1987-08-21

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-22, an Act to amend the Patent Act and to provide for certain matters in relation thereto.
Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed feelings that 1 initiate this debate to respond to the Senate's report on Bill C-22. First, this Bill is a carefully crafted package which balances a wide variety of interests. It reflects the need to respect in Canada, as in every other industrialized nation, the concept of intellectual property and that a creator, an inventor, an author, or whoever has created some property of value, is protected by the state from those who would copy that property.
It also reflects the fact that we in Canada must-I emphasize must-ensure that our research and development, science and technology activities are increased over what they have been in this country.
Everyone who has looked at science in Canada has concluded that we must do more. We cannot rely in perpetuity on our raw resources. We cannot continue with the philosophy that we can let the rest of the world develop the new technologies, the new drugs, the new treatments, and new goods and services, and we will pay for them with our raw resources. We cannot continue in that way without facing a drastic drop in our standard of living. We cannot continue our past practices in this country of being hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Bill C-22 also acknowledges that Canada ought to become involved in the manufacturing of fine chemicals, rather than relying on imported drugs and chemicals.
Most significantly, this package acknowledges that the health care of Canadians is vitally dependent on more research in health related areas in Canada. It makes common sense that only through research will we be able to increase the quality of
life of Canadians as our population gets older, and be able to find cures for Alzheimer's disease, arthritis, cancer, AIDS, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis and the many diseases that still inflict mankind. I think we all know intuitively that there is a much greater likelihood of getting the best and latest treatment in our hospitals if those physicians in our hospitals are working in a research-orientated atmosphere. If we are going to say in essence, let the Americans, Swiss, British, French and Germans do the medical research, we will wait until they prove out the new treatments, the new drugs, and then trust that our physicians will learn from their developments and apply those to Canadians, what we are saying is, Canadians will get the treatment later on. The rest of the world, the citizens of these other countries, will have access to these treatments early on.
Again, it is common sense-and everyone working in the area will acknowledge it-that physicians working in a research atmosphere are simply that much more able to understand, to diagnose quickly to realize the importance of new treatments and to apply them. There are all kinds of anecdotal support of that. Again, common sense and the normal experience all of us have had, would acknowledge that.
This package, Bill C-22, provides consumer protection. It provides that Canadians will have drug prices at 80 per cent of what they are in the United States. It provides that drugs will not increase more than the cost of living. It is in the original Bill C-22. It provides a mechanism to ensure that consumers are not gouged.
When one talks about consumers in Canada, one has to acknowledge first the magnificent health protection system we have. We have medicare. We have hospital care. No one in this country goes without medical help if they need it. No one in this country goes without drugs if they need them. Eighty-five per cent of the population is covered by drug plans. In fact, if one looks at the percentage of drugs prescribed under drug plans,one finds it is much higher than that. The 15 per cent who do not have drug plans are in a kind of low-risk group.
In my own personal experience, I had no drug plan until my first child arrived. When I was single and first married, I was young and healthy, and for the odd prescription I needed, it was simply economically sensible for me to pay for that prescription. When our children came along and it was necessary to have some protection in case of a debilitating disease the children might have had, I subscribed. That is the

August 21, 1987
Patent Act
nature of the situation. So when I talk about 85 per cent of the population having drug plans of one sort or another, in fact, way over 90 per cent of all drugs are purchased under drug plans.
Virtually 100 per cent of senior citizens in Canada are covered by drug plans and they are by far and away the largest users of drugs as a group. Therefore, consumers, individually, in Canada are already protected enormously. Bill C-22 ensures that the funders of those drug plans, be they provincial Governments, private plans and so on, will not be faced with increased costs as a result of this Bill.
It is a balanced package arrived at after months of discussions, negotiations, analysis and examination. Frankly, any objective, and I stress the word "objective", observer can reach no other conclusion after looking at all the facts.
Has this Bill been adequately studied? I do not know of a Bill, at least in this Parliament, which has had more study. This Bill had 87.5 hours of House and legislative committee time-87.5 hours. I do not know of any Bill which has had that much time. There were 250 submissions-250 submissions.


Mr. McCurdy:: All against.


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party makes a point. He says all these submissions were against. All right. Let us talk about some of the groups that are in favour of Bill C-22. They are: the Canadian Association of Retired Persons; the Canadian Medical Association; the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; the Science Council of Canada; Dr. John Evans, National Biotechnology Advisory Committee; Dr. Michel Chretien, Clinical Research Institute of Montreal; Patent and Trade Mark Institute of Canada, the Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation; the International Business Council of Canada; the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies; the Canadian Manufacturer's Association; the Canadian Pharmacy Association, the Canadian Society of Industrial Pharmacists; Federation internationale des conseils en propriete industrielle, the Biological Council of Canada; 70 individual pharmaceutical companies; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries; Dr. John McNeil, the President of the Association of Deans of Pharmacy; the Canadian Association of Pharmaceutical Students and Interns; the Society of Professional Pharmacists; the Association of Canadian Community Pharmacists; The Kidney Foundation.
The list goes on. It includes: the Canadian Cardiovascular Society; the Canadian Dermatology Foundation; the Canadian Paediatric Society; the Canadian Diabetes Association; Transplant International; Advanced Coronary Treatment Foundation; the Canadian College of Neuropsychopharmacology; the Terry Fox Foundation; the Biomedical Research Centre of B.C.; First Seniors Resource and Research Society of B.C.; Pacific Pharmaceuticals, University of British Columbia, B.C. Mental Health Association; Biomira, a small
Canadian biotech company in Alberta; Chembiomed Ltd., another biotech company in Alberta; the Alberta Minister of Economic Development; Calgary Research and Development Authority; Health Sciences Centre, University of Calgary; Faculty of Pharmacy, the University of Alberta; Alberta Pharmaceutical Association; Saskatchewan Pharamacare Program; The University of Manitoba. I will skip over a few now.
The Toronto Board of Trade, The Municipality of Mississauga.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Harvie Andre: All right, I will read more of them. Dr. Lawrence Spiro, University of Toronto; Dr. McLeod, The Dean of Medicine, of McMaster University; Professor Don Thompson, York University; Connaught Labs, the discoverer of insulin; the Gerontology Research Council of Ontario; Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto; Medical Centre, Peterborough; Pharmaceutical Marketing Club of Ontario; the Ontario Pharmaceutical Association; the Ontario Council of Administrators of Teachers; the Quebec National Assembly; Robert Bourassa, Premier of Quebec; Daniel Johnson, Minister of Industry; Federation nationale des associations de consom-mateurs du Quebec; Institut de Cardiologie du Quebec; Biomega a new biotech company in Quebec; La Federation de I'Age d'Or with 250,000 members; Jean Dore, may or Montreal; Montreal Board of Trade; and the Montreal Chamber of Commerce.
The supporters of the Bill also include; Bureau de valorisation des applications de la recherche, Rassemblement des citoyens de Montreal; Conseil du Patronat; Institut Armand Frappier; Faculty of Medicine, McGill University; la Faculte de medecine, Universite de Sherbrooke; Universite de Montreal; Association des etudiants en pharmacie de FUniversite de Laval; Association des residants en pharmacie de I'Univer-site de Laval; Association canadienne franqaise pour Favance-ment des sciences; Coalition nationale pour la recherche en sciences de la sante; L'Association des medecins de langue franfaise; la Federation des medecins specialistes du Quebec Provigo; Ordre des chimistes du Quebec; la Federation des medecins omnipraticiens du Quebec; Conference of Montreal Suburban Mayors; Fonds de la recherche en sante du Quebec; ACEF de Laval; Accurex Clinical Data Research, Montreal.
It also includes: the New Brunswick Senior Citizens Federation; Dalhousie University; Cystic Fibrosis Society; Prince Edward Island Medical Society; Newfoundland Pharmacy Council; Faculty of Pharmacy, Memorial University, and many, many more.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: I find it strange to have it repeated in the House ad nauseam by Members of the Opposition that no one supports this Bill. Is there anyone involved in medical research, in the treatment of the sick in this country, who is not in
August 21, 1987

favour of this Bill? Is there anyone involved in the treatment of the sick in Canada who does not understand the importance of research and development? What about the experts? Is there anyone in that category who is not in favour of this Bill? I doubt it. That is not someone I would like to approach with an ailment, I will tell Hon. Members that.
How about the general public? The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) stated in his memo to the Liberal caucus: "Nobody supports this Bill". There was a poll taken of members of the Canadian public and the following question was put:
As you may know, the proposed bill would extend the period of time which brand-name companies are protected from having their drugs copied by generic companies . . . Those who support the Bill offer several arguments as to why it is necessary:
(1)	Companies which spend the money to develop new drugs should be protected from having their works copied just like any other invention.
(2)	If brand-name companies double research efforts in Canada, health care and quality of life will improve because of early access to new, high quality cures.
(3)	Canada is essentially a fair country and should be at least as fair to brand-name manufacturers as other countries are.
(4)	If we have to choose between developing research jobs in the brand-name companies or protecting existing jobs in generic companies, jobs in the brand-name companies would be better.
I could have developed much stronger arguments than those. But those are the arguments for it.
Those who oppose the Bill, the question goes on, offer several arguments as to why it is a bad idea:
(1)	Nothing should be done which might increase the price of drugs, because the sick and the poor will suffer.
We have heard that in the House many, many times from members of the Opposition.
(2)	Nothing should be done to help the brand-name companies which are mostly foreign-owned, especially if it hurts the Canadian-owned generic companies.
We have heard that before. It has been said that these foreign multinationals are the ones who will benefit.
(3)	Brand-name companies seem to be doing just fine in terms of profits, therefore, there is not a need to change things.
We heard that yesterday. Those companies are already getting profits so we should not change things.
(4)	Just because other countries offer greater protection to brand-name companies doesn't mean Canada is being unfair and needs to change its laws.
That is the "if it ain't broke then don't fix it" argument which we have heard from the other side.
What was the response of the public when asked, "Given those arguments how do you feel about it?" The arguments were interdispersed, sometimes leading with the positive and sometimes leading with the negative. Five per cent of the population said that the Bill is a very bad thing; 29 per cent
Patent Act
said it is a bad thing; 54 per cent said it is a good thing; and 8 per cent said it is a very good thing. So 62 per cent said it is a good thing, yet members of the Opposition say that the public of Canada does not support this measure. That is nonsense.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Perhaps more telling is this proposition:
I would support the bill if the government put in place a way of making sure that drug price increases would not be higher than the rate of inflation.
That is in fact in the law. We have done that. Eighty-one per cent said yes to that proposition, which means that 81 per cent of the Canadian population supports what we are doing in this Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: What the amendments suggested by the other place in response to Bill C-22 would do would be to return to an old Liberal policy which has been thoroughly studied and found to be inadequate. I will point out very clearly in ways that can be subject to no other interpretation but to verify that they are inadequate. I will provide the evidence and the references on which the evidence can be checked if in fact there is doubt in people's minds.
First, the Senate proposals make a mockery of intellectual property protection. They fail to recognize the importance of intellectual property protection for developing both a dynamic pharmaceutical industry and new products. I find it incredible that there is not that understanding-I really do. People say, "We cannot provide patent protection because it might hurt the consumers". I will show that we protect the consumers. I ask Hon. Members to think about that argument.
If we were to allow generic book publishing; if we said that any time a book came out another company could publish a copy of it provided it paid the author a 4 per cent royalty, then when Pierre Berton comes out with his new book at $29.95 for the hard-cover copy, a generic producer could put out a paperback version immediately for $2.95. Think of the hundreds of millions of dollars that that would save Canadian consumers of books. Think what that would do to the intellectual quality of the country and to its literacy. Think about those people who, for unfortunate reasons, are unable to participate in athletic activities by virtue of age or infirmity and who rely on reading as their main source of recreation- the poor, the elderly and the infirm. Think of the money we would be saving them if we had generic book publishing. This would be an enormously beneficial thing to the consumer. But think of the destruction and havoc we would be wreaking on our authors.
Indeed, in this case, Pierre Berton is a millionaire already so why does he need any more copyright protection for his book? Is it not fair to consumers who want to read his excellent books about the history of Canada, the CPR, the Yukon and so on that they be able to get a generic copy immediately rather than

