf of the Government, to postpone the closure of rural post offices and the firing of 9,500 postal workers, many of whom have worked from 20 years to 30 years, until after the next election so that rural Canadians can vote on the whole matter?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, the people of rural Canada have voted. They voted on September 4 for better service, a formidable cause. This is what we want to give Canadians. When the committee reports to the House, the

House will be seized with its recommendations, and we will take it from there.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-POSSIBLE EFFECT ON TEXTILE FIRM IN NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, we have just received reports that the President of Standfield's, a Truro Nova Scotian textile firm, for the sake of the Minister, employing 800 people, thinks his company will have to move its manufacturing operations out of Canada if a freer trade agreement with the United States were signed. In view of this loss which has certain broader connotations for her Party, is the Minister for International Trade now prepared to rethink the free trade thrust on which she is engaged?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: No,
Mr. Speaker.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, in view of the mounting opposition to free trade in this company employing 800 people, in breweries employing thousands of people, and in manufacturing firms in all sorts of resource areas, why is the Minister not prepared to rethink her position?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the mounting evidence before us shows overwhelmingly that Canadians have a lot to gain from a bilateral trade treaty with the U.S.


Mr. Ouellet:: Did you get that privately from Mr. Stanfield?


Pat Carney: I would point out to the Hon. Member that reports of the Economic Council of Canada have said that if we are successful in a bilateral agreement with the U.S. we could create 375,000 new jobs in this country and that, if we stay on a protectionist course, the way the world is going we will lose half a million jobs in the same time period.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In a letter addressed to Michael Wawryshyn, dated October 23, the Minister explained that Canadian embassy personnel in
Oral Questions
Buenos Aires failed to attend a concert staged by the Ukrainian Canadian Choir Vesnivka because the flag and anthem of Ukraine were prominent in the program. He referred to the possible misinterpretation of Canadian policy toward Ukraine which might result from an official presence at the concert. Ukrainian Canadians were shocked and offended by this explanation.
Will the Minister issue a public apology to the Ukrainian Canadian community, and will he clarify Canada's official policy towards the independence of Ukraine and other captive nations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the House will be astonished to learn that I signed a letter that had an error in it. It may not be so astonished to learn that I have written Mr. Wawryshyn and circulated widely a letter of apology, a letter clarifying the situation, and I would trust that now the matter has been aired publicly in the House any concerns that might have been alive in the Ukrainian community will be set to rest.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NON-ATTENDANCE BY EMBASSY OFFICIALS
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs continues to insult the Ukrainian Canadians in Canada.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You insult this Ukrainian.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Wawryshyn is a constituent of mine. In reply to a letter that I sent to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he indicated that Canadian embassy officials did not attend the concert because the choir was singing the Ukrainian national anthem and because the Ukrainian flag was flown. In a subsequent letter to Mr. Wawryshyn the Minister changed his tune. Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs admit in the House today the real reasons his embassy officials did not attend the concert?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member is asking me to say what I have just said in the House of Commons. I did make an error as he has alleged. This is the only thing on which he and I have agreed or probably will agree, in that case I am unlike the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition in so far as the Hon. Member for York South-Weston is concerned.


John Napier Turner: Just deal with the government response, Joe.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Do your job.


John Napier Turner: If you want to make an apology, make an apology and do it graciously.

December 4, 1986
Privilege-Mr. Gagliano INQUIRY CONCERNING LETTER TO MEMBER


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, in the letter written by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to Mr. Wawryshyn dated November 14, he indicates that the letter was also sent to me. Could the Minister explain to the House why he would say to Mr. Wawryshyn through the letter that a copy of his letter came to me when in fact no such letter was ever sent to me?


Charles Joseph Clark: First, Mr. Speaker, I will look into that. Perhaps the most effective way to send correspondence to the Hon. Member would be in a plain brown envelope.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Secretary of State and Minister responsible for Multiculturalism. The Minister is aware that the Federation of Sikh Societies of Canada applied many months ago for grants in support of several community projects and that there has been support from all quarters of this House for that application. Will the Minister assure the House this afternoon that he expects to advance social harmony in Canada by taking positive action forthwith on the application of the Federation of Sikh Societies of Canada?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that we will advance that cause. The matter is under review by the officials of my Department right now and I can assure the Hon. Member that we will give it proper consideration as soon as we can.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon, a short question.


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF CHAIR IN SIKH STUDIES
Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister assure the Sikhs across the country who have been raising money for the establishment of a Chair in Sikh Studies that his Department will give positive consideration to the application to the Department to establish this chair at the University of British Columbia?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that I will do so. It is a particular concern of mine and, of course, to the Sikh community.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I am directing my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I do so in the context where both the Liberals and the Socialists are opposing the establishment of a drug industry in Quebec and the rest of Canada. Could the Minister tell Canadians who, for instance, are suffering from Alzheimer's disease or AIDS where they can get the most appropriate drugs at the present time?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Levis has raised a very good issue. I wish to reassure all Canadians that under the new legislation, they will be able to get any innovative drug. Thanks to our proposals, the health of Canadians will certainly improve.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to advise Hon. Members that I can respond to a question of privilege raised by the-

-member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano). 1 examined his speech and the response of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) very carefully. I also examined the Minister's response to the question raised by the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall). In a case like this, two people may often provide differing but nevertheless truthful reports of the same event. Differences of opinion with respect to fact and details are not infrequent in the House and do not necessarily constitute a breach of privilege.

The Hon. Member in his question was addressing an important matter which was acknowledged to be important by the Minister. However, whatever the differences might be, a dispute as to fact does not constitute a breach of privilege and the Chair cannot adjudicate on that dispute.
Again I want to impress upon the Hon. Member that the Chair understood the seriousness with which the Hon. Member brought the representation forward but it is not, under the circumstances, a question of privilege. I thank the Hon. Member for his representation.
December 4, 1986


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, for two days we have been trying to get the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) to table a letter to which he referred in the Elouse, as reported at page 1700 of Hansard for December 2. The Minister quoted from a letter he said he had received from the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association. On the same day at page 1704 of Hansard my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), requested that the Minister table the letter as provided for in our rules since he had quoted from it. The request was repeated this morning. To date, we have not had compliance with our requests. As we have been talking, Mr. Speaker, the Minister left the House, despite the fact that we advised him the question would be raised again after Question Period.
I would like to call upon Your Honour to enforce the rule which calls for a Minister of the Crown to table a letter from which he has quoted in the House.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter and report back.


Mr. Speaker:: I would hope that the response of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) would be satisfactory, at least for the moment.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: I wish to ask the
Government House Leader if he will give us a statement of the business he intends to call for the coming week. In fact, can he give us a statement of the business he intends to call until the adjournment for Christmas which will take place on December 19th?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Today we will complete the motion under Standing Order 117. Then we will continue debate on Bill C-25, the Canadair privatization Bill. That will be followed by debate on Bill C-23, the Income Tax Act. Friday we will continue on second reading debate of Bill C-22, the Patent Act. Perhaps tomorrow I will be able to enlighten the Hon. House Leader of the Liberal Party more fully on the extent of the business. We have not had an opportunity to have a House Leaders' meeting this week.
The remaining business for next week will depend in some part on the decision that you will be making with respect to whether yesterday was deemed to have been an allotted day.
Time Allocation



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That, further to the notice given on Monday, November 24, 1986, by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 117, in relation to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading and reference to a legislative committee stage of the said Bill; and
That, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on that day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at 1.34 p.m., the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) had the floor.


Gary Michael Gurbin: I should like to continue the debate on the motion brought forward by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) to bring to a close the long discussion that we have had in consideration of the Bill regarding the proposed patent changes. We are bringing this in at a time when we have considered this Bill for a total of 22 hours, 42 minutes, including 13 dilatory motions, a number of petitions, and a number of other devices that have been brought forward by the Opposition to delay the introduction and full consideration of this Bill by committee.
My proposition had been that the Bill itself represents three major things. It represents the health of Canadians, it represents jobs for Canadians, and it represents freedom for Canadians. On all of these counts we need to move forward, not with the 22 hours and more of delay that we have had so far, but in an efficient and expeditious manner, so that we can fully consider this in committee and then bring this law back to the House, in revised form if necessary, for consideration, so that it can be put into effect in Canada.
Before lunch, I was starting to talk about the lack of history that we have had in Canada in the introduction of new drugs for the benefit of the health of Canadians. I had occasion last evening to look through the November issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. I was struck by several things. One of them was an article which the House may find interesting, and from which I would like to draw a few quotes. This article is entitled "Dementia in the House". In this article the author states:
"Dementia in the house", arguably one of the greatest threats to the health and social welfare of this country, is characterized by a constellation of cognitive, behavioural and emotional symptoms-Characteristic emotional liability is associated with indecisiveness and consistent evidence of poor judgment. There is often right-left disorientation, identity confusion and a serious language problem.

December 4, 1986
Time Allocation
People so afflicted are known to suffer from dramatic emotional outbursts in the House, temper tantrums, hypersensitivity and often frank paranoia.


Mr. Cassidy:: Are you describing the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)?


Gary Michael Gurbin: What we have seen is a classic example of this syndrome expressed by the opposition Parties as they are trying to delay the introduction of this Bill into committee, so that all Canadians may have a chance to examine the details of this Bill and see the benefits that may come to Canada from it.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You are as wrong about the indexing of pensions as you are about this.