August 21, 1987
Patent Act
having to pay $29.95? I ask Hon. Members to think about that for a while, especially those who so casually dismiss the necessity of providing our scientists, researchers and those who discover cures with some kind of protection. Does it not make more sense that we say to our scientists, "Look, if you find a cure for cancer we will let you patent it and that is yours exclusively for 10 years; and if you get rich, alleluia"? Why is it a sin for a scientist to get rich on discovering a drug that cures cancer?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Name one rich scientist.


Harvie Andre: How do we in Canada so casually and easily say that, by cracky, if that scientist is working for a company, well, we cannot allow that company to make profits. That is tragic. My goodness, if it is a company that employs that scientist, we cannot do that. 1 wonder about the values of a country that thinks that a million and a half dollars a year for Tim Raines is fair because he is a super athlete, but, by cracky, if a company discovers a life-saving drug and makes a big profit, then that is a catastrophe, a sin; that is immoral. Surely, if we are walking the moral high ground we say as a society, as we have said, "we will make sure that no one in this country goes without that cure for cancer. We as a society will pay for those cures. We will provide for the hospitalization, physician care and the drugs they need; but we will not penalize those who do the research and discover those life-saving drugs because we recognize that they have created something of value, some property, and they have a right to it. Surely that is the only moral high ground.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: 1 heard the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) say, "Well, since it is mostly foreigners who have the patents in Canada, why should we protect these foreign patents? Only 5 per cent of the patents are Canadian". What that says is that it is all right to steal the intellectual property of foreigners. If in the process we steal the intellectual property of those 5 per cent of Canadians, well, that is the price we are willing to have those inventors pay. That is very magnanimous of us. We are prepared to see Canadian scientists carry the cost of our desire to take the intellectual property of foreigners.
That points out a symptom of what is wrong in this country. Only 5 per cent of our patents are by Canadians. That is a symptom of what the Government, and my colleague, the Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Mr. Oberle) have been repeatedly discussing. In fairness, it is also what the Opposition has been discussing. But when it comes to the specifics that will help, the Opposition says, "Oh, no. Yes, we are in favour of more science and technology, but do we recognize that the fruits of that effort should be patented? Oh, no". It is a source of continuous bewilderment to me how the Opposition manages to balance those two positions, or the
intellectual gymnastics they go through to occupy both those positions at one time.
This Bill states that there will be 10 years of exclusivity. Before the Bill was amended by the Senate, it provided that if the drug is developed in Canada there is a 20 year protection. What was taken out by the other place was a specific advantage for research done in Canada. That was taken out by the Liberals over there while the Liberals here state that there are not enough Canadian patents anyway, so why worry about it.
Time and time again, both here and elsewhere, I have faced the accusation that this is giving in to pressure from the United States. We have had pressure from the United States. We have also had pressure from Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and every single country in the western industrialized world. We are a member of the Group of Seven. We pride ourselves on being a major industrialized country. Yet, in our patent laws respecting pharmaceuticals, we are equivalent to Bolivia and Taiwan. The rest of the industrialized world does not understand that. They say that it is unconscionable for Canada to do that.
It is correct that we have been under pressure, and quite properly. If the Opposition thinks that we can retain our status as a leading industrialized country, retain our moral suasion capabilities vis-a-vis our allies, and still behave like a Third World country in terms of our treatment of intellectual property, I wonder what planet they come from. How can we possibly do that?
Even more important, at least to me, is that anybody who is even peripherally aware of what is happening in the world of science today recognizes that there is an enormous revolution in the area of biotechnology. Exciting things are happening that will have a profound effect on our society. It is vitally important that we participate. There are a number of small Canadian companies in this business. We have excellent universities that turn out excellent people. These people want to do research in this area, and they are ready to do it. But they cannot if we say that the fruits of their research are not patentable, or that the patent can be infringed upon through compulsory licence immediately. That is what we are saying, and we are giving a death knell to Canada's opportunities in this high-tech area. For goodness sakes, do not make this tragic mistake. Do not deal Canada out of this biotechnology revolution. Do not be so short-sighted for political gain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: The Senate proposals contribute to the stagnation of pharmaceutical research development in Canada. Under our proposal we have a commitment from the industry, and it will be honoured because annually in the House of Commons we will have the figures to see if they have been honoured. If they have not been honoured, they will be reviewed and there will be an opportunity for redress during the review by Government in four years, and by Parliament in 10 years. There is a commitment for 10 per cent of sales to go
August 21, 1987

into research and development, which is the international norm for this industry. Based on projections of the growth in the drug market that will represent $1.4 billion in new investments by 1995.

In terms of jobs, increased research will make it possible to create about 3,000 jobs for Canadian graduates in advanced technology disciplines. Universities, hospitals and private research institutions across Canada will benefit from this increase.
Mr. Speaker, various scientific groups that carry out research across Canada have long awaited a Bill that would promote research in this country. Bill C-22 is that long-awaited legislation.
At public hearings held by the Senate Committee as well, these scientific groups all spoke out in favour of Bill C-22, as adopted by the House of Commons.

We have already had over $800 million announced, contingent upon passage of Bill C-22. That research will happen. It is false for the Opposition to claim that is not the case.
1 wish to refer the opposition critics to an article published last fall in the economic business supplement of le Devoir economique. In the article there are predictions by experts, and I will quote the headline:

"The new Patent Act could mean 10,000 jobs for Montreal."

According to the author, Franqois Cote, that predicts 1(3,000 employees in Montreal alone, based on spin-outs and development of related companies. For example, what is not included in the 3,000 jobs we are discussing are the several hundred jobs in manufacturing.
Incidentally, the Senate's amendments have made it impossible for a company called Delmar, in the City of LaSalle, which is apparently where Paul Martin Jr. will start his rise to greatness. I wonder if Paul Martin Jr. is aware that the Senate has put the kibosh on several tens of millions of dollars that were earmarked for the City of LaSalle for the manufacturing of fine chemicals. I wonder if he is aware of what his friends in Ottawa in the other place are doing to the city that at some future date he hopes to represent.
The fact of the matter is that the jobs are real, and they will occur. The Senate, and members of the Opposition, have stated that under the recommendation by the Senators, which they say is based on Eastman, the research fund has an incremental 10 per cent royalty on the generic companies. This is a type of tax because it does not go directly back to the owner, so it is not a royalty by definition. Under that 10 per cent it will create a royalty research fund which will be rebated
Patent Act
to companies that do research. They say that fund will guarantee research jobs. That is why they support it.
First, that does nothing for the new Canadian companies. That money goes back to the multinationals, the people they purport to dislike. More significantly, what will that cost? We estimate, and the study is here and I will send it over, that that fund will generate about $200 million over the 10-year period.
The opposition parties state that they are following Eastman. I wish to refer them to Dr. Eastman's report, page 365, which deals with this recommendation for the research fund. Dr. Eastman says that in 1983 had that fund been in place there would have been an additional $4.6 million into the research fund. In other words, had that 10 per cent royalty been in place, which the Senate is recommending and the Liberals and the NDP are supporting, that would have generated $4.6 million in research.
In the same paragraph Dr. Eastman states that because that would raise the price of generics by 10 per cent this would induce a price increase in the competing brand name company by an equivalent amount that would result in increased costs to the consumer of between $26.6 million and $30.6 million.
In other words, to generate $4.6 million in research through this fund the consumer has to pay $28.6 million more, about six times as much. Under the scheme the Liberals want, for every $1 million which goes into research the consumer would have to pay $6 million. To generate the $200 million for jobs which the Liberals say will be guaranteed, the consumers will have to put up a mere $1.2 million. What kind of proposal is that? They say they are doing this to help the consumers when what they are proposing will cost consumers $1.2 billion to generate $200 million of research funds.
They say they are doing this on Eastman's recommendation. They have not read Eastman's report. It is on page 365 and is very simple and can be understood. They need not even read the whole page, it is in the first paragraph.
Anyone who claims that they are following what the Senate suggests or recommends in order to protect consumers does not know what they are talking about. Rather than protecting consumers they are hurting them.
The proposal of the Senate will not provide any money for medical faculties. Under Bill C-22, $400 million will go to our teaching hospitals, research institutes, universities and faculties of medicine over the next 10 years. There is nothing in the Senate proposal which the Liberal Party and the New Democrats apparently support which will do that. I repeat that it will do nothing for new companies starting up.
Biomira is a small company in Edmonton run by Dr. Gordon Politeski. They have 30 employees and are developing cancer diagnosis and therapy using synthetic carbohydrate cancer antigens. They are trying to raise some money. They are fairly successful. They have 30 Ph.D. or Masters students and hope