Gary Michael Gurbin: In addition, I might say that the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), who spoke prior to me, is probably the best example we have in this House. While he is supposed to be the critic for science and technology in the NDP Party, he is at the same time trying to block the introduction of this Bill which would see the dramatic evolution of research and development in new drugs in Canada. So he cannot have it both ways. He is either supportive of this research and development activity, or he is trying to block it. It is very clear that in this case he has been trying to block it.
The other important thing that came from just a very cursory perusal of the November issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal was the number of drugs that are now being brought forward to treat and to manage diseases that are effecting many Canadians, and people around the world.
One that is very important is for herpes. For a long time, members of the House have been aware of people who have had a variety of repetitive conditions, whether it is the herpes simplex lesions that will touch their face, or the genital lesions which may touch them somewhere else, or whether it is some of the other important variants of herpes which we need not go into, for example, the congential herpes that can affect babies. Very interesting is the information that may associate herpes with Alzheimer's disease. This is information which has come out of medical research in London, Ontario. Zovirax is a drug which is developed and produced by Burroughs Wellcome; a new drug for the treatment of a condition for which we presently do not have treatment.
The reason for this Bill, why we are trying to get it forward, and why we think that we cannot debate it indefinitely in the House, is so that Canadians can become involved in that type of research and help develop that type of drug. It is the NDP Party, and the Liberal Party that are trying to block that and do not want Canadians to be directly involved, but only want them to be the purchasers of this technology, not the developers of it. They should be embarrassed.


Michael Morris Cassidy: People shouldn't pay a ransom for new drugs.


Gary Michael Gurbin: They should go back to their constituents and tell them why they think Canadians should not be participating in this research, and why Canadians should not derive benefits from this type of research. Mr. Speaker, I do not think they can justify that.
Another drug mentioned in here, Mr. Speaker, is one that has been developed by Upjohn.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You are pleading special interests, that is what you are doing. You are pleading for the drug companies. You are pleading for the physicians' lobbies. How about pleading for the people for a change?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Yes, you are right. As a physician, I would argue very strongly through you, Mr. Speaker, with the Member who is again expressing the syndrome of dementia in the House with his emotional outbursts and blockage of legislation that would benefit Canadians.
As well as the Upjohn drug, there are many more in here that are important. Some of them are for respiratory diseases in babies. One of them introduced by Upjohn would possibly interest the Member who is sitting in front of the Hon. Member; it treats baldness. All these drugs are drugs that cost tens of millions of dollars to develop. Since insulin was developed in Canada decades ago Canadians have not been able to directly become involved in this research. Let us deal with a few facts instead of the hyperbole and rhetoric that continually comes out of the NDP Party, just like frothing at the mouth.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You are sensitive, aren't you?


Nelson Andrew Riis: What have you, 31 per cent or 32 per cent?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Are you suffering from some congenital condition?


Gary Michael Gurbin: The facts are that in the last 16 weeks we now have almost $700 million in new research and capital projects.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why are you guys afraid to take this to the country?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Those are solid dollars in research investments by companies in Canada because of the introduction of this Bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Jackboot democracy is what this is; tyranny, dictatorship.


Gary Michael Gurbin: We have a guarantee of $1.4 billion that will go into research in this country, and medical research and development of drugs. That will translate into at least 3,000 research and development jobs, jobs that young Canadians presently have to go out of the country in order to access. I have a son attending a science course at the University of British Columbia. If he wished to get into medical research in any meaningful way he would have to go out of the country. The NDP would have our young people, who are well trained
December 4, 1986

in many of our universities, go out of the country to find jobs in this field.
Since 1984, when the Progressive Conservative Party took over Government, we have reduced unemployment across the country by 3 per cent. That is our record of performance.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Tell that to Atlantic Canada and British Columbia. They will laugh at you.


Gary Michael Gurbin: The NDP are talking about the jobs that are necessary in Canada. Mr. Speaker, they cannot deal with facts and that is unfortunate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The fact is you are dictatorial and antidemocratic.


Gary Michael Gurbin: There is much more to say on this topic, and I will be happy to do it at another time. I have only a couple minutes left.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We can shut Parliament down for three weeks if it will make you feel any better.


Gary Michael Gurbin: I was a medical practitioner for about 20 years and always found it discouraging not to have medication to treat a particular illness. I had to write prescriptions and my patients had to buy the drugs.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I'll bet you wrote "no substitutes, please".


Gary Michael Gurbin: The drug companies gave us samples and we gave them to our patients. This Party has supported changes in health care which have resulted in 85 per cent of Canadians getting help to defray the cost of drugs.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I see; you cut back on health care funding to support health care.


Gary Michael Gurbin: That is important.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You cut back scientific research.


Gary Michael Gurbin: The Government wants to ensure that Canadians are protected from bearing the burden of the overwhelming cost of health care. Therefore, we inserted protective clauses. Those are the kinds of things which will be examined when this important Bill goes to committee and we are able to proceed with it, as we must, after approximately 22 hours and 40 minutes of obstructive tactics by Members opposite who are-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Didn't you close Parliament down for three
weeks?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: How can you stand there and say that? For two solid weeks you closed it down.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You're a hypocrite.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You've got a lot of gall to use that argument. Two solid weeks you closed it down.


Mr. Rossi:: Remember the bells.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You're a bunch of hypocrites.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, if I could have some peace and quiet, I would also like to speak to-
Time Allocation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order please. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to give my views on the gag being imposed again by this Government, after only seven hours of debate on Bill C-22. This is a very important piece of legislation which, once it is implemented, is likely to have an impact on all Canadians. Seven hours of debate up to now is not much of an excuse for the Government to suddenly decide to apply steamroller tactics and gag the Opposition. This is a strange attitude to democracy for a Government that already has an overwhelming majority of 210 Members in the House of Commons, and so already has the assurance that when the question is put on Bill C-22, it will win the vote. So why bother to gag the Opposition which is trying to put questions to the Government regarding this Bill, questions that are not being answered? Mr. Speaker, if the Government is so anxious to get this Bill through the House, perhaps I may recall that, as you know, Mr. Speaker, last June the Government introduced a Bill similar to Bill C-22, in fact it was even a bit better than Bill C-22, but the Government neglected to follow up on it. Why did it not decide to consider the Bill back in September? Why did it wait such a long time before bringing this legislation before Parliament and having it debated here in the House?
Today, they are trying to rush us and get this Bill through the House quickly, although the Government knows perfectly well that the Opposition Parties are opposed to the Bill. Up to now, the Government has been stonewalling in response to our questions in the House. It has systematically refused to table impact studies on the cost of drugs. If the Government is so sure drug prices will not increase once Bill C-22 is adopted, why has it refused to table studies on the potential impact on drug costs? What does the Government have to hide? If it is so sure its Bill is a good one and will not cause the price of drugs to rise, I want to see those studies tabled here in the House.
Mr. Speaker, for two weeks we have been getting the same stupid answer during Question Period: Send the bill to committee and you will get answers to all your questions. Unfortunately, that is not how things are done in this House. First, we have to agree on the principle of a bill before it is referred to a committee, and that is the problem. We have difficulty with the underlying principle of Bill C-22 and we do not have all the information we need to believe that this Bill is a good thing. The Government is always accusing the Opposition Parties of being against research. Quite the opposite, the Liberal Party of Canada favours research, not only for pharmaceutical products, but in all scientific areas in Canada. Who cut back research funds, who took away hundreds of millions of dollars from the budget of the National Research Council if not the Government on the other side? And who objected to those cutbacks in research expenditures if not the Opposition?

December 4, 1986
Time Allocation
Thousands of Canadian scientists have objected to the cutbacks in our scientific research budgets. Even the chemist Polanyi, winner of the Nobel Prize, recommended to a science graduate not to look for a job in Canada since the budgets for scientific research were being cut. The Government should not try to suggest that it is the Opposition which is against scientific research in Canada. We are in favour of research. What we have difficulty in accepting is that Bill C-22, which the Government wants to ram down our throats, will promote research. We do not believe that it will, or at least we have no certainty that it will.
If pharmaceutical multinationals need additional funds to promote research, we do not think that the Government should try to get this money on the backs of the sick, the senior citizens and the poor in Canada so that the multinationals can finance so-called research activities about which we have no guarantees. There are no guarantees in this Bill that research activities will increase in Canada. There are no guarantees, even though the Government talks about additional jobs, that those jobs will be there. We have to rely on the word of the Minister, the very same Minister who is refusing to table in the House the material which would allow us to judge whether or not this Bill is useful or not.
Let us look at some historical background, Mr. Speaker. Before 1969, which is when the Liberal Party of Canada amended the Patent Act for drugs, there had been three indepth studies dealing with the pharmaceutical industry. First, a study by a Committee of the House of Commons, second, a study by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, and finally, a Royal Commission which had examined the issue and presented a report. All three studies showed that drug prices were then too high in Canada and that the profits of the multinationals were already too high.
This is why the Act was amended in 1969 and the 17-year protection on new drugs was removed. This was done to provide more competition among drug manufacturers, to lower drug prices and to prevent them from increasing too quickly. It is indeed what happened, and in my humble opinion, this is what Bill C-22 could destroy. That would bring us back to the situation which existed before 1969.
In a few words I should like to defeat the argument whereby patent drug protection would boost research. It is quite clear that before 1969, when multinational drug companies were covered by 17-year patents, 3.5 per cent of total sales were earmarked for research. So what happened after 1969 when this patent protection was removed and generic drug manufacturers were then allowed to begin to copy drugs? Well, 3.9 per cent of total sales went for research. In other words, when the patent protection was dropped there was more research than before. The main argument of the Government in support of Bill C-22 does not hold water, it simply does not have currency.
I am wondering indeed why the Government would so readily swallow the pill offered by the multinationals, right along with the argument of companies which are making a handsome profit as it is and yet want even more.
1 am asking myself this question and seeking the answer. Why would the Government try to shield the major drug manufacturers instead of defending the interests of Canadians who buy drugs, instead of protecting the elderly who are the prime drug users, instead of standing up for the sick who need them?
Would it be that the Government is buckling under pressure from the lobbyists of the multinationals? Would it be that Frank Moores and Mr. Doucet of Government Consultants International Inc. are making representations to the Government? Is it by way of subservience to the United States, perhaps because they have asked the Canadian Government for a concession in connection with the free trade negotiations?
We would like the Government to table the impact studies on the cost of pharmaceuticals that we have requested. By refusing to do so, the Government must be trying to hide something, because those studies show the cost of drugs will increase. Once those studies are made public, the Government will have to stop repeating that the cost of drugs will not increase. This is something we do not believe.
This is why we are opposing the legislation, and this is why we also oppose this dictatorial move to limit the length of debate in this House. We on this side strongly oppose that.


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I already rose once in this House to discuss this legislation, and I had no intention of doing so today, because I was in my office looking after the affairs of my constituency.
But while doing so I listened to the speeches for a few hours, and I was shocked and frustrated to see and hear what was being suggested today, not only to the House but to all those who are watching this debate on television.
The Opposition parties, both Liberal and NDP, have systematically been using delaying tactics, because as we know the debate on the Bill started on November 6 in this House, and even before that they wilfully delayed first reading, which is something absolutely unheard of.
This has been going on for a month. But it is my view that this Government is here to govern, to legislate, and that is exactly what we have decided to do. We are often told by our constituents: You have a majority, do something, what are you waiting for? Well, here we are now doing something, putting an end to wasting the time of the House, this wasting of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars every day, for what purpose? For getting people to panick, for scaring seniors, the sick and the needy.
December 4, 1986

We know that 85 per cent of the Canadian people are covered by pharmacare plans, whether public or private, and that 95 per cent of senior citizens don't have to pay for their drugs, so what are they worried about? Why are they trying to scare the population?
The New Democratic Party launched a campaign even before the Bill was tabled in the House, in the beginning of November. They sent cards to fill out all over Canada, some sort of petition. Why everywhere in Canada but in Quebec? They are afraid of Quebec, but why? Because senior citizens in Quebec, and especially the Quebec Federation de Vage d'or, know that this Bill will improve the quality of health care. Because the New Democratic Party knew that the National Assembly, on two occasions and unanimously, passed a motion asking the Federal Government to change this Act as it applies to pharmaceutical patents.
I have here remarks made by Hon. Members of the Opposition during a debate which started in 1982, at a time when the Liberal Party had decided to amend the Patent Act as far as drugs where concerned. The Hon. Andre Ouellet said then and I quote:
"Mr. Ouellet says the goal of that law would be a balanced system which encourages the industry to invest, do research and create jobs, but on the other hand provides drugs for consumers at reasonable prices".

The Liberal health critic, the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith), said in 1985:

"Higher prices might be justified if they led to more drug research in Canada. The proposed price increase should have a minor impact on consumers".

We are not worried about that price increase because, for the first time in Canada, we are going to have a price review and control board. But at that time, the Liberals who had not even considered setting up that board, were not worried about a slight price increase because they said it might be worth paying a little more for drugs to allow for research and job creation in Canada.
Here is another statement, Mr. Speaker, by the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), a doctor, who says:

"Our researchers could not work in their own country and Canada could not create the jobs normally related to research work".

If we did not go ahead with that bill or follow-up on the Eastman Report.
Time Allocation
I have got more, even from the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker. Here is what the Hon. Member for Yorkton- Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said, I believe, after the closing or a transfer of the employees of a multinational in his constituency:

"The transfer will mean the lay-off of some 300 employees, many of them full-time researchers at the lab.

[DOT]-he was asking a question-

"I would like to know from the Ministry what action the Government is going to take to make sure we can do this pharmaceutical research in our own country."
[ Translation]
Then all those Hon. Members from both parties, especially since 1982, urged that the Government proceed with that legislation because they had seen the results of the erosion of the protection for large drug companies which may have been necessary in 1969. What happened? Drug companies left the country, the multinationals did not come in, we lost hundreds of thousands of jobs, our health quality suffered and that is the situation we have today.
We should therefore provide that protection for the drug industry as soon as we can, as we read in the editorials... I believe that not one day goes by without someone writing, speaking or telling the Government: Hurry, hurry! Here is what Le Droit said on November 19: "It was high time. The Mulroney Government has taken a courageous step in introducing a bill to give back to drug industries investing in research the ownership right which was taken away from them by the former Liberal administration". The same columnist writes elsewhere: " Our research scientists are calling for help. Canada has lost close to 2,800 highly-skilled jobs. With respect to the drug research sector, we now amount to nothing more than a banana republic, an Eastern country. Our scientists are perfectly justified to call for help, for the situation is appaling".
It is therefore urgent, Mr. Speaker, that we proceed with this legislation. Opposition Members have been criticizing us and asking us to provide documents and more information. That is what we shall be doing in committee. Let us go ahead with it as soon as possible.
That is where this should be done. We have already had quite a long debate on second reading, and another debate today on this motion, so let's go to committee. I believe we will also be having hearings or meetings across the country so that Canadians, including researchers, young scientists and consumers will all have a chance to ask questions.

December 4, 1986
Time Allocation
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I would like to quote something I read earlier in this morning's Gazette, a Quebec newspaper, where it says at the end of the article:
"The proposed changes are sound. Ottawa should stick to its guns".


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary understands what this debate is all about. It is not a debate on a Bill to change the Patent Act. It is a debate on closure introduced by the Government. I want to remind Hon. Members opposite that after only seven Members have spoken in the debate -and they have 212 seats in the House-the Government indicated its intention to introduce closure. This has never happened before in the history of Canada.
If you listen carefully today, Mr. Speaker, you will hear from the Conservative side of the House the stomp of jackboots. Jackboot democracy is what we are seeing imposed on Parliament today. This is not surprising because it was the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) who stormed your chair and closed down Parliament for two weeks. Quite frankly, we are now seeing that same sentiment emerge. The Government has no interest in Parliament. In fact, its absolute contempt for Parliament was demonstrated a few years ago when the Conservatives closed down this place. For the first time in Canadian history they shut down Parliament. They said they would no longer permit it to exist. In my estimation, that showed the true intent of the Conservative Party and indicated its contempt for Parliament, for parliamentary democracy and representative democracy.
The New Democrats offered a very reasoned suggestion that we would be prepared to co-operate at all stages of the Bill if the Government would take this issue across the country. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that this group and that group is in favour of the legislation, but if she was being honest-and I am sure she is-she would also have said that there is a list of other groups which have indicated concern about this legislation, including the Yukon Territorial Government, the Ontario provincial Opposition, the Nova Scotia provincial Opposition, the Progressive Conservative lobbyists centred here in Ottawa, senior citizens' groups across Canada, the Consumers' Association of Canada and many academics who are opposed to this legislation. We could go on and on, page after page of newspaper columnists, editorial writers and various groups and individuals who oppose this legislation. If the Parliamentary Secretary is fair she would say that there are at least two groups of people in Canada, those who think this is good legislation and those who think it is bad.
What we propose is to go across the country and hold half a dozen hearings in the regions of Canada in order to allow various groups to present their views. But, oh, no, that is not going to take place. The Government is going to introduce
closure. It is going to impose the tyranny of the majority on the House. It was that arrogance that the people of Canada feared once they saw this majority Government take office. They feared that once the Conservatives got the bit in their teeth they would say: "We can impose anything we want. We can jam any legislation down the throats of Canadians. We can ignore the opposition Parties and groups and individuals who speak against us because we now have the power to do anything we want". That is what we are seeing today.
I want to say again, particularly to Hon. Members sitting opposite, that after only seven speakers, out of 212 seats in this House, rose in their place to speak on this legislation, from both sides, the Government said: "That's it. We have had enough. We are going to shut the place down. We do not want any further input at second reading stage". This is a Bill which is going to increase the price of prescription drugs to the tune of $650 million a year. That is not our figure. It is the figure which comes from the firm of Currie, Coopers & Lybrand, one of the most prestigious firms in the country. It may be out by a few million dollars or a few tens of millions of dollars, but the point is that hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in additional drug costs will be imposed upon the people of Canada.
Do you think, Mr. Speaker, as a reasonable individual, that to go out and hold hearings in half a dozen cities across Canada would be an unreasonable thing to do? The Government thinks it is. It does not want input. I predict that in one form or another, the Government will impose closure on the committee, at report stage and at third reading in order to keep this debate to an absolute minimum. It will jam the legislation through. It will jam this legislation down the throats of sick and disabled Canadians and senior citizens. This is the kind of legislation that that Party would like to see introduced. We say it is wrong. That is not the approach of a parliamentary democracy. The Opposition has a right to present its opposing views but we are having that right denied us. Jackboot democracy is being imposed on this House of Commons. That is unCanadian and unparliamentary. It is, quite frankly, a demonstration of the Government's ultimate contempt for the parliamentary system. When the people of Canada find out after today what the Government has done and remember that that is the same Party that closed down Parliament, and once they have an opportunity to respond, as they will have in a few months, we will see what they think of this. From a majority Government, it is now down to 30 per cent in the polls. Those Hon. Members opposite should feel embarrassed that they have allowed themselves to be dragged down so quickly, more quickly than any other Government in Canadian history, because of the unthinking jackboot type of approach the Conservative Party has adopted to Government and to this House.
As a result of some of the things I have said, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), that:
The motion be amended by deleting the following words in paragraph 1, "one additional sitting day" and substituting the following:
December 4, 1986