August 21, 1987
Patent Act
to grow to 100. They say that without patent protection their growth will be restricted. If they do develop cancer therapies they are faced with the prospect of having them copied by somebody else.
In Dr. Politeski's notes he says that he is aware of one bright scientist at the University of Alberta who was forced to license a product very early on to a Japanese company because of lack of research dollars. He received $80,000 and the Japanese company recently licensed his product to a U.S. firm for $15 million plus royalties. What a tragedy. What a shocking waste of Canada's intellectual capital. The NDP and Liberals want to carry that on.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Harvie Andre: Why do they not go to the University of Alberta and talk to the scientist involved here, or to Dr. Politeski or anyone involved in this area and see if they can, in all conscience, carry on with this immoral campaign of theirs? There would not be the improved health benefits to Canadians under the Senate amendments which our proposal would produce.
I will relate another anecdote. We have heard arguments about whether this will be real research and whether there will be real benefit to health care. Let me tell you the cardizem story. Cardizem was a drug developed by a Japanese company, a so-called beta blocker to treat hypertension, angina and so on. Through clinical research in Montreal at a company called Nordic it was discovered that cardizem was a calcium blocker. To put that in understandable terms, every year in Canada about 20,000 people will have a heart attack of the so-called inner heart. Of those 10,000, will have a second heart attack within 30 days, and of those, 5,000 will die. Cardizem prevents the second heart attack.
There are literally thousands of people alive today because of this discovery in Montreal. Everybody involved in this says, "You ain't seen nothing yet, you ain't seen what we can do if you pass Bill C-22 and give us the resources to carry on the research we are doing in health care". In the heart area in particular, Montreal is one of the world centres. They have superb capability there. Under this Bill they will get tens of millions of dollars enabling them to hire more of the graduates of our university system and pursue this work and save untold numbers of Canadian lives. Faced with that track record how can anybody in this House vote in conscience without first going to Montreal, talking to those people, and seeing what will be put at risk by pursuing the policy of trying to kill this Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: With regard to manufacturing in Canada, the Bill provides that if you manufacture the fine chemical in Canada, as opposed to importing it from abroad, you can introduce a generic copy after seven years. One manufacturer alone predicts that his company could employ several hundred
people within the next few years if we give him that window of opportunity. None of those jobs are in the 3,000 we have talked about; we have not put those in that category, but there are several hundred jobs in one generic manufacturing company alone that have been put in jeopardy by the amendments from the Senate which the opposition Party apparently wants to support. How can they say that job creation must be a first priority in the country when they will not support this amazing job creation program?
There is the question of cost to consumers. I will repeat again, as I have already done so many times, that 7 per cent of drugs attract a generic competitor. On a value basis it is 20 per cent. That leaves 80 per cent on value or 93 per cent on number of drugs that are monopoly. Right now there is no federal oversight in terms of the price of those drugs. Under our scheme the Drug Prices Review Board will be examining those drugs and keeping the price increases of them at less than the cost of living. If that Board had been in place between 1969 and 1983 there would have been a saving to consumers in Canada of between $80 million and $180 million.
The Opposition dismisses that Board. Dr. Eastman, whose analysis they claim to support, albeit not totally because they have not read his report, will head that Board. He thinks it will be effective. We have policy review by Government and Parliament to ensure that it is effective. We will have annual reports so that parliamentarians can oversee it. In spite of all of that the Opposition and the Senate say it will not work.
How about the savings to provincial Governments in medical research itself? One drug, cimetidine, which goes by the brand name of Tagamet, is an ulcer drug which is fairly expensive. However, it saves net on hospitalization costs each year $130 million because people with peptic ulcers do not have to be hospitalized as frequently as a result of the discovery of that drug. So what if the provinces, through their drug plans, have to spend an extra $50 million on that drug each year if they save $130 million on hospitalization costs? It is a net benefit.
I will now go to the question of this process and whether the Senate has a right to veto the decisions of this House. There is no question that the Constitution and the House of Commons Act say that the Senate has a legal right to kill Bills. It has that right indeed, but I remind Members of the House that the Governor General has the legal right to do the same thing. By refusing to give Royal Assent the Governor General can kill any Bill we pass. However, there is a democratic tradition that the Governor General, as an appointed person, without the mandate of being elected, has no such moral right and the Governor General does not exercise such a moral right and would not do so. If she chose to do so, though I cannot imagine for what reason, there would be a tremendous constitutional crisis in Canada and we might no longer have a Governor General.
August 21, 1987

The Senate threatening to veto this Bill is acting in the same unconstitutional way as in the hypothetical case 1 just mentioned. There is no way that one can morally justify a non-elected body vetoing legislation.
Members of the New Democratic Party say the Senate has no right to exist. If the New Democrats and the Liberals say that the Senate has the right to veto this Bill, then they have to concede that it has the right to veto every Bill. They are saying that, as a Government, we in essence must have Allan MacEachen, the Liberal opposition Leader in the Senate, sitting at the cabinet table.
The Government Allan MacEachen supported was defeated in September of 1984. The people of Canada said that he and the Liberal Government of Pierre Trudeau no longer had a right to sit at a cabinet table deciding what is happening. However, the NDP and the Liberals say that he does, he still has the right to veto this Government's program, he has the right to veto the decisions of this democratically elected House.
1 wonder how the NDP would get by this principle. This is the Party of principle; "We mean what we say and we say what we mean," they say.


Mr. Nunziata:: You have lost the moral right to govern. You are at 25 per cent in the polls.


Harvie Andre: Oh, boy, now we are hearing from a genius. This guy says that the only way a Government has any right to legislate its program is if Gallup or Angus Reid says it is ahead in the polls. Otherwise it loses the right to govern. That is a fine democratic principle. Under that principle-


John V. Nunziata: They don't trust your Government, they don't trust the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).


Harvie Andre: Under that principle, your leader no longer has a right to lead your Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we cannot have two federal Governments. We cannot have one still led by former Deputy Prime Minister Allan MacEachen overruling the Government in this House. That is a principle that 1 do not think even members of the NDP could support. In fact, that is what they will be doing if they vote in support of what the Senators have done.
I would like to recommend that this House send the following motion back to the other place. 1 move:
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 10(a) made by the Senate to Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto, but disagrees with all other amendments except amendments 1(c) and 8, because this House believes that amendments 1(a) and (b), 2(a) and (b), 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), 6, 7(a) and (b), 9 and 10(b) and (c) are in contradiction to the principles of the Bill which will increase intellectual
Patent Act
property protection, increase research and development in Canada, create new high-technology jobs, improve the health care of Canadians, and protect consumers from higher drug prices. More specifically:
Amendments 1(a) and (b) delete the definitions of "Board" and "patentee". These definitions are necessary to support the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers.
Amendments 2(a) and (b) reduce Canada's export potential and fine chemical manufacturing.
Amendments 3, 4(a) and (b), reduce the periods of market exclusivity, thus eliminating the incentive for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendment 5(a) reduces the period of market exclusivity and export potential, thus reducing economic benefits for Canada.
Amendment 5(b) deletes the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers, and this amendment also removes the protection for Canadian-invented medicines and thus the incentives for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendments 6, 7(a) and (b), 10(b) and (c) arise out of amendments 1(a) and (b), 2, 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendment 9 arises out of Senate amendment 8, but is not consistent with the House amendment to Senate amendment 8, as set out below.
And, that:
Senate amendment 1(c) be amended to read as follows: "(c) Strike out lines 35 to 42 and add the following:
(2) For the purpose of sections 41.11 to 41.16, the notice of compliance that is first issued for either the original and distinct chemical composition of a medicine or the obvious chemical equivalent of the medicine shall be deemed to be the first notice of compliance issued in respect of that medicine."
Senate amendment 8 be amended to read as follows: "insert the heading "Transitional" and the following as clause 31:
31.(1) The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs shall pay to each province for each of the fiscal years commencing in the period April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1991, for the purpose of research and development relating to medicine, an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
(a)	the quotient obtained by dividing
(i)	$25 million by
(ii)	the total population of all provinces for the fiscal year in respect of which the payment is made, by
(b)	the population of the province for the fiscal year in respect of which the payment is made.
(2)	Payment of any amount under this section shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at such times and in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe.
(3)	For the purposes of this section, the population of a province for a fiscal year shall be the population of that province on the first day of June of that year as determined and published by the Chief Statistician of Canada."
Let me give a brief explanation of Amendment 10(a), the amendment we accepted. We had proposed that the Act shall come into force on a day set by proclamation. The Senate amended that to say that the subsections of the Act shall come into force on a day or days as set by proclamation. It provided the Crown with added flexibility. We do not really need it, but if the Senate feels that we should have that added flexibility, we accept that amendment.
We restored the provision for the $100 million to the provinces. I had become increasingly convinced based on

August 21, 1987
evidence before committee, such as that about the Saskatchewan Pharmacare Program, that the provinces would not face increased costs due to this Bill but in fact would save money. However, a commitment of $100 million had been made. We will honour that commitment, but 1 would hope everyone in the House would agree that that money ought to go to medical research. We are paying the money to the provinces for medical research, it will be theirs to administers to the research communities in the way they see fit and we hope that that is in keeping with Parliament's commitment to research and development.
The other Senate amendment which we amended further had to do with the 10-year period of exclusivity. It was a case of two sets of lawyers disagreeing. The lawyer the Senate had hired felt that our definition was not precise. The lawyers in the Justice Department advised us that it was. We have come up with new wording which will hopefully satisfy the Justice lawyers as well as Mr. French, the lawyer the Senators hired for $800 a day.
That is the gist of the motion. I recommend it to the House. 1 have copies of the amendment. 1 will put them on the Table and make them available for anyone who would like to see them.
I humbly ask all Hon. Members to consider what is at stake, which is, Canada's reputation, jobs, research and development and Canada's health care system. I hope all Hon. Members consider as well the nature of the threat made by some Senators, though I hope the threat was not real, to our democracy. If the Senate can veto what the House of Commons does-


John V. Nunziata: Why did you accept their amendments then?


Harvie Andre: The Hon. Member asks why I accepted their amendments. I just spent an hour explaining that it would be too costly to consumers and too damaging to research and he was not here. He ought to read the speech I made and do a little bit of homework before he shouts across the House.
In the long run, I am sure common sense will prevail and Canadian scientists can breathe a sigh of relief and get on with finding new cures to the ills that affect mankind.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 21


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, August 23, is Black Ribbon Day, the anniversary of the
signing of the Hitler-Stalin Friendship and Non-Agression Pact in 1939. That treaty divided Poland between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, authorized the U.S.S.R. to take over Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, and signalled the beginning of World War II just 10 days later.
On Sunday, the International Black Ribbon Day Committee in Toronto, together with similar committees across Canada, Britain, Australia, Sweden, France and the United States will hold rallies to remember the partition of Europe, honour the millions of people who lost their freedom behind the Iron Curtain, and give thanks for our own freedom.
All those who cherish peace with freedom should join with the International Black Ribbon Day Committee this Sunday as they call on the Soviet Union to live up to its repeated statements in support of peace and detente by renouncing the Nazi-Soviet Friendship Pact, something it has never done, and by honouring its Yalta commitment to allow free democratic elections in eastern Europe.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) concluded his remarks concerning certain Senate amendments to Bill C-22. Over the course of about 30 or 40 minutes he accused the Senate of being undemocratic and made a number of other disparaging comments. Having said all that, he then proceeded to accept a number of those amendments. One could conclude that the Minister was being somewhat hypocritical. First he says the Senate is undemocratic and useless and should not be amending House of Commons legislation. Then in the same breath he accepts certain of those amendments. That would lead one to conclude that the legislation was faulty and in need of amendment.
Not only that, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) also accepted Senate amendments to certain pieces of his legislation. Canadians can see through both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This legislation is not in the best interests of Canadian consumers.