"seven additional sitting days".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will allow debate to proceed and will reserve a decision on this motion.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a tirade from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) about the Government not being able to get on with the job. Nonetheless, we were elected to do the job and to govern this country. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when I go back home, people complain to me about why we are not using our majority to get legislation through this House. They ask why we are letting members of the opposition Parties roll all over us and thwart the will of the House.
Back on November 6, the Opposition was not even courteous enough to allow the introduction of the Bill. Those Hon. Members rant and rave here today about what we are doing to Parliament and about the legislation, but they would not even permit first reading of the Bill. Who is being ridiculous in what is being said?
I think it is time the Canadian people woke up and realized what is really happening here in Ottawa. I am sure they are very confused. It is interesting to note that in the Gazette a headline reads: "Don't back down from the drug law change". Yesterday in the Toronto Sun a headline read: "The feds are right to stop the legalization of drug piracy". These are the things in which the Canadian people are becoming interested.
We have heard the rhetoric of members of the Opposition that we are down on the poor and the sick so on. But they have not stopped to explain the total story. Why should those companies which spend the money on research to develop new drugs and bring them on the market have them cherry-picked by other companies for the payment of a 4 per cent royalty to produce them? Is that fair? Is that the way in which the Patent Act should be used? Why should our country be out of step with the rest of the industrialized world? We are not putting in place the 17-year measure which other countries have in place. Instead, we are putting in a 10-year measure. We are taking a balanced approach.
We are also putting in place in the legislation provisions for how these measures can be watched and looked after. We have appointed a committee which will be the watch-dog of these issues to see that abuses of the system are not made. I believe we have also put in provisions which allow for a parliamentary review after a period of up to 10 years. These are the measures we have placed in the legislation to ensure that there will be an orderly review process. In this way the companies that want to do business in Canada will know the rules under which they must operate. It is for these reasons that I endorse the motion put forward by our House Leader that we get on with the business of the House and permit only two more days of debate to take place on this issue. It will then go to committee and we will get on to the point-
Time Allocation


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is one day of debate.


Ross Belsher: I am sorry. I did not have my hearing aid on when the Minister read his motion.
When the matter goes to committee it will receive a thorough airing and a proper venting. The opposition Parties will be part of that process. I am sure they will be inviting various groups which they think will put forward their thoughts and their ideas on this issue. By the same token other responsible groups will be invited and I hope will apply to make representations to the committee so that we can get on with dealing with the Patent Act as it affects the people of Canada and, more particularly, the drugs required by so many people in their health care.
I endorse the motion. I am glad that the House Leader has brought it forward. It is time that it was brought forward. It does not mean that drug prices will rise tomorrow. Members of the Opposition do not tell that story. There is no evidence to prove that that is possible at all. I am glad that we are getting on with the job-the sooner, the better.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the opening line I made in a speech I made earlier in the short time we had available to us to debate the second reading of this Bill. It is that those who would make a profit from the misfortunes of others are basically immoral. I want to say to my friends in the PCP Party and my friends in the LFCP Party-


Mr. Allmand:: What does that mean?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Liberal Federation of Canada Party is what it means. Then there is the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.
I wish to start by reminding the House that the mover of the motion, the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the Government House Leader and Deputy Prime Minister, said:
Mr. Speaker, I participate in this debate with a degree of sadness and regret having regard to the fact that we have just had thrust upon this House one of the most repugnant and most destructive devices ever perpetrated on the democratic process.
He went on to state:
It is with a great deal of regret that I see it cut off prematurely having regard to its importance and the fact that some Members who wanted to speak will not have that opportunity.
He stated further:
-the government's actions have turned the debate into one of bitterness and division; the atmosphere has become poisoned.
At another point he stated:
At the very outset I must say that I abhor this tactic. I find it offensive. 1 find it repugnant because it strikes at the basic fabric of our parliamentary democracy. Instead of having a parliamentary democracy, we have what resembles a parliamentary dictatorship.
My colleague just mentioned jackboots. The Government House Leader went on to say:

December 4, 1986
Adjournment Motion
It concerns me very much that Government members tend to gloss over this so lightly and that hon. members opposite are questioning the institution of Parliament and the institution of our parliamentary democracy as we know it.
The hon. gentleman who uttered those remarks was the Hon. Member for Vegreville, the present Deputy Prime Minister and Government House Leader. They are remarks he made on July 17, 1981, when the Liberal Government brought in closure on the Constitution debate.
It is a good thing that this type of legislation was not being proposed when Pasteur made his developments or when Drs. Banting and Best developed insulin, or when Jonas Salk developed the vaccine for polio. It is too bad that the Tories in their haste to privatize got rid of an organization that was one of the world's leaders in research and development, manufacturing and processing of drugs, namely, Connaught Laboratories. When one looks at the record of the Tories one sees that all the things they complained about when the Liberals were in power they are duplicating in spades. I do not know what members of that Party are complaining about. In fact, I learned some of the lessons of being in opposition from my Conservative friends, included among them the Hon. Member for Vegreville and other Hon. Members who arrived in this place even after I did. I thought I was fairly expert at opposing Government; but I learned a great deal from the Tories. When something happens to them, all of a sudden there is something wrong with the system. The Government could have allowed the process to proceed. The Government has the prerogative to bring in closure at any time it wishes. The consequences rest on its head, or on the heads of members of the Opposition. In this case the Government might have had a case had the Opposition used up 12, 14 or 20 sitting days on second reading. Then it might well have had a case to bring in closure. It could have said that that is enough of that, every opposition Member has spoken once or twice and we have run out of opposition Members. In that case the Government would have had a good argument to present to the Canadian people about bringing in closure.
The Government brought in closure after those few hours of debate at second reading stage. That was a perfectly good reason for my colleagues and me to do everything we could under the rules to prevent the Government from bringing in a closure motion. The Government gave us notice of the motion to bring in closure to allow two more days of debate. Then it reduced that to one more day of debate. When we knew that that was coming ahead of time, what the heck did the Government expect from the Opposition? Of course, under the rules, we would use every device and measure we could that the Speaker ruled in order to prevent or delay the Government from proceeding with this legislation. That is normal parliamentary procedure.
What is the PC Party of Canada complaining about? This has been done countless times since I was elected in 1968. Conservative Members did this quite legitimately, under the rules of Parliament and according to their own viewpoints and
policies. To think that this motion was proposed by the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), a Member who made speeches on a number of occasions when closure was brought in!
I would like to close with a final quote from the Hon. Member for Vegreville who moved today's closure motion. He said;
If we believe in parliamentary democracy and the right to freedom of speech, then we must ensure that the rights and privileges of Parliament are always secure. I think those rights and privileges are very sacred.
After all. Parliament is the foundation of and very fundamental to our basic freedoms, and to suggest that we might be better off without it frightens me very much. I have been here for 13 years and I have seen an erosion of the rights and privileges of individual members of Parliament. We as individual members of Parliament obtain our rights, privileges and powers, whatever they may be, from this institution, and I would hate to see them eroded further.
By virtue of a closure motion today we have a further contempt for and erosion of the spirit and privileges of this institution. I believe tyranny begins when parliamentary debate ends.
The Hon. Member who moved today's motion said those words on July 17, 1981. I will not get so close to being unparliamentary as to call that hypocritical. I recall that opposition Members of the day, people all across Canada and the media supported and agreed with those statements made by the Hon. Member for Vegreville.
May I say to the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin) regarding his remarks about drugs and drug prescriptions that I hope he will count the tens of thousands of prescriptions written by physicians for which there will be no substitutes. This means that provincial drug plans will have to pay the higher costs for brand name drugs, and that is another reason for debating this Bill for several more days yet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. 1 find the motion put by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) and seconded by the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) to be acceptable.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Health-Request for ban on cigarette advertising, (b) plea by physician's oganization; the Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. Robichaud)-Railways-Future of 551 CN employees at Moncton, (b) Number of jobs retained in Moncton; the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi)- Refugees-Deportation of Iranian student from United States, (b) Request for Canadian action.
December 4, 1986



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That, further to the notice given on Monday, November 24, 1986, by the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council, and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 117, in relation to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto, one additional sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading and reference to a legislative committee stage of the said Bill: and
That, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of govement business on that day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary necessary to dispose of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without futher debate or amendment.
And the amendment of Mr. Riis (p. 1798).
Mr. Jack Shields (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short time in which to respond to my friends, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) and the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). They both indicated that there has been a short time for debate. One can only take that as NDP double-speak when looking at the history of the Bill.
The Bill was introduced on November 6. There was delay after delay and one need only read Hansard beginning on November 6 right through to today to see the delaying tactics put in place by members of the NDP at every opportunity. They did this along with their coalition partners, members of the Liberal Party.
The Opposition did not want to debate this Bill. The problem is that they did not want to see the Bill go forward into committee where it would stand to scrutiny and the test of clause by clause study. They did not want to do that because they knew they would not be able to sustain their case along with the scare tactics they have used right across Canada. They have been trying to scare old and sick people, and I personally feel that that is an immoral approach to this whole situation. They did not have the courage to allow the Bill to go to committee where it would be studied and scrutinized by learned people from all across Canada. That is the problem and has always been the problem with the NDP Party.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this important matter, and I think the Government's attitude has made it abundantly clear the Opposition is quite right in objecting to closure. After a scant seven hours of debate on a Bill that will have an impact on every Canadian in this country-who has not at some time in his life been prescribed drugs?-a Bill that will have a
Time Allocation
dramatic impact on the cost of drugs, the Party opposite would have us believe that, for the sake of creating jobs, we should agree to a proposal as objectionable and shocking as this one happens to be.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the interest of consumers and Canadians generally, this House should have had a lot more time to consider and examine this important piece of legislation that will have an impact, as I said earlier, on all consumers of prescription drugs.
The cost of the jobs that may be created and to which the Party opposite is constantly referring will be astronomical, Mr. Speaker. The multinationals will get phenomenal amounts of money out of the consumer and invest only a marginal portion of that money which, in the final instance, may create a few jobs. I believe that the interests of the consumer and of all Canadians are being blatantly sabotaged by the Government's attitude, and more particularly by the motion this afternoon to put a gag on our right to speak in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being 4.08 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 117 have expired. Accordingly, under the terms of the Standing Order, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the motion.
The question is on the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the amendment lost.


Philip Derek Lewis: I rise on a point of order. In the interests of continuing debate on Bill C-25 and allowing the committees to work, I wonder if there might be a disposition in the House to apply the vote on the amendment in reverse to the main motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall we proceed in that way with the main motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the main motion in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried.
*
* *


CANADAIR LIMITED DIVESTITURE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 2, consideration of the motion of Mrs. McDougall that Bill C-25, an Act to authorize the divestiture of Canadair Limited and to provide for other matters in connection therewith, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Those who would like to listen to a really good debate, please stay. Those who do not, please leave in a hurry.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this Bill and I appreciate your efforts to create an atmosphere in which one can speak. The sale of Canadair to Bombardier is a fire sale. It is a giveaway which raises many questions. I want to deal with several aspects of this issue which concern me. One concern is
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
that the company is now making a profit. Another is the fact that we seem to be paying Bombardier to take Canadair. Finally, I would like to deal with the fact that Canadair and Bombardier have won the contract for the CF-18 under very questionable circumstances. According to the bidding process, that contract should have gone to Bristol Aerospace of Winnipeg.
Canadair is now making a profit. That was not always the case. A few years ago Canadair was a private company owned by General Dynamics. The company was in financial difficulty and was going to close. The federal Government decided to buy Canadair in order to preserve the jobs in Montreal and the aerospace industry in Canada. The people of Canada invested a lot of money in Canadair and Canadair spent a lot of time developing the Challenger jet, an executive plane. The Challenger jet was quite successful, but that did not happen by accident. The Government invested a lot of the people's money to develop it. Much investment was required to carry out the research and development.
At that time the world economy was in great difficulty. Canadair, an export company, was attempting to sell aircraft in a depressed global economy. Canadair was faced with losses and lack of revenue and did not have the wherewithal to develop a new product. Investment of $2.2 billion of taxpayers' money resulted in the creation of the Challenger.
When the present Government was in opposition, its members criticized this investment. They called it a waste. Now that they are in office, they are giving the results of that investment to the private sector. The Government is giving the company away at the exact moment that the company has begun to turn a profit, the exact moment that positive results of the investment are beginning to show.
Why is the Government giving away a profitable company? Why is it giving away the results of $2.2 billion of investment by ordinary Canadians? I suspect the Government is doing this to show that its policy of privatization is successful. The Government wants to create the appearance that it can take a failing public company and make it succcessful in the private sector. However, the reality is that the company became successful because of the investment by the people of Canada in Canadair. We should retain Canadair in public hands in order that the public Treasury can benefit from the profits which are beginning to be made. I conclude that the Government is giving this firm away to bolster its arguments in favour of privatization.
There is another aspect of this deal which raises many questions. Just how sweet is this deal for Bombardier? How sweet is the deal? Let me point out a few facts. Canadians invested $2.2 billion in Canadair in order to develop this company which is now turning a profit. Bombardier is paying $120 million for the company, which is a fraction of the investment. That $120 million purchase figure is less than the $300 million liquidation value and less than the $224 million book value of the company.

December 4, 1986
Canadair Limited Divestiture Act
In return for that $120 million, Bombardier is getting $300 million to $400 million in technology, $50 million in federal grants in January plus another $30 million later. It will be receiving export financing, the amount of which has not yet been specified. Furthermore, Bombardier will get the $1.7 billion defence contract.
Bombardier has no financial obligations related to Canadair's debt or outstanding liabilities. In other words, it is ready to reap the benefits of the profit-making capacity of Canadair without any responsibility for its liabilities. It is also getting $20 million in profits from 1985 and $2.8 million in profits for the first quarter of 1986. It is not a bad deal when one considers that purchase price of $120 million and the equivalent of $120 million in royalty payments. Bombardier is receiving many benefits for taking Canadair off the Government's hands and serving as an example that privatization works. This sale amounts to a giveaway.
I want to deal with the aspect of the Canadair and Bombardier deal that is of most interest to the people of Winnipeg. It concerns the awarding of the CF-18 contract, which raised a lot of questions in Winnipeg. People wonder why the contract went to Canadair in Montreal when Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg won the bidding process. The 75 departmental experts rated the Winnipeg bid higher and, in all fairness, the contract should have gone to Winnipeg.
Why did it go to Montreal? The explanation given by the Government in the House on the day of the announcement was that of technology transfer. Was the decision based on reasons such as regional development and national interest, or was it part of the original deal to sweeten the pot for Bombardier to obtain Canadair?
The Government said that the contract went to Canadair in Montreal because Canadair had the capacity for technology transfer. Unfortunately, that reason was given as a last minute explanation rather than being an original consideration when the contract bidding process began. That raised doubts about the credibility of the explanation as to why the contract went to Montreal.
The bids, as presented to us by the Government, were very close. However, the Government used this as a reason for giving the contract to whomever it wanted. I suggest that in any race, whether it is a bidding race or a foot race, when there are excellent competitors the gap between the winner and the loser is often very narrow. Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg should have rightly been awarded the contract because they won the bidding process. However, it was taken away with the last minute rationalization of technology transfer.
Let us consider other explanations for awarding the contract to Canadair. Was it on the basis of regional development? Let us examine the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) comments to Premier Pawley of Manitoba about regional development, in which he compared Manitoba and Winnipeg to prosperous
Ontario. He said that the economy in Manitoba was throwing off benefits like the economy in prosperous Ontario. If that is his conception of what it is like to live in a have-not province like Manitoba, perhaps we can understand his lack of appreciation that Manitoba also needs consideration in terms of regional development.
Was the decision to award the contract to Canadair in Montreal based on national unity? I suggest that national unity has two sides. People in western Canada are distrustful of the federal Government and unfortunately are losing faith in the political process. This decision has contributed to that cynicism that exists in western Canada. If this was not an original consideration in selling Canadair to Bombardier, the Government should have examined this in more detail and perhaps considered sharing the work between Montreal and Winnipeg by repairing some aircraft in Montreal and some in Winnipeg. Some aircraft are already being repaired in Europe, so it is possible to divide the work among Canadians rather than create a situation in which there are winners and losers, with resentment by people who feel left out of the political process.
We must remember that the Government was elected by western Canadians who felt that they would be part of the political process.
In conclusion, this sale of Canadair to Bombardier raises many questions. Was the CF-18 contract part of the original deal, although obviously not made public? How sweet is the deal that was given to Bombardier to take over Canadair? Why is the Government giving away a company when it is making a profit? It is a questionable fire sale deal and it is time for the Government to lay all the documents on the table and let us see the original documents that made it possible for the Government to give away Canadair in a deal with Bombardier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. Waddell:: I have a question Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are questions and comments. The Hon. Member has one minute. If the Hon. Member does not conclude his remarks, there will be nine minutes left for questions and comments the next time the Bill is called. The Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has 30 seconds in which to ask a question.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member can answer with a yes or no. Did he read into the record the part of the job statement in which Bombardier says that it is committed to maintaining existing levels of employment at Canadair, subject to cyclical shifts and sound business practices, and will pursue new programs and opportunities so that the level of employment at Canadair and its suppliers will increase. Does he agree that there are more escape holes in that clause than meet the eye and that it is not really a good job guarantee for the workers?
December 4, 1986


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, not only did the so-called job guarantees have an economic loophole, they have legal loopholes. The guarantees have no legal impact.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it five o'clock I would like to say that I have received a written notice from the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) that due to prior commitments he is unable to be present in the House on Friday, December 5, 1986, to move his motion during the hour for Private Members' Business.
Accordingly, 1 am directing the Table Officers to drop the item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Since notice will thereby be removed, the hour for Private Members' Business will be suspended and, pursuant to Standing Order 39(2), the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very short point of order. I think the House should take exception to people having a position on the Order Paper and not being able to take the time which is allocated for debating their measures, be it a Bill or a motion. I do think Private Members' Hour has been regularly eaten away by government time, which robs us back-benchers of our right to express our views on motions. If an Hon. Member cannot be here, I am sure there are other Members on the book. I know I have a couple of Bills and I would love to have that hour. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider my request that, in the eventuality that someone cannot make it, for God's sake, you should come and see us. We are willing and able to be here to debate our Bills.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is saying because I consider Private Members' Business to be very important. However, I think there was a ruling made by the Speaker in this regard, that we would not lose the place for the Hon. Member. Sometimes when there is an opportunity to either wait for an Opposition Day, or whatever is going to happen the following day, there is not enough time to get hold of some Hon. Members. However, I will take the Hon. Member's submission as notice and the Chair will review it and come back with another statement for the Hon. Member.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, while the Chair is considering the constant attempts to correct this problem we are having with Private Members' Business, I wonder if it would consider the possibility of Hon. Members within their own Parties switching times. I am sure the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) and I could have switched dates if we had been aware that this was something that was permitted by the rules as they exist.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The provisions of the new Standing Orders were brought in by the great McGrath Report. The House is its own master. If Hon. Members want
Railway Act
to bring in something like that, they will have to discuss it with the Speaker and with their own House Leaders. Perhaps in 1988 or 1989, after the next election, Hon. Members might be able to bring new Standing Orders into the House.
I agree perfectly with the Hon. Member that Private Members' Business is very important and should not be lost. Nevertheless, this is what we have to live with today.
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-MOTIONS   RAILWAY ACT PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE INCREASED COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF FIRES
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisabiilty of introducing legislation to amend the Railway Act to provide for increased compensation to victims of fires set by railway operations in order to reflect current replacement costs on items lost through property damage.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in the almost seven years I have been a Member of Parliament, this is the first time I have had the opportunity, by good luck, to have my motion drawn for Private Members' Business. This particular motion also happens to have been chosen by the special committee which looks into such matters to be a votable motion. Therefore, because it is a votable motion, I think my fellow colleagues in the House would wish to follow the debate with some attention. What we are trying to do with this motion is to correct an anomaly in the Railway Act which has existed for some years. It is, therefore, an important item for the Government to consider when it next opens up the Railway Act for amendment.
What drew my attention to this particular problem of fires being set by railway operations is an incident which happened to three of my constituents. A fire escaped from railway property and moved on to three different farms burning crops and some outbuildings. The estimate of damage ranged somewhere between $17,000 and $20,000. The three farmers went to the railway and to a lawyer. Upon checking the Railway Act, the lawyer advised them that the railway was liable for $5,000 worth of damage under Section 238 of the Railway Act. The farmers submitted their claims to the railway and had their claims adjudicated. They had to prorate the $5,000 according to damage done to each of them. That amount was very much short of the damage actually done. These constituents and their lawyer got in touch with me about this situation. I suggested that the only option was to have the Railway Act amended and brought up to date. Therefore, I began to look into the matter.
1806