BASEBALL-LITTLE LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIPS IN TRAIL. B.C.

Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this year the Canadian Little League Championships are being held in the beautiful city of Trail, British Columbia, the home of champions. The championships are being played out at the
August 21, 1987



S. O. 21 DISASTERS

[Stage Direction]
Andy Bilesky Park, named after the manager of the Trail Little League team, Mr. Andy Bilesky. He has coached more winning teams than anyone else in Little League history.
In this series there are six teams: Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, representing the Maritimes; Pinecrest-Ottawa, representing the Province of Ontario; Sherbrooke-Fleremont, representing the Province of Quebec; Edmonton, Alberta, representing the prairie provinces; Stewart Channel, representing the great Province of British Columbia; and of course the host team of Trail, British Columbia. As of last night there is a three-way tie between Stewart Channel, B.C., Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, and the host team, Trail, B.C.
They have set new records in attendance, seeing crowds in excess of 3,500 at the park. All three teams have a 4-1 standing going into the semi-finals today. Tomorrow the championship game should be seen by an estimated 5,000 people. Regardless of who wins the championship, I have every confidence that they will be excellent ambassadors for Canada at the World Championships in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INDUSTRY


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, when the Government dropped most quotas on imported footwear some 21 months ago, it predicted the shoe industry in Canada would thrive despite the change. Instead, as we predicted, and as The Financial Post reported this week, the change in policy "has dealt a crushing blow to much of the Canadian shoe industry".
The market share of Canadian producers has fallen from 41 per cent in December, 1985, to 35 per cent in December, 1986. The Shoe Manufacturers Association says the decline is continuing. Jobs in the industry have fallen by 11 per cent. For many small communities across Ontario and Quebec, the cost has been tragic. This shows what the Government's free trade, market-oriented ideas will create elsewhere in the economy.
The Government's strategy for the shoe industry has been to give up and retreat, instead of carrying through the restructuring process which we would have supported and which would have meant a modern effective future for this industry.



EDMONTON TORNADO-RELIEF FUNDRAISING-TRIBUTE TO VOLUNTEERS' WORK

Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@Pembina: Mr. Speaker, the recent tornado that struck the Pembina constituency causing the loss of 27 lives and hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage has rallied the people of Canada to our aid with messages of sympathy to the bereaved and homeless. The disaster prompted spontaneous donations of food, clothing and funds from across Canada.
A major contribution to the relief fund was made through the sale of a commemorative edition of The Edmonton Sun. Some $300,000 will be raised through the combined efforts of the Sun newspapers in Calgary, Toronto and Edmonton, as well as Jasper Printing, RN Graphics and Intercity Papers by the sale of this special edition, and other activities.
The support received from all levels of government was gratifying. 1 wish to recognize in a special way the thousands of volunteers. Canadians have demonstrated once again their kindness and generosity. On behalf of the people of Pembina, I wish to convey our sincere gratitude to our fellow Canadians.



CARTOGRAPHY


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, this week the Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) and the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) made an announcement in Sherbrooke about some kind of institute for cartography. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there was a federal commitment, repeated by the Prime Minister in 1984 during the election campaign, that as a result of decentralization, an institute for cartography representing an investment of $100 million and 400 jobs would be established in Sherbrooke.
Mr. Speaker, this week, the Government tried to make us believe it was decentralizing. The fact is, however, that it is not decentralizing anything, and the new institute will be about as big as a Canada Employment Centre.
Mr. Speaker, the announcement made this week reminds me of someone who promises his wife a mink coat for Christmas and gives her a fake fun fur coat. The people of this area feel they have been cheated out of $88 million, and I urge Government Members-I see the Hon. Member from Brome- Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand)-to claim the difference. I think the area is short $88 million and the Laprade Fund is a good example of a case where the goods were not delivered and compensation was offered in the form of a fund, and I urge the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi and other Members from the area to ensure that the area gets its fund as well.

August 21, 1987



MINES AND MINING


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, the OECD reports that economic growth in Canada in 1986 was the strongest among the major industrialized countries. Today I report more good news for Canadians.
On Monday I attended the official opening of the world's largest open pit gold mine at Hedley in the riding 1 represent. The $61 million investment in the Mascot Gold Mine creates hundreds of jobs for Canadians and demonstrates the new private sector confidence generated by the policies and actions of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) Government. It is encouraging to note that this project went into production without one cent of assistance from either the federal or provincial Governments.
Socialist policies promoted by the NDP and their Liberal cousins are designed to discourage private sector activity, leaving everything up to big government. The Prime Minister's Government and the Government of British Columbia recognize that real job development can only be undertaken by private initiative. Mascot Gold Mines and the OECD report demonstrate that truth.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, there is one group of victims of Canada's recession of the 1980s who have not recovered and whom the Government is ignoring. I am speaking of the growing group of older workers who have been without work for more than a year. Last year these people made up 7.7 per cent of the unemployed. This year they make up 9.3 per cent.
The Labour Adjustment Benefits Program is discontinued and the program of adjustment for older workers has not started.
It is not good enough for the Government to blame the provinces. The Conservatives ended the only program helping older workers. It is time for them to deliver on their promise to create a new one.



GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS


Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) announced this morning the appointment of Dr. Geraldine Kenney-Wallace as chairperson of the Science Council of Canada.
Dr. Kenney-Wallace is Professor of Chemistry and Physics, and Chairman of the Research Board at the University of Toronto. She is an international authority on lasers and nonlinear optics.
Educated at the Royal Institute in London, and the University of British Columbia, she is the author of over 80 research papers. She is currently a member of the Science Council and of the Premier of Ontario's Advisory Council on Technology.
She has held Sloan Foundation, Guggenheim, and Steacie research fellowships, and Noranda and Sigma XI lectureships.
In addition to her impressive academic credentials, she has a special talent for promoting public awareness of the importance of science and technology. She is an eloquent spokesperson on the role of science and technology in the lives of contemporary Canadians.
She is an important addition to the science and technology team that this Government is putting together. I, as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Research, Science and Technology, join with others in the House in welcoming her to her new responsibilities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Many of these people have seen their lives devastated after years of work by being laid off and finding themselves unable to find another job. Studies indicate that the toll on the emotional health of individuals and on their family lives is very great.
In the past these people might have had some help from the Labour Adjustment Benefits Program, but that program has come to an end. In the 1986 Budget, the Conservatives promised a program of adjustment for older workers. Like so many Conservative promises, this one turned out to be a hoax and now older unemployed workers are paying the price.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on behalf of the native people not only of my riding but across the country. They realize that at the present time the Native Economic Development Fund is frozen, that the northern development agreement has not been signed by the Government, that special ARDA is frozen.
August 21, 1987

There is a backlog of thousands of houses needed on Indian reserves across the country. There are no water and sewage facilities on many of those same reserves. It takes five years to get a new school on the planning list of Indian Affairs. Nursing positions are left unfilled in northern remote reserves year after year. They have been left out of the Constitution. They are Canada's forgotten people and it is time we paid more attention.



THE ECONOMY


Mrs. Monique B. Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Since 1969 or for almost twenty years, manufacturers of generic drugs have had a chance to become competitive on the drug market. During that time, they decided to compete with 7 per cent of the drugs currently available on the market.
What about competition and prices for most of the drugs on the market, in other words, the other 93 per cent?
Canadians have the right to ask the Government of Canada whether this is really being competitive and whether the Patent Act of 1969 provided a real solution.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Senators are opposed to the Bill adopted by the House of Commons, and especially to the appointment of a drug prices review board. Are the Senators afraid the legislation proposed by the House of Commons will offer better protection of intellectual property, allow investment and research financed by the private sector and provide for fair prices for consumers, or is this a vast petty politics operation?



INDUSTRY


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, last February the Minister of Communications (Miss MacDonald) announced with a great deal of fanfare a new Canadian film distribution policy. Unfortunately, that film distribution policy has still not seen the light of day.
Pressure from the Hollywood majors has prevented that very enlightened policy from being tabled in the House. Fear and pressure have been brought to bear and I would hope that the Minister's wish to see a flourishing Canadian distribution
industry, which is presently dominated by affiliates from Hollywood, becomes a reality.
Canada is treated as an extension of the U.S. market. The legislation proposes a licensing system which would allow Canadian companies to have access to international films other than those that are produced by the Hollywood majors. It is an enlightened policy and I sincerely hope the Minister of Communications will have the courage to stand up to Jack Valenti, to the Hollywood pressure and, in the face of free trade, still present her new film distribution Bill to this House.



THE ECONOMY


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, ever since our Government decided to proceed with Bill C-22, a number of distinguished voices have been raised across this country, including those from Quebec which I know best. I am referring to Dr. Yves Morin, the famous cardiologist, Dr. Michel Chretien, Director of the Institute for Clinical Research in Monteal, Mr. Jacques Gagne, Dean of the School of Pharmacy at the University of Montreal, Mr. Michel Bergeron, Director of the Department of Pharmacology at the University of Montreal, researchers at the Armand-Frappier Institute, and many more.
Mr. Speaker, I think the Liberal position is untenable. First of all, the position taken by Montreal Members who made long speeches against the Bill and then stayed away from the House when the Bill was put to a vote. Second, the position taken by the Liberal Senators who in the course of their proceedings are trying to introduce amendments that would be a disaster for consumers, Canadian researchers and our young scientists.
1 think it is obvious that in this debate, the Liberal majority in the Senate is playing a distinctly partisan role. Canadians have a right to expect a better performance from those who are appointed to sit in the Upper House.




Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, we noted yesterday and this morning the Government congratulating itself on the OECD report. However, I must point out a very serious matter that is also included in that report. It noted that

August 21, 1987
Oral Questions
the starkness of regional growth disparities in Canada was unusually pronounced in intensity last year.
The concern expressed in this report is very important to Canada's growth and development. It obviously calls for very strong and stern measures to encourage growth in the regions, more than has been encouraged by the recent announcements of the Government in western and Atlantic Canada. I would expect that the Government would respond more strongly.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He is fully aware that the report done by Dr. Eastman and released in 1985 stated very clearly that, as a result of the 1969 Bill brought in by the previous Liberal administration, Canadians saved approximately $211 million annually. The Minister is also aware that under the present legislation he is now putting forward to the House, there are no guarantees for jobs, no guarantees for research and development, and that the only guarantee is that Canadians will have higher prices for prescription drugs.
Why does the Minister persist in trying to put through this piece of legislation when millions of Canadians, as represented by six provincial Governments, including his own Government in the Province of Alberta, are against this legislation and want Members of Parliament to amend it accordingly?


Harvie Andre: As the Hon. Member knows from committee, and the evidence adduced there, had Bill C-22 been introduced in 1969 as opposed to the amendments then made, the savings to consumers in 1983 would not have been $211 million. They would have been between $230 million and $360 million.
Bill C-22 provides more protection to consumers than does the 1969 amendments. So if it is consumer interest about which the Hon. Member is primarily concerned, and dismisses all the other considerations of research, high tech jobs and international obligations, then he should, even on that basis alone, be supporting Bill C-22 because it provides more protection for consumers than did the 1969 amendments.


JOB GUARANTEES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Minister knows very well that it is he and his Government who are abdicating their responsibilities to
consumers, Canadians, and to people in research and development, by not providing guarantees under the legislation. Perhaps the real reason for pursuing this particular piece of legislation is contained in a letter the President of the United States wrote to one of the United States Senators. He said: "We will want to make sure that the outcomes provide for comparable treatment for American and Canadian investment-"


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Come on. Where is the question?


David Charles Dingwall: "-and intellectual property rights in both countries". Is it not a fact that the Minister one day in the House of Commons denied pressure from the Americans and the next day there is pressure? Is it not a fact that the United States of America is calling the tune with regard to this piece of legislation and you are abdicating your responsibilities-


Mr. McDermid:: You are flogging a dead horse.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair very reluctantly interrupts a lead question, but I have to ask all Hon. Members to refrain from using the personal "you" in the exchanges. The Hon. Minister has the floor.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the guarantees of jobs about which the Hon. Member talks, I have gone over many times in the House, but repetition does not seem to work with that Hon. Member in terms of his acknowledging their validity. I remind the Hon. Member that virtually the entire research community in this country, people involved in pharmaceutical and medical research, and so on, accept that these guarantees are significant, and in fact are looking forward with great anticipation to the jobs and research opportunities which will come from this. They are there. There is the review. There are the annual reports that will be made to this House.
I guess more significant is the royalty fund about which the Hon. Member talked. If he reads the Eastman report, page 365, he will see that for every dollar of research provided to that fund, the consumer will have to pay $6.20. That was the ratio in 1983. So the guarantee procedure that the Hon. Member and his Senator friends are advocating has guaranteed the cost to consumers of a lot of money for negligible research.


PRICES REVIEW BOARD
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that all the groups which appeared before the standing committee were clearly in agreement that amendments to strengthen the Act, for guarantees for jobs in research and development, were acceptable to them. The Minister knows that. So let us not have any falsehoods.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
August 21, 1987


David Charles Dingwall: With regard to price, the Minister has said that the Prices Review Board will control prices. He knows that constitutionally it has been challenged. Second, he knows it has no authority to act, only to react. Why is the Minister telling Canadians that he has in the legislation a review mechanism which is going to control prices when in fact he knows it will not control prices one iota?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, we have been over this so many times, it is hopeless to deal with that Hon. Member. However, I remind the audience that-


Some Hon. Members:: Audience?


Harvie Andre: -the House, that Dr. Eastman, who has agreed to head up this board, concludes that the board will be effective. I do not see how the Opposition can say we should rely on Dr. Eastman on this point but not on that point. I do not know how they bridge that intellectually.
As to the Hon. Member's comment that all witnesses before the committee felt the way he claims, that is plain false and anyone can see that by looking at the record of the committee hearings.


EFFECTS OF BILL C-22-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT DEMAND GUARANTEES FROM FOREIGN MULTINATIONALS
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, in the past few days, Government Members have been showering us with figures. Depending on who is speaking, economic spin-offs range from $500 million up to as much as $1.4 billion. The Minister mentions between 1,000 and 3,000 jobs. In fact, every speaker, including the blue jay from Levis, has different figures. We are also in favour of job creation.
What 1 want to ask the Minister is this: Considering that the Members of his own Government do not agree, either on the amount of investment or the number of jobs created, does he not think he should immediately call the bluff of the big foreign multinationals and make sure he has firm commitments, not empty promises?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the commitments made are as firm as is the Opposition's resolution not to be dissuaded by facts and evidence from their political opportunism.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: I am in receipt of a telegram from- [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, 1 received a telegram from Mr. Michel Hamelin, President of the Executive Committee of the Montreal Urban Community. They feel that as far as they are concerned, these unfounded changes would be a threat to the creation of 1,300 jobs and to major investment in this country.
Oral Questions

So the people in Montreal, in the urban area, recognize these jobs are real. They are looking forward to them and they wonder why the Liberal Party is trying to frustrate the creation of these jobs in Montreal.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT DEMAND GUARANTEES FROM FOREIGN MULTINATIONALS
Jean-C. Lapierre: The Minister has just given us an example of the discrepancies we have observed. I say to the Minister that he is going to let the foreign multinationals bleed Canadian patients for the sake of their shareholders outside Canada. He can brag all he wants about the jobs that were promised, but he cannot table a list, he cannot table investment amounts, he has no firm commitment, and in that case, as soon as the legislation is passed, the companies will be able to do as they please.
1 am asking the Minister why, instead of fighting the Senate and acting tough, he does not act tough with the multinationals and demand specific guarantees?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable, and one can understand the admonitions that are in Beauchesne about raising questions about subjects under debate, because every one of these points was covered between ten o'clock and eleven o'clock this morning. If the Hon. Member paid attention to the debates, looked at any of the committee studies, or paid any attention, he would see that every single thing he said is absolute garbage.


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


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister, 1 see, is given to his usual understatement.


THE ADMINISTRATION
John Edward Broadbent: In the absence of the Prime Minister, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The Acting Prime Minister will know that many months ago the Government promised to introduce a package of reforms concerning conflict of interest, the tendering process, and the financing of political Parties. The people of Canada are still waiting. It has been more than seven months since this promise was made. Will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that we will have this package of reforms introduced in time to be put in place before the next election?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is

August 21, 1987
Oral Questions
under very active consideration and action has been taken with respect to lobbyists. We had hoped that the recommendations of the Parker Commission might be down soon and, if there were any recommendations included in that report, that could be taken into consideration as well. However, I can assure the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party that this is very much a priority with the Government. I think I can say an announcement will be made within the next weeks or months.


POLITICAL PARTIES
John Edward Broadbent: This is a priority for Canadians. More specifically, with respect to the financing of political parties, is the Minister prepared to guarantee that the Government will table a Bill that would allow only private individuals to make donations to political parties?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is overlooking the fact that much has been done to open up the process, the scrutiny of Order in Council appointments and a number of other things, including parliamentary reform. Consistent with the openness of this Government, further action will be taken.
I can assure the Hon. Member that, and I simply want to repeat it, this matter is very clearly under active consideration. There is a Bill before the House now having to do with the Canada Elections Act and certain reforms thereto. However, I hope that all Hon. Members will have a chance to review this legislation so that we can bring it forward very soon.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister's answer with interest. I wish it had been pertinent to the question asked.
Considering that one province in Canada has moved in an important and progressive way on the question of financing political Parties, is the Government prepared to consider legislation that will be put in place before the next election, that will restrict to individuals only the right to make financial contributions to political Parties?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if that is a firm position of the New Democratic Party or not. Surely in the course of consideration of the legislation that is currently before the House that will be considered in due
course. If that is the position that his Party wants to put forth, then it can be considered, I suppose, at that time.


John Edward Broadbent: We want to hear your position.


THE ADMINISTRATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the report of the Parker Inquiry into the conflict of interest allegations against the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the Government might be looking to that particular report with regard to new rules and regulations with respect to conflict of interest.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister with some degree of precision indicate to the House when that report might be made public and tabled in the House of Commons? Can he also indicate what the total cost of the inquiry will be? We know that the legal fees for the former Minister to the tune of about $650,000 have been paid. I am sure that Canadians would like to know what the total cost of this particular inquiry will be.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the report has been completed. When it is completed and presented to the Government it will be presented and made public. I have no knowledge whatsoever of whether the report is completed.


Jean-C. Lapierre: We are told that he has it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The Hon. Member opposite says that we are told that the Minister of Justice has it. I think the Minister has made it perfectly clear that the Government has not received the report. I cannot tell the Hon. Member with any degree of precision and accuracy what stage the report is at, but suffice it to say that when it is presented it will be presented and made public.


PAYMENT OF FORMER MINISTER'S LEGAL FEES
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister answered only one part of my question. He did not answer the other part. I am sure that the Government does have some answers with regard to the total cost of the Parker Inquiry.
Canadians are outraged that the Government of Canada decided to pay the legal fees of the former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I have a letter from the Department indicating the reasons why the Minister's legal fees were paid. The letter states that the payment is being
August 21, 1987

made "on the basis that the Commission is investigating the conduct of Mr. Stevens as a Minister" and therefore lies within established precedents. We all know that the inquiry was looking into the personal conduct of the Minister and that that excuse is a flimsy rationale for paying the legal fees of that particular Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister be using that same rationale to pay the legal fees of the former Minister of State for Transport?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to indicate to the House the cost of the inquiry when it has not yet been completed. Surely the Hon. Member would understand that.
With respect to the precedents, there are clear precedents established for the payment of legal fees. Payment to former Liberal cabinet Ministers has been made. That precedent has been established. Of course, that is the matter and that is the rationale which is taken in terms of making the judgment with respect to the Hon. Member for York-Peel.


PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The pharmaceutical companies will be given a 10-year monopoly lay Bill C-22 when it becomes law on the basis of a promise that they will spend about $1.4 billion in additional money. Some 60 per cent of that additional research expenditure, however, will be written off at a cost to Canadian taxpayers.
Will the Minister confirm that, given this 60 per cent writeoff and the increased prices of patented pharmaceuticals, in effect the taxpayers will be paying for substantially all of that research?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, Canada, along with I think every other industrialized nation, provides that research and development is deductible for tax purposes. In fact most nations have more generous incentives. So one can say that, if one uses the logic that all money belongs to the Government first and foremost and any deduction from income therefore is a contribution from the Government to that effort, then on that basis the Government makes that contribution to research and development, whether it is in the field of pharmaceuticals, widgets, mousetraps or what-have-you.
Is it the position of the NDP that in fact research and development ought not to be tax deductible? If that position were implemented, then the small amount of research being conducted in Canada would turn out to be zero. I am sure the
Oral Questions
Hon. Member would want to think that out before he adopts it as his Party's position.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that drug profits are among the highest in manufacturing, with a 20 per cent average in 1985, and some as high as 50 per cent, transfer pricing, and now a 10-year monopoly. After years of profitable business in Canada how does the Minister justify this raping of the Canadian taxpayer for a group which, before 1969, would not do research and cannot be expected without firm commitments to do so now?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member does his sums I know that he has based them on a newspaper article this morning written by Dan Westell. What was incomplete in that study was that it did not look at the additional tax revenue from those 3,000 scientists being employed in Canada rather than overseas, the scientific people, and so on, in the high-tech jobs. Those are the spinout benefits of that. If the Hon. Member wants to do a tax balance on that he should consider all the factors.
As I pointed out many times in committee, a company that does not do research does not deduct that from its income. If in 1983 the companies had been spending 10 per cent of revenue on research as opposed to 5 per cent, then their return on investment would have been a normal industrial return. They show a higher return because they are taking that money out of Canada. We want it spent here in research and development which, incidentally, has the effect of reducing their income after taxes.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The shipbuilding industry in Atlantic Canada has been asking the federal Government for assistance. Not only has it been denied this assistance but the Minister of Public Works has said that the shipbuilding industry should take a long, hard look at itself and perhaps pick a shipyard in the region that could close its doors forever.
This is a treacherous response to an industry that needs help badly and one that has been led to believe that help would be forthcoming from the Government. Why does the Government not take a long, hard look at itself and realize that its failure to keep its commitment is sabotaging the shipbuilding industry in Atlantic Canada?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

August 21, 1987
Oral Questions


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I too share the concern of the Hon. Member. 1 think he would also agree with the fact that there is some 60 per cent of over-capacity in the shipbuilding industry throughout the world, which has had a major effect in depressing prices in the industry. The Government has responded by providing a tremendous amount of work to the shipbuilding industry. Something in the order of 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the business done in the shipbuilding industry is provided by government contracts.
There has been some degree of rationalization in the Canadian shipbuilding industry. That has taken place throughout the world. It is simply in concert with the realities of the international situation. I can assure the Hon. Member that we will, as a Government, work with the industry in trying to pursue the course of rationalization in a manner which would not provoke undue dislocation.


ELECTION PROMISE
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, during the 1984 election campaign the Government dangled over the heads of the people in Atlantic Canada that it was going to provide $75 million to develop shipbuilding in Canadian ports. Atlantic Canada has not received the benefit of that promise.
Why will the Government not keep its promise, create these jobs in shipyards in Atlantic Canada, and create the needed employment that has been looked forward to in Atlantic Canada as a result of the promises of the Government?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member in his good intentions might wish to prevail upon his Leader and his critic for defence matters, and persuade them to support the initiatives of the Government in terms of the White Paper in which the Government is calling for the building of a number of nuclear submarines.
This would provide some 55,000 person years of work. That is the manner in which the Hon. Member can help. Those jobs would be created in Canada for the shipbuilding industry. I urge that the Hon. Member raise that issue with his caucus and his Leader.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
In a recent study by Alti Rodal it was revealed that in 1983 a senior RCMP officer and member of the security service deliberately ignored federal policy and destroyed records to facilitate the entry into Canada of two alleged Nazi war criminals, one of whom was a member of the SS.
Will the Solicitor General confirm that this is accurate? Will he indicate whether or not this individual is currently a member of CSIS? If these allegations are in fact accurate, and this person lied to his political masters and destroyed documents, will the Minister not accept his responsibility and ensure that this person is fired from CSIS for these reprehensible actions?


Mr. Beatty:: Who was the Solicitor General at the time?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the Hon. Member that this incident occurred in 1983. The person was a member of the RCMP at that time, and an administrative decision was made to move him out of the area that dealt with immigration and screening, or anything to do with the area of citizenship.
I am advised that today he still does remain a member of CSIS, who transferred from the RCMP to CSIS. He is employed in an area that has absolutely nothing to do with immigration or citizenship matters.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely shocking that a member who was responsible for lying and destroying federal documents has not been disciplined whatsoever, but has merely been moved from one section to another.


BEHAVIOUR OF OFFICERS DURING VISIT OF INDIAN CABINET MINISTER
Svend Johannes Robinson: My supplementary question is with respect to two other members of CSIS. The Minister will be aware of the fact that the head of SIRC, Ron Atkey, has accused CSIS members of being amateurish in the case of a Sikh cabinet Minister, visiting British Columbia, who was shot and seriously wounded.
Will the Minister confirm that Ron Atkey did write a letter suggesting that CSIS members took a four-hour lunch break during the time that the Sikh Minister was seriously injured? What action will the Minister take on this matter? Is he going to shuffle them into another Department, transfer them to another city, or will he ensure that they are properly disciplined, if these allegations are well founded?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member well knows that the case involving the attempted murder of the Indian cabinet Minister is presently before the courts. As a matter of fact, the B.C. Court of Appeal has handed down a decision on the legality of the warrant. The matter has been referred back to the court. Since it is presently before the courts, it would be quite inappropriate for me to discuss it at this time.
August 21, 1987


Svend Johannes Robinson: What's that got to do with discipline of CSIS members?


THE ECONOMY
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. It relates to the quotes yesterday by the Prime Minister from an OECD report.
The Prime Minister did not quote statements in the report that Canada's unemployment rate is "high by historical standards, and compared to the OECD average", and "is likely to remain above its pre-recession level". This, Mr. Speaker, in the fifth year of recovery.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House if the Government really is satisfied with its record over the past three years, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, not only have we had endorsement from The Toronto Star of the effectiveness of federal government policies, but if the Hon. Member would refer to the editorial in today's Globe and Mail, it puts the whole thing into perspective. It outlines the effectiveness of Canada's economic programs developed by this Government which has created the "jobs, jobs, jobs" that our Prime Minister talked about during the 1984 election. I would suggest that the Hon. Member read that very objective article.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, it is nice of the Deputy Prime Minister to suggest I read the newspaper. I also read the report.


TAX REFORM
Aideen Nicholson: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The OECD report quoted yesterday also noted "a sharp decline in disposable income". It stated that Canada's higher than average inflation rate was due, in large part, to "indirect tax increases".
Since the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and other groups, are also calling for up-front visible taxes, is the Minister now prepared to be open with Canadians and reveal the hidden part of his tax strategy, which is the national sales tax?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will make his statements on
Oral Questions
national sales tax in due course. It is not for me to announce that on his behalf.
I might add that the slight increase in inflation that we have witnessed in the last few months can be traced, in some part, to the spending of the Ontario provincial Government. This has caused prices to increase rather than abate. I would hope that provincial Government could moderate its spending somewhat in order to help with this inflationary increase.


RIVER SAFETY
Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport, or in his absence to the Parliamentary Secretary to that Minister.
This year 12 persons have died in four separate river-rafting accidents in British Columbia. It seems imperative that the Department of Transport amend the Boating Restriction Regulations which are in place in British Columbia in order that permits for commercial river-rafting operations be required on all waters in that province.
What action has been taken in response to these tragic accidents to bring an element of regulated safety into the business of river rafting in British Columbia?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen for his question.
The Government has acted in this area. Indeed, the Boating Restriction Regulations were declared on August 14, and will be published in The Canada Gazette on September 2.
We also have agreement with the provincial Government of British Columbia to change the river-rafting standards. It is regrettable that again government has to move in because people do not use some sense of their own. The Government has acted.


FINANCE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Can the Minister confirm that the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce received the approval of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and the Government to transfer about $850 million to its reserves against high-risk foreign loans, that this transfer will reduce taxes payable by the CIBC by about

August 21, 1987
Oral Questions
$400 million and that consequently, the Bank will probably not pay any income tax at all for the current financial year? Does the situation really warrant the Government's approving this change in the Bank's accounts that will mean the CIBC will not have to pay any income tax for the current financial year?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, the tax provisions and the loss provisions that will be taken as a result of this loan experience mean the following for that bank: under current tax practice and consistent with tax reform, it will be taking its losses this year. If its experience should improve over time from what it projects, when the income comes into revenue it will be taxable. That is quite different from outright forgiveness which the Hon. Member's Party has often suggested. Under outright forgiveness there is a massive deduction. Banks will not pay taxes for many years under outright forgiveness, plus it is irreversible.


EFFECT ON TAX REVENUE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister confirms that there will be a very substantial writeoff, which will, in fact, cut $400 million from the tax liability of the Bank of Commerce for the fiscal year 1987 and probably result in it paying no tax at all on its profits despite substantial profits on domestic business in 1987.
Does the Minister not agree that it is about time that we had a minimum tax on corporations, including the banks, so that they could write something like this off over a number of years, as was the previous practice, rather than forcing the taxpayers to pay all of these losses in one year?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the accounting significance of what the Member is suggesting. Whether the banks take the write-off this year or over time, the effect in terms of tax revenues is virtually the same.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister to dissociate himself and his Government from the suggestion that women's groups are opposing the Meech Lake distinct society clause because they do not want Quebec to be recognized as having a distinct society.
In reply yesterday, right here in the House, the Prime Minister once again expressed approval of the newspaper column by Lysiane Gagnon in which that view was strongly
expressed. However, in front of the committee yesterday the Government's own Advisory Council on the Status of Women expressed concern about the equality rights provisions in the Meech Lake Accord.
Will the Government simply recognize the good faith of that point of view?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to that question again today because we want this matter to be put in the proper perspective. It was determined by the First Ministers that if there was an egregious error made with respect to the provisions of the Meech Lake Accord consideration would naturally be given to amendments to rectify that error.
Fortunately, there has been no indication to the present time, on the basis of our best legal advice, that there is such an error with respect to the rights of women or any other group in Canada, including minority groups. The best legal advice that we have, which is supported by very eminent authorities, is that women's rights in particular are in fact unaffected in a negative manner by the Accord.
As the Hon. Member knows, because he is participating, we have a committee which is doing very good work in examining all facets of this matter and hearing from well respected groups and organizations.
I thought the Prime Minister answered the Member's question very well yesterday in that he cast no aspersions with respect to motivation on the part of any women's group which has appeared before the committee. That is the situation and it should be accepted by the Hon. Member.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has just told us that it was determined by the First Ministers that only egregious errors would be recognized and corrected. Whose Constitution is this? It is not the First Ministers' Constitution but the Constitution of Canada.
Various groups of Canadians are coming forward to express their views about the Constitution. Are they not entitled to try to improve the Meech Lake Accord, egregious errors or not? Are they not entitled to have a say? Are the views which are coming forward with so much support and so much good sense not worth considering?
To put it in one question, why will the Government not recognize that the Meech Lake Accord, as good as it is and as important as it is, is capable of being made better?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it was not this Government which gave the country its process for amending the Constitution. It was the Government of which the Hon. Member was a part which set the process in place with respect to the amendment of our Constitution.
August 21, 1987

I think this particular amendment is a historic point in our history which should be supported wholeheartedly by all Canadians. The entry of Quebec into the Constitution is something which we as Canadians should applaud and support.
We naturally want to consider improving our Constitution. Indeed, one of the most important elements in terms of the agreement reached by the First Ministers was the provision that henceforth we will have an annual constitutional meeting among First Ministers at which improvements to our Constitution can be examined. This has never been the case before. The Government is giving more consideration to the sensitivities of our country than has any previous administration.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Minister.