December 4, 1986
Railway Act
I found that this particular section came into effect back in 1902. It has been in existence ever since. It provides a maximum amount of money for which the railways are liable due to fire initiated by railway activity. In 1902, the source of most fires, I think most of us would agree, would have been from the steam locomotive which belched sparks through its smokestack and set off fires in the dry tinder along the track which would spread to the surrounding farms and grassland and, indeed, into the forests. I am sure some of my colleagues have some examples where extensive forest fires are oftentimes set off by these kinds of railway operations.
I am sure we are aware that under Section 239 of the Railway Act the railway companies are required at all times to maintain and keep their right of way free from dead or dried grass, weeds or other unnecessary combustible matter. In the course of doing that, the section crews will often use fire to keep that dry matter under control. However, using fire as they do, it will occasionally flare up again in a few days and set off a fire.
I should point out that the railways can be sued in addition to the $5,000 if the complainants can prove negligence. They can take the railways to court and attempt to prove negligence on the part of the railways. However, that is a very costly process which goes on and on and can take many, many years. The damage would have to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars before any complainant would resort to the legal system in an attempt to recover such losses. The railways have some of the best legal talent available and it is extremely difficult to find a lawyer or law firm competent to challenge that legal talent or willing perhaps in the future to give up some business with the railways.
This is a question which can be best addressed by updating the $5,000 limit. I am not certain what amount to recommend to the Government when this motion is presented. However, for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, I will give a couple of amounts which I have been considering. First, using the $5,000, which at that time was considered a fair recompense, and taking the cost of living and other indexes, that amount would now be some seven or eight times greater. If one uses precise price indices based on 1903, the year that this measure came into effect, the $5,000 would be worth about $68,331. However, if we go back and use some other indices, we arrive at different figures. Because the people who will be making the decision on this initially at least are Members of Parliament, I thought it might be of some interest to Members if we placed the $5,000 in the context of the fee that Members of Parliament took in 1903.
In 1903, Members of Parliament received a sessional indemnity of $1,500, and the sessions tended occasionally to go beyond a year, plus an allowance of $6 per day for sessions that went beyond 30 days. If we use that as the base price, we find that $5,000 works out to something in the order of $180,000 or $185,000. I point out these two sets of figures to
show what bringing a $5,000 indemnity on the basis of 1903 into the present day would mean. What we would be talking about is an increase from the $5,000 mark to somewhere between $70,000 and $180,000.
It is as simple as that. The motion, as Hon. Members who know procedure around here will realize, is posted as a motion because it deals with money which effectively must be handled by Government. What I am calling on the House to do with this motion is to support it and to instruct the Government to consider changes to the Railway Act in order to bring it up to date. In this way, when people suffer the damage of a fire caused by railway operations they or their community will not be limited to receiving only the pittance of $5,000 as opposed to the real damages that have been done to them.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). The question he raises is whether or not this matter should be more properly dealt with by the courts or under the Railway Act. I will confine my comments to whether or not it should be left in the Railway Act, as is being suggested by the Hon. Member, or whether or not it should more appropriately be left in the hands of the courts.
In recent years the Canadian railways have developed a safety record second to none. CP Rail has been the safest railway in North America for each of the last four years, while CN has been in the top six in the same period of time. We have a railway system of which we can be proud. It was the railways that built this nation, and they continue to perform a vital role in the Canadian economy.
Our railways are safe indeed, and we have an excellent base from which to work. However, one can never be satisfied that one is doing enough where safety is concerned. There are always avenues that should be explored when searching for improvements. There are a number of areas in which legislative changes can help to improve the safety of the system. In fact, the Government's record speaks to that. I think it was in June of last year that we adopted the aeronautics legislation which improved safety measures which ultimately influenced the safety records of our airline industry and its workers.
At present, railway safety is regulated through the provisions of the Railway Act. This legislation has evolved from the early days of the Canadian railway system and encompasses a wide range of issues including economic regulation and corporate powers. In certain aspects the safety provisions are outdated and combined with many other non-safety items.
As evidence of the antiquated aspects of the Railway Act, there are such anachronisms as specific provisions regarding the weight and composition of steam locomotive bells and requirements regarding the oiling of locomotives which became redundant about a century ago. Other non-essential items include sections of the Act which specify that telegraph poles should be set vertically wherever possible and should be painted in urban areas.
December 4, 1986

Section 338.1 of the Railway Act establishes the liability of railway companies for fires started by railway locomotives. Where the railway company has used "modern and efficient appliances" and has not otherwise been guilty of any negligence, the compensation for property damage by fires started by locomotives is limited to $5,000.
This section of the Railway Act was first written before 1910 and was subsequently revised in 1919. At the time it was considered appropriate to establish liability for fires in the Act because the early steam engines were prone to setting fires even when operated with all due regard to safety and in accordance with proper operating procedures and because insurance was not widely held by property owners. While fires still originate on railway property, these are more likely to be caused by sparks generated by train brakes or by wayside maintenance activities than by locomotives, although diesel locomotives have been known to emit sparks which start fires. However, Section 338 has been used in a more general sense in relation to fires started by trains, without determining whether they originated from the locomotive. Insofar as regulatory control over railway company activities is concerned, Section 221 of the Railway Act gives the Canadian Transport Commission the power to make orders and regulations governing prevention and control by railway companies of fires along railway rights of way.
Section 338 of the Railway Act does not prevent or prejudice any action or claim against a railway company for failure to use "modern and efficient appliances" or for other negligence relating to fires. Therefore, with the exception of this section, there is no legislated limitation on railway company liability.
It is difficult to see any reason why claims for damage caused by fires originating on railway property should not be handled through the courts as civil cases. A person whose property is damaged by a fire started by a railway company should have normal access to compensation through the courts. There does not appear to be any useful purpose served by any exception to this right, as preserved in Section 338.
While the Hon. Member proposes that the maximum level of compensation to victims of fires started by any railway operation, as set out in the Railway Act, be increased to reflect current replacement costs for damaged property, the exception introduced by the Act, regardless of limits on liability, is an anachronism. The Hon. Member's proposal is pertinent in that this section of the Railway Act appears to have outlived its usefulness. However, any change should take into consideration the possibility of deleting it in its entirety rather than modifying it as proposed. In any event, it would be preferable to deal with the modernization of the Railway Act in a coordinated manner rather than in a piecemeal fashion as entailed by the Hon. Member's motion.
The change proposed by the Hon. Member should be considered in conjunction with a general review of railway
Railway Act
legislation, something which is presently under way at Transport Canada. In due course, such a review could be laid before the House and Hon. Members could then have ample opportunities to examine this amendment and any others that may be considered appropriate in the context of a comprehensive legislative proposal.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to speak on this particular motion. I think it is a very timely motion and I would like to thank the Hon. Member for moving it. This type of debate is useful, particularly since changes to the legislation have taken so long that everything in the Act is now out of proportion.
The resolution is quite confined. It talks about amending the Railway Act to provide for increased compensation to victims of fires set by railway operations in order to reflect current replacement costs. Actually, the motion deals with fires started in some way or other by trains and does not involve anything else.
If I were to have one criticism of the motion, I think it would be that it is too limited. It should be expanded. I would like to give one or two examples of why I think it should be expanded. In spite of that criticism, I am sure this debate will be very valuable to the Government and the Minister responsible when preparing the new legislation. In that light, I think we should give the House examples and illustrations of things pertaining to this motion so that we will not leave any one particular item out when the new legislation comes in.
The first fire I recall that was started by a train occurred when I was about nine or 10 years old. It was a very, very dry summer that year. The wheels of a train apparently hit something on the track and set a spark. That spark got into the grass and spread like prairie fire. You know how fast a prairie fire spreads when the tinder is dry, Mr. Speaker.
This particular fire destroyed the home of a man, though it was not very much of a home. Everyone called it his shack and it was located in a mining area. However, it was his home. I do not think he ever received anything for it. There was simply no way that he could go to court. There was no one to represent him and he did not receive anything. He lost his home. While his neighbours assisted him to find a place to live, I believe the man was very badly treated.
Sometimes the reasons for fires starting are questioned. I remember an accident in southern Alberta, an area now represented by the Hon. Member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Porter). Again, it was a very dry summer. At that time, I was connected with the Alberta Highways Department. The grass was so dry that it was almost impossible to realize how fast a fire like that could spread.
I recall one time when several new boys came into my Boy Scout troop. We were going camping and one of the things the boys had to do was to start a fire without a match. I was showing them two or three ways to do this. I took two sticks and rubbed them together. The boys told me that I would never start a fire that way. I said: "Well, let's see". I had a