TARIFFS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the last piano factory in this country in Clinton, Ontario, is facing closure because of competition from Korea. It took its case to the Tariff Review Board, won that case, and the Board recommended extra protection to the Government.
I would like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Finance. Why has the Government not yet moved to implement these recommendations in order to protect these jobs that matter so much to the small community of Clinton, Ontario?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for raising this issue. I hope to be meeting with the management of the company in Clinton in the next week to discuss this matter. There are problems with the business plan which concern the viability of this firm as well as tariff questions which have to be discussed.


LOAN GUARANTEES QUERY
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister also explain why a meeting which was set up with the Minister of Finance and this company was cancelled? Why has the Government rejected loan guarantees for this factory despite firm export orders which the company has for 1,200 piano sales to the United States? In short, why is the Government ignoring this small community's future?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we know that loan guarantees can be given when we know that a firm can be viable in the short term, medium term and long run. That is what we are trying to assess. Hopefully that will be done in the next week to 10 days.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I will direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary. On July 14 last a CP train carrying hazardous materials and travelling at a speed of about 40 miles per hour derailed in my constituency. Fortunately, the car that contained the hazardous materials did not derail.
One year ago, at the request of the former Minister of Transport, the present Deputy Prime Minister, CP Rail voluntarily imposed a 25 mile per hour speed limit on trains carrying dangerous goods on a portion of their track in Metro Toronto. Unfortunately, the derailment this time occurred on another portion of track where that limit was not imposed.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary give us his undertaking today that he and the Minister will immediately request CP Rail to impose a 25 mile per hour speed limit for all of their trains carrying hazardous goods through Metropolitan Toronto? If they refuse to do so, will he instruct the CTC to institute a mandatory speed limit of 25 miles per hour in this area?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that we never tire of the questions of the Hon. Member for York East and on this one he has certainly been persistent. The Minister is vitally concerned about this as, indeed, are all Members of Parliament.
As the Member knows, there is a task force studying the whole question of Toronto and the routes of tracks through the Metropolitan area, due to its explosive growth. I believe that task force is to report in March of 1988.
However, in the meantime I will, of course, consult with the Minister on this. I am sure the Minister will speak with CP because it may well be appropriate for that 25 mile per hour zone to be extended to cover the area within the Member's riding. We will certainly take that up and give it serious consideration.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, my question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister knows only too well that front-line states in southern Africa are indeed on the front line and that in fact Mozambique in particular is being terrorized

August 21, 1987
Oral Questions
and has had its transportation and infrastructures destroyed by the South African forces. In fact, the Red Cross has made an appeal about that and has borne eloquent testimony to it.
Is Canada prepared to match its rhetoric beyond its emergency food aid and some $24 million from CIDA? Is it prepared to take some meaningful steps to bolster the economy of Mozambique which unfortunately receives one of the lowest percentages and rates of assistance from Canada's aid program?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the Secretary of State for External Affairs just returned from a visit to that region of the world. I would certainly undertake to raise the Hon. Member's question with him. I think he will be in the House next week and I am sure that he would be only too happy to respond in a definitive way.


REQUEST FOR CO-ORDINATED MEASURES TO AID AFRICAN FRONT-LINE STATES
Roland de Corneille: Mr. Speaker, while this tragedy in Mozambique is unfolding, Canada is not putting its money and its efforts where its mouth is and its visitors are. Does Canada have any firm, specific, concrete proposals to make before the Francophone Conference and the Commonwealth Conference for an organized, coordinated effort to get emergency medium and long-range aid, grants and expertise to these front-line states? Does it have any proposals for strengthening and diversifying their economies so that they do not have to depend on trade with South Africa?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, one of the
purposes of the visit of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs was to get first-hand knowledge of some of these issues and to prepare himself for the two important summits which are to be taking place in Canada in the very near future. I am sure that, as a result of his fact-finding mission, he will have something positive to put forth at those meetings.


AIR TRANSPORT
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Canada's Nobel Prize winner, John Polanyi, describes the proposed flights of radioactive plutonium across northern Canada as being reckless given that an accident could constitute a hazard for thousands of years. In light of the extreme danger and urgency involved, has the Government taken the appropriate action to
advise Japan and the United States formally that these flights will not be allowed?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member perhaps knows or will know as she continues her studies as a new Member, we do have a process here that involves an international component and a domestic component. No one has formally applied to Canada for anything at this point but if and when Japan were to do that, we would follow all the appropriate steps.
I can assure the Hon. Member that there is a very real concern as to the national interest of Canada when it is proposed that anything like plutonium or any other dangerous chemical be moved across the country.


TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, on March 23, 1987, the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave his assurance to the Hon. Member for Skeena that Canadian airspace would not be violated. Can the Hon. Member tell us what the Government's position is on this issue now?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it is exactly the same. The territorial sovereignty of Canada will not be violated. If someone applies in the proper way, we will follow the proper process to decide what is in the best national interest of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that the Hon. Member for Scarborough East has a single question. There will be a single question from the Hon. Member for Papineau and a single question from the Hon. Member for York West. That will close off Question Period.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence and it concerns recent press reports about proposals from some quarters that Canada withdraw from NATO and NORAD. Has the Government studied the implications of such a move if by chance it ever took place?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, yes, I have heard rumours myself that in some quarters this is being proposed. The effect of such a policy would be to cost Canada any influence in setting alliance policy for arms control or defence. It would drive up the cost to Canada of the air defence of North America by some $5 billion. It would also raise serious questions about what we
August 21, 1987

would do with the army when we brought it home in view of the fact that it is unlikely that we would be invaded by land. We would either mal-deploy the army or else we would have to lay off thousands of soldiers.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I have a question for the very able Parliamentary Secretary.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: He is working so hard, in fact, on behalf of the Minister, that he should get his salary.

Mr. Speaker, after abandoning its tracks in Abitibi- Temiscamingue, after practically closing down the Point Saint Charles Maintenance Centre, the Canadian National is about to dismantle its regional rail traffic control centres and thus deal the Quebec economy another savage blow.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary ask the Minister to use his authority and inform this Crown Corporation that a decision of this kind is totally unacceptable?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say nothing more than yes to that question. I would be happy to do so.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. There are reports that the Deputy Minister of Justice is in strong disagreement with the Department of Immigration over the legal implications of the new refugee legislation, Bill C-84. Now the Department of Justice is refusing to come to testify before the committee that is studying Bill C-84.
Why is the Minister refusing to have his Deputy Minister and other officials come before the legislative committee studying Bill C-84? Is it because they are worried about the legal fallout and ramifications of Bill C-84? Will the Minister assure the House that he will permit his Deputy Minister and officials to come properly and freely before the committee studying Bill C-84 as every other government witness has agreed to do?
Patent Act


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will try to respond briefly to a very agonizing question. The Hon. Member obviously does not have his facts straight. I do not want to disabuse him of his notion with respect to the position of the Department of Justice. We have been working in collaboration with our colleagues in Employment and Immigration with respect to this important legislation. 1 can only say, and the Hon. Member will understand, that committees are in charge of their own destinies.
There has not been any attempt to avoid the issues. What 1 hear from the committee, and probably the Hon. Member would share this view, is that the witnesses and the Ministers who have appeared before the committee are doing so well that it does not need the help of the Department of Justice.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andre:
[Stage Direction]
August 21, 1987
Patent Act
That a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House agrees with amendment 10(a) made by the Senate to Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act and provide for certain matters in relation thereto, but disagrees with all other amendments except amendments 1(c) and 8, because this House believes that amendments 1(a) and (b), 2(a) and (b), 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), 6, 7(a) and (b), 9 and 10(b) and (c) are in contradiction to the principles of the Bill which will increase intellectual property protection, increase research and development in Canada, create new high-technology jobs, improve the health care of Canadians, and protect consumers from higher drug prices. More specifically:
Amendments 1(a) and (b) delete the definitions of "Board" and "patentee". These definitions are necessary to support the powers of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers.
Amendments 2(a) and (b) reduce Canada's export potential and fine chemical manufacturing.
Amendments 3, 4(a) and (b), reduce the periods of market exclusivity, thus eliminating the incentive for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendment 5(a) reduces the period of market exclusivity and export potential, thus reducing economic benefits for Canada.
Amendment 5(b) deletes the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, which is required to protect consumers, and this amendment also removes the protection for Canadian-invented medicines and thus the incentives for increased research and development in Canada.
Amendments 6, 7(a) and (b), 10(b) and (c) arise out of amendments 1(a) and (b), 2, 3, 4(a) and (b), 5(a) and (b), and are therefore inappropriate.
Amendment 9 arises out of Senate amendment 8, but is not consistent with the House amendment to Senate amendment 8, as set out below.
And, that:
Senate amendment 1(c) be amended to read as follows: "(c) Strike out lines 35 to 42 and add the following:
(2) For the purpose of sections 41.11 to 41.16, the notice of compliance that is first issued for either the original and distinct chemical composition of a medicine or the obvious chemical equivalent of the medicine shall be deemed to be the first notice of compliance issued in respect of that medicine."
Senate amendment 8 be amended to read as follows: "insert the heading "Transitional" and the following as clause 31:
31.(1) The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs shall pay to each province for each of the fiscal years commencing in the period April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1991, for the purpose of research and development relating to medicine, an amount equal to the product obtained by multiplying
(a)	the quotient obtained by dividing
(i)	$25 million by
(ii)	the total population of all provinces for the fiscal year in respect of
which the payment is made, by
(b)	the population of the province for the fiscal year in respect of which the
payment is made.
(2)	Payment of any amount under this section shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund at such times and in such manner as the Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe.
(3)	For the purposes of this section, the population of a province for a fiscal year shall be the population of that province on the first day of June of that year as determined and published by the Chief Statistician of Canada."
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate. However, I am disappointed that the Minister of the Crown supporting this Bill is probably unavoidably-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Just outside in the lobby.