December 4, 1986
Railway Act
piece of tinder which was really an old piece of underwear and I put that down. I started to rub the two sticks together and soon there was a spark. Soon after that there was a fire. Those young lads were amazed at how I could start a fire so quickly. If the tinder is in the right condition, one can start a fire very, very rapidly. Once the fire is going, it is hard to control. It goes like, well, prairie fire.
The fire in the Medicine Hat area destroyed a tremendous amount of grassland and several buildings. The farmers affected got practically nothing. They could not go to court because the fire was not set deliberately. No one knows who put the little rock on the track that started the spark that started the fire so it was useless to try to prove liability in a court. Consequently, they did some manoeuvring with the railway company. Whether they ever got a cent out of it, I do not know, but I doubt it very much. Railways are noted for being pretty tight when it comes to paying out anything like that. They are always afraid that their liability will mount and mount.
In this case, things could have been far worse. It was only due to the help of some of the farmers that that fire was stopped. If it had not been stopped, it might have wiped out the entire southeast section of the province.
When dealing with fires started by trains, we must look after the victims. Victims should not always have to get the blunt end of the stick. They should not have to go to court to prove liability because, as the Hon. Member who moved the motion said, it is almost impossible to prove negligence. Who is negligent if a rock hits a train and starts a fire? That is not negligence. How can that be stopped? Yet the victims, the people who lose their grassland and their homes, receive nothing. I do not think that that is right.
I would like to see new legislation drafted so that there is provision made for the cost of replacement of the loss to the greatest possible degree as set by an independent appraiser. If those two or three farmers from southern Alberta had had the opportunity of hiring an appraiser to set the amount of damage, they could have negotiated with the railway and there could have been an appeal to the court. We always want a final appeal to the court. If that had happened, I am sure there would have been a lot more happiness come out of that catastrophe than actually came out of it.
One time when I was connected with the Highways Department in Alberta, a train hit an asphalt truck. The asphalt spread and of course sparks flew and there was quite a fire. The fire destroyed a good part of Highway No. 2 by burning off all the asphalt. It also did some damage to the adjoining grass, but not too much damage because there was not much grass there. The ditches saved that. However, one man was injured very badly. Again, he was the victim of the accident.
In our modern age, it seems to me that we look after criminals and the like but we forget about the victims. Almost always the victims get the blunt end of the stick. I think our legislation should be so designed that it would give some
resources to victims of accidents which occur inadvertently. This has been remedied to some degree through legislation. If a victim is hurt by someone trying to rob his home, he can receive compensation. We have made provision for that. I wonder whether we should make provision for the victims of fires, whether they be started by trains or trucks or by some other means. Victims of fires should not have to go without. Some group should be established and a fund should be made available to them.
I understand a piece of legislation is being prepared. It should address the entire matter of victims. Victims of crime are already looked after, but the legislation should take into consideration victims of fires which start inadvertently. If it can be proven that the fire was started deliberately, the victim can go to court. If the person who started the fire has anything, I suppose one should be able to get some redress. However, people who start fires deliberately very often have nothing, and the victims are helpless.
I do not know whether negligence can be proven in the case of a railway fire. A railway president in his right mind or any of his people would not start a fire with a torch. However, fires start and victims are left with no redress.
The legislation should be as broad as possible. We cannot cover everything. For instance, we cannot put a dollar figure on human life. I remember an accident which occurred in the constituency of the Hon. Member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) where there was no protection at all. There was a fire because the car ran into a moving train. There was an almost instantaneous explosion and three young lives were lost. However, as I said, we cannot cover everything. Surely to goodness a victim who has played no part at all in causing the fire should not be left helpless and without compensation. I think it is very important to bring that out in this debate.
I believe the objective of the federal program is to ensure that a uniform set of standards is set in place across the country. They should not only be applicable to railways. They should be applicable to all modes of transportation. I think the debate is well worth-while. I hope it helps the draftsmen of the new legislation.


Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, over the years the Canadian railway system has established and maintained a high level of safety. During the past four years, Canadian Pacific has achieved the best safety record of all class one railways in North America. This includes all major railway companies of the United States and Canada. Canadian National has consistently ranked in the top six during the same period of time. It should not be forgotten that railways are responsible for only 3 per cent of the total transportation-related deaths in Canada.
While the record has been and continues to be good, there is room for improvement. With this in mind, early in 1986 the
December 4, 1986

former Minister of Transport identified specific steps to improve the safety of railway operations.
These steps included a safety blitz of operating personnel to ensure that safety practices were understood, stepped up supervision and monitoring of operations, increased Canadian Transport Commission inspection and verification, medical check-ups for operating personnel, performance audits of supervisors, a maintenance review, and accelerated government and railway initiatives to develop the advanced train control system.
The Minister also initiated inquiries into accidents and accelerated work on a new railway safety Act to modernize and improve regulation of railway safety. At the Minister's direction, the Canadian Transport Commission carried out an examination of Canadian railway derailments and collisions in recent years. The review indicated that the number of accidents had declined during the last five years in relation to the traffic handled.
Derailments have been declining in spite of an increase in the volume of traffic moved. Approximately a third of all derailments occur in yard operations, and these are generally of a minor nature. More than 80 per cent of the collisions reported to the CTC also take place in yards. The majority of these collisions are minor side-swipes which occur during switching operations and result in superficial damage to freight cars. Fortunately head-on train collisions are rare.
Perhaps I should say at this time that no matter what safety precautions are taken, there are always the elements of human error and mechanical failure. I doubt very much that we will ever eliminate accidents.
On the basis of the CTC report and the latest information available for 1986, there do not appear to be any identifiable trends signifying deterioration in railway safety performance in Canada.
A special task force was formed to examine the flow of dangerous commodities through the rail network in the Toronto area and to report to the Minister on options to improve safety. One must agree that the Minister is certainly monitoring and taking precautions to eliminate the possibility of accidents wherever possible.
An early result of this initiative was an offer by CP Rail to reduce the speed of operation of trains carrying dangerous goods across the Metropolitan Toronto area. This voluntary offer was accepted by the Minister and now is in effect.
Canada's railway industry, through the Railway Association of Canada, has been instrumental in sponsoring a program to develop a major technological advance in train control systems. Working in co-operation with the Association of American Railroads, the railways have initiated a program known as the advanced control system, which would use advanced computer and satellite communications technology to achieve substantial improvements in productivity and safety. At the direction of the Minister, Transport Canada is working with industry on
Railway Act
means to accelerate prototype development. The advanced train control system will help to make Canadian railways even safer and thus help them to build upon their already enviable safety record.
As I said at the outset, we as Canadians should be proud of the fact that one of our major Canadian railways has achieved the best safety record of all class one railways in North America and that our other major Canadian railway ranked sixth among them.
Mir. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to say a few words about the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to summarize the events that led up to what is now happening in the transportation sector, and by this I mean the railways or any other form of transportation.

As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, it is important that the present Government, with our new Transport Act, with our Railway Act and with all of the implications, take into account what has been done and what has to be done. 1 beg your indulgence, Sir, to make several points.

Railway safety has become a major concern not only as a result of increased highway trafic but especially since the advent of the petrochemical industry and synthetic products. The companies have been marketing a slew of new products which are often very dangerous and harmful and which are transported mostly by railways.
Sixty-two per cent of all railway accidents occur at level crossings. As I said earlier, our Government has taken steps to improve safety at level crossings and on rails as well. Mr. Speaker, this is a long-term project which calls for the active participation of other governments, the railway industry, and the chemical industry.
From 1978 to 1985 the number of accidents at the 27,200-odd level crossings declined from 871 to 602. This is not good enough, and I am sure you will agree that the number of accidents is still too high. Here are a few of the initiatives which have been taken, and other immediate projects related to railway crossings. Here are some of the recommendations we are making and which will be implemented in the near future,
1.	Light-reflecting grade crossing St. Andrew's crosses;
2.	Larger flashing light lenses whose red shade is more easily spotted:
Mr. Speaker, when I say "a red shade more easily spotted" I refer exclusively to railways.

December 4, 1986
Railway Act
3.	More rapidly flashing lights;
4.	New light-reflecting gates;
5.	New constant-time signals which provide enough time before the arrival of the train and which give more confidence to the public;
6.	Federal underpass and overpass construction projects;
7.	Again, a federal contribution to the train-watch program.
Here are more details about this program, Mr. Speaker.
Efforts have always been made to improve grade crossings and install the necessary automatic protective devices, yet they have not been sufficient to reduce significantly the number of deaths and injuries.
The purpose of this Canadian program is to get all federal, provincial and municipal authorities to work together on a nation-wide basis to reduce property damage and injuries resulting from grade crossing accidents.
And to do that, Mr. Speaker, the program called Train Alert Operation covers four points: education for the public of all ages on the dangers at level crossings; statutes and regulations to define the rights and responsabilities of car drivers and pedestrians at level crossings; engineering, including the planning, building and maintenance of level crossings; and finally, program evaluation based on results.
Mr. Speaker, we therefore need to inform and educate the public, in the light of statistics that are still too depressing, as shown by media reports of accidents which, for the most part, could have been avoided, at level crossings across the country. This therefore is the reason for the Train Alert Operation.
In order also to improve on safety conditions at points other than level crossings, almost all the recommendations following investigations have already been, or are being implemented. Among those recommendations, we note the following:
1.	(a) Ball bearings rather than oil pads on freight car axles;
(b)	Tank cars equipped with front shields, thermal protection and protectors for base couplers.
Mr. Speaker, in using those words I realize this is a complicated, a very technical matter for Canadians, but in the final analysis it boils down to greater safety for us.
2.	Installing rail car hot box detectors, upon entering and within densely populated areas.
3.	The hiring by Transport Canada of qualified personnel who could be quickly dispatched to the scene of an accident in order to supervise clean-up operations.
4.	(a) A manual for locomotive and caboose employees, showing among others things the curve features and stations for each division;
(b) Paid courses for employees working on rail cars used for the transportation of dangerous goods;
(c)	Instructions for mechanical inspections and file maintenance;
(d)	Filing with the CCT, for approval, the list of railway train mechanical inspection sites;
(e)	Filing with Transport Canada and all private or public agencies of emergency plans and round-the-clock telephone numbers for information on dangerous goods;
(f)	Listing of trains, indicating the position of cars containing dangerous goods and the nature of their contents;
(g)	Installing tachometers, windshield wipers, and defrosters on engines and cabooses.
5.	Also, Mr. Speaker, as always, installing rearview mirrors and communication equipment between locomotive and caboose with monitoring by a central station. By the way, Mr. Speaker, in view of the accidents which have occurred over the past two, three, four or five years, I think that the idea of a main station is very important, so that the person who is at the head of the train is always in contact with the one at the other end, but especially with the main station which is always in contact with our railway network.
6.	The installation of black boxes. Black boxes is translated in French by "bavards". I know, Mr. Speaker, this is the same word we use to designate some Hon. Members who are a little too talkative. But this is a different story all together.
These black boxes record everything that goes on in the train.
In 1986, Mr. Speaker, we must live with the new technology. And so on and so forth, Mr. Speaker. You are signaling me that I still have one more minute. But what I want to say, dealing with the motion moved by my friend the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), is that it is important to see the issue in its global context.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we see new motions introduced in the House. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). We cannot isolate one particular problem, we have several cases. May the heavenly Father forbid but at times I think that we have too many lawyers. But that is another subject.
As to the motion, I hope that the Hon. Member will realize that in' the House we are working with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and the Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Bissonnette). We hope that the intent of the proposed Bills will be satisfactory to Hon. Members and to all the people concerned.


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to join today in the debate on the motion moved by my colleague from the New Democratic Party opposite, and I wish to congratulate him for his motion,

December 4, 1986

especially since, as he is aware, I am one of the members of the Committee on Private Members' Business. I want to congratulate him on the quality of his presentation when he came before the committee to explain his Bill and, without revealing what went on in committee, I can tell him that he made a good impression and that we soon came to a consensus in recognizing the validity of his views.
I also believe that it is quite right to say that such an archaic piece of legislation should indeed be reviewed, and I can assure my colleague that it will be within a few months and that our Government will be proposing important reforms. The Hon. Member will have had the merit of contributing to these reforms, and he will be able to say that his intervention today was not in vain and was indeed extremely important.
I would like to tell the Hon. Member that I come from a region, Abitibi-Temiscamingue, where the railroad has played an extremely important role for economic development and where it still plays a major role in our economy. Naturally, the railroad played and continues to play a very important role in passenger transport, but also in the movement of goods from my region, in which the main industries are forestry and mining.
The train therefore plays a very important role in the export of our products. If there was a fire in our region caused by a train carrying wood, and we do export a lot of wood, it would be a terrible tragedy in view of the immensity of our territory and the forest which surrounds us. The very idea that my entire region or villages and parishes in it could be destroyed by a fire caused by a train accident is terrible and I am glad to know that there have been very few such accidents in the past. The figures show that there have been very few such fires, but we still have to take precautions and to tell ourselves that this is always a possibility, and in this regard, today's motion is quite justified. To my knowledge, no one in my region has been the victim of a train-related fire, and I hope that such a thing will never happen. If it did, we would find out that the existing legislation is quite inadequate, but as I said earlier, I am certain that the intervention of the Hon. Member will receive a favourable response in coming months when this legislation is reviewed.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a more detailed reply to the Hon. Member. If we look at the record of our Government as concerns air and sea safety, I think that it shows how much we can accomplish in the case of rail safety.
If I may, I would like to say a few words about air security, where we have made a lot of improvements in the last few years. Some weeks ago, something happened to me which I would like to relate here as it shows that we are very concerned about security in this country. The terrorist attacks of which we are all aware have brought to Canada better security measures and better protection of people in our airports.
Surely that will cause a certain amount of unpleasantness and it happened to me a few weeks ago. I was at the Ottawa Airport ready to board a plane to my riding of Rouyn-
Business of the House
Noranda and I was intercepted at the X-ray screening. I had handed over my suitcase and an officer took it back because the X-rays had picked up something unusual and that was a paper knife which I was unfortunately carrying in my bag. Because I had letters to open, I had put the paper knife in my bag and it was discovered. I can tell you that I was slightly embarrassed at the Ottawa Airport as the security officer was looking at the weapon or tool. I was next to him and people were going by and I was saying to myself: I hope no colleague of mine or people I know are around here, because I will look like a terrorist. I then congratulated the officers for their serious and strict enforcement of the rules.
I wanted to give that example to show that security in Canada is a matter which has always been treated seriously. I could have dealt at length with other steps taken to ensure air and marine security, but I think that if the past is a guarantee for the future I can assure my colleague that his representation today will not have been useless and that the Government will soon table a bill taking into account his present demands.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway), but I expect the Speaker to return shortly to deliver his ruling. When the Speaker comes in, I would hope that the Hon. Member will yield him the floor.


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry and Mines)):: I certainly will yield the floor when the Speaker comes in to deliver his ruling.
Along with my colleagues, I wish to congratulate the Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) for bringing this important point to the attention of the House. It certainly is inequitable and unfair that a piece of legislation that has been on the books since 1903 pays only $5,000 in compensation to people who suffer loss from fires caused by the railroads. According to his figures, it now should be upgraded to about $68,000. This is something that is very important, and it should be looked into.
I realize that we cannot do very much here today, but I will make a commitment to the Hon. Member that I will speak to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and to the chairman of the standing committee, and draw this to their attention. I know that in my riding it would be very important. I did not realize this was on the books. With three railroads running through my constituency, it is a very important thing, and we will look into this.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: This morning the Chair heard a point of order regarding the status of the allotted days for the current Supply

December 4, 1986
Adjournment Debate
period, and the effect of yesterday's proceedings on the Supply motion that was to be debated and voted on yesterday.
The House will remember that at 3 p.m. yesterday the Chair heard comments at length on an alleged question of privilege before taking the matter under advisement. Accordingly, Routine Proceedings were delayed and the House was still considering Routine Proceedings when it adjourned at six p.m. I will go through the details of that in a moment.
I have reviewed the precedent referred to by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Lewis). The events in that precedent were as follows. First, on Wednesday, June 6, 1972 the sixth and seventh allotted days for that period were designated to occur on Thursday, June 8, 1972, and Friday, June 9, 1972. Second, the Notice Paper shows a notice of motion of Supply for Thursday, June 8, 1972. Third, on June 8, 1972, the House began Routine Proceedings and debate ensued on a motion under the then Standing Order 43. Fourth, at 10 o'clock p.m., when the House adjourned it was still considering the motion under Routine Proceedings. The order for Supply was not reached or called on June 8, 1972. Fifth, the Order Paper for June 9, 1972, shows under the continuing order of Supply: "the sixth allotted day" with the same motion on the Notice Paper and an additional motion.
At this point it is important to note that since the order for Supply was not reached on June 8, it reappeared still as the sixth allotted day on Friday, June 9, 1972. It was not a lost allotted day because the order had not been called.
The sequence of events yesterday was as follows: When Question Period ended, there was an alleged question of privilege. Debate on this lasted from three o'clock to 4.30 p.m. This was followed by a statement by the Hon. Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) which, including replies, lasted 10 minutes. The House then moved under Routine Proceedings to petitions. There were petitions presented. During the presentation of petitions, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) moved: "That the House do now proceed to Orders of the Day". That occurred at about 5 p.m.
As Hon. Members know, if this motion had passed the House would have gone to Orders of the Day and the opposition motion would have been called at about 20 minutes to 6, which is the time the vote on the motion of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap was completed. At that point the allotted day would have commenced. However, the motion to proceed to Orders of the Day was defeated and the House continued with Routine Proceedings which were then at the petition stage.
The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) rose, presented a petition, and moved: "That the House do now proceed to Introduction of Bills". That motion is non-debatable. A division was called for. Before the vote could take
place, the ordinary time of daily adjournment was reached and the Deputy Speaker lapsed the motion. I am not ruling on that aspect at this time. It was raised and I will return to the Chamber to discuss that.
However, I repeat that before the vote could take place the ordinary time of daily adjournment was reached and the Deputy Speaker lapsed the motion. The day was then done. In the words of the old hymn: "The day thou gavest Lord, had ended". Consequently, I must rule that the allotted day was never in fact commenced and, therefore, two allotted days remain in the current period.
The Chair wants Hon. Members to understand that it is not for the Chair to comment on how or on whose motions the day ended as it did, only that it did end without the allotted day having commenced.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2) the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.