David Charles Dingwall: He will be back? I accept the word of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski).
It is interesting to note that for a number of days we have had comments by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and of course the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) concerning the process that Bill C-22, amendments to the Patent Act, is presently undergoing. We have heard time and time again sentiments expressed by government Members which seem to be very consistent. Yet as time goes on we find their statements are not backed up by their actions. I believe the Minister has swallowed himself on Bill C-22. I believe the Prime Minister has also swallowed himself over the process involving Bill C-22.
For your listening pleasure, and for the record, I want to read what the Prime Minister of Canada has said about the legality and constitutionality of the Upper Chamber and its debate over Bill C-22. I quote:
This is being choked off by a handful of non-elected Liberal Senators who are in turn in the process of inflicting very serious and perhaps irreparable damage to the scientific well-being of Quebec. This Act by an unelected, undemocratic group shall be resisted by every Quebecer, by every elected Member of Parliament irrespective of the side of the House he or she happens to be on. 1 tell you, there will not be a Liberal left or an NDPer left if this is the attitude they propose to display to the people of Canada.
Those were the words of the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada regarding the legality and constitutionality of the Senate in its debate on Bill C-22.
Logically one would automatically assume that any amendments coming from the Senate would not be accepted by the Minister. That is what he has said repeatedly on the electronic media. Yet some of those amendments have been agreed to by the Government. If there was ever an example of hypocrisy, of swallowing oneself, it has to be the behaviour of the Minister concerned and of course the Prime Minister.
To say for the last number of days that no changes by an unelected bunch of political hacks will be accepted and to then turn around and do the exact opposite, as has been done on previous occasions on other Bills, indicates to me quite clearly that the Government is trying to have it both ways. It wants to be in a position to criticize the Senate when it is to its advantage. Yet when the Canadian people cry out, as they have regarding these amendments to the Patent Act through a number of representations to the committee examining Bill C-22, you can see that the Government of the Right Hon. Prime Minister wishes to disassociate itself from such political hacks as Michel Cogger, Jean Bazin, Finlay MacDonald, Lowell Murray, and a number of other individuals. That is what the Government wishes to do.
I suggest, to be fair and reasonable, that the Conservative Government cannot have it both ways. It either believes in the legal and constitutional authority of the Upper Chamber or it does not. If it continues this kind of inflamed rhetoric, then the Prime Minister and the Minister should have the common
August 21, 1987

decency to place before this Chamber legislation to reform the Upper Chamber.
We know the Prime Minister speaks with a forked-tongue. He says one thing and does the opposite. There are numerous examples of that. This is another undisputed example of the Prime Minister of Canada, aided and abetted by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who accepted some of the Senate amendments, contradicting themselves and practising another degree of hypocrisy.
There is such a thing in this country as a Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has been said by others that this is a Minister of corporate affairs, not one who, while perhaps legally authorized to do so, stands up to protect and enhance the rights of consumers. He is a Minister who is intrigued by corporate affairs and the web of connections in the corporate world. He is mystified by the international glamour of multinational corporations. Earlier today we saw the display of a Minister of corporate affairs who is concerned about protecting and enhancing the multinational fabric in the international world.
We heard a Minister of corporate affairs take another giant step in an attempt to perpetrate on Canadians his wisdom or expertise with regard to the constitutionality of a second chamber. The result was a clear, unequivocal message to Canadians that although he is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre), his mandate has but one objective, to serve the masters of the corporate world.
His predecessors in previous Governments as well as his own saw their mandate as one to enhance and improve the rights and privileges of the Canadian consumer. This morning, we saw a despicable display by a Minister of the Crown. I say to him that he and his Government will pay the price for legislation that is fundamentally flawed. There were suggestions in the committee and in both Houses, as well as by individuals across the country, of ways and means to improve the Bill. However, the Minister has chosen to protect and enhance the multinational corporations.
1 am sorry to say that I must hold the Minister responsible to those thousands of Canadians who want reasonable and affordable drugs, who want jobs in this country and want research and development. They want to see a Canadian pharmaceutical industry but we have seen the complete opposite from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I believe a Bill should be introduced to change the name of his portfolio to corporate and international affairs, to advance the right of Pfizer in the United States which had profits last year in excess of $600 million.
While there is nothing wrong with the profit motive, we are not in the business as legislators of seeing to one aspect of this industry, namely, profitability. We have signed an oath to represent the best interests of all Canadians and thereby try to
Patent Act
establish a public policy that addresses the fundamental pillars of a pharmaceutical society.
Let me say to the Minister that some of the things he has said in this chamber are partly correct but, as usual, he has chosen his words carefully in order to portray, as inaccurate as it is, an image of what members of this Party are attempting to do with regard to Bill C-22. It was the New Democratic Party that wanted no changes to the 1969 Act on pharmaceuticals. It is the Tories and the Minister of corporate affairs who want to give more to the multinationals. Consistently, since the hearing process began in the House of Commons, throughout Question Period, through the debate, and even in the Senate, we have adopted a reasonable set of proposals predicated upon the recommendations of Doctor Eastman, an authority recognized by all Members of Parliament and all political parties. We have attempted to put reasonable proposals to the Government through the committee hearings. There were 48 amendments in the House of Commons which the Conservatives defeated. Now they want to do away with the amendments that members in the other House have taken upon themselves to return to us in the House of Commons.
I find it peculiar, if not somewhat extraordinarily unusual, that the Government would go to such great lengths in attempting to perpetrate a lie to the Canadian people. We have indicated what changes we want to the legislation. They are reasonable amendments, keeping in mind that we are a Party which is concerned about the well-being of Canadians and the prices they will have to pay for drugs. We are concerned about having more research and development take place in this country, certainly in Montreal and Quebec. We want to see jobs created. However, our Party and other witnesses have told the Minister time and time again that he is not heading in the right direction. He is only responding to one element of the process. It takes more than multinational corporations to develop a Canadian pharmaceutical industry. A Canadian pharmaceutical industry means multinational corporations operating here in Canada, as well as generic companies operating in Canada. It means the protection of consumers and more research and development that is not only conducted by multinationals.
Again, the Minister of corporate affairs has attempted to perpetrate another lie, that the generic companies are the only group we want doing research and development in Canada. We want the multinational corporations as well as the generic companies to do more research and development in this country, whether it be clinical research, basic research, innovative research, or a combination of those. That is our desire. But when one examines the Bill it becomes more clear that those objectives cannot and will not be met by that legislation. So you see, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between the governing Party and our Party. There is also a major difference and distinction between our Party and the New Democratic Party with regard to the Patent Act.

August 21, 1987
Patent Act
The Minister of Corporate Affairs-I have now by virtue of an Order in Council in my caucus changed the name of his particular portfolio-has tried to share some thoughts with Canadians on the floor of the House of Commons. He would lead us to believe that on the issue of intellectual property rights, somehow we in Canada are the target of abuse by other foreign countries with regard to intellectual property rights affecting the pharmaceuticals. Let us look at that one realistically.
The raison d'Etat of a multinational corporation is what? The raison d'Etat of a multinational corporation is profit. There is nothing wrong with that. That is their mode of operation. It is profit, profit, profit and profit. Let us look not at figures that I, as an opposition Member of Parliament, would want to put on the floor of the House of Commons for debate, but let us look at the figures which are being given by a distinguished authority in the person of Dr. Eastman. Dr. Eastman submitted a report. From 1969 to 1983 under the old law-not Bill C-22-were the profits reasonable for these multinational corporations? Perhaps they were keeping in line with the manufacturing sector. The answer is that the most profitable sector in manufacturing was the pharmaceutical industry. It made unprecedented profits. The average employment in the manufacturing sector for that period was 4 per cent. In the pharmaceutical industry it was 29 per cent. That is not bad. It is a very profitable industry. The law said that if one invents a pharmaceutical drug in Canada, one must pay.


An Hon. Member:: 


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Member says "if' and then leaves the Chamber. I know he will be back. He will want to participate in the debate because he feels as strongly about it as I do.
If you are to use that particular drug that was invented by an individual, you had to pay a 4 per cent royalty. That is the system. That is how it works. The industry is profitable. Its profits are way up. Employment is up. It receives a 4 per cent royalty from those individuals who wish to reproduce its particular drug. That is not a very bad situation to be in. The Tories now say that over and above that we have to give the pharmaceutical industry a 10 year period of exclusivity; not a month, not two months, not three months, but 10 years. That is not so the industry will be just a little more profitable, but that it will be much, much more profitable.
In turn, these multinational corporations with headquarters in Switzerland and the United States are going to promise- not give us a consummated contract-that for all that money we have given them, besides the new additional 10 year period of exclusivity over the next 10 years, they will do some research and development. There is no written contract, no guarantee, none whatsoever.
It is the poorer people of my province, in my constituency, the poorer people in Manitoba and Newfoundland, the senior citizens in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and
Quebec, the farmers of western Canada, the shipbuilding yard worker in British Columbia, the good people of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta, who will now have to pay higher drug prices to profitable multinational corporations which will then become more profitable and which then will have a 10 year period of exclusivity, over and above, on the promise that maybe-but maybe not-they will do research and development.
In some parts of my constituency I know what the people would call that. The first four letters spell "bull". I am not going to say the last word because it may be unparliamentary, but that, too, is a four-letter word.
I would think that those of us who have the privilege of sitting in Parliament, of taking an oath to serve the best interests of the Canadian people, would look at such a situation and say, "Surely to God we would want to have as a bare minimum some guarantees of jobs, some guarantees of keeping the prices down and some guarantees of research and development". But what do we have? We have the multinational corporations getting richer and the Canadian people getting poorer as a result of this legislation.
I told you, Mr. Speaker, what is the policy of the New Democratic Party. It wants no amendments, no changes. The Tories want a period of 10 years exclusivity. I have said to the Deputy Prime Minister, as he knows, and I have said it in committee, that we favour a four-year period of exclusivity. We favour having the multinational corporations, as well as Canadian companies, (jay a certain amount into a royalty fund for the purposes of research and development.
I even said to the Minister to keep an open mind. If he finds that the royalty fund I am suggesting is not in keeping with what he believes would achieve the objective he is trying to achieve, let us try to work something out to address that, but let us have some guarantees for jobs, guarantees in terms of the distribution of that wealth, because I know the good people of Alberta, like the good people of Nova Scotia, are getting sick and tired of the benefits of national public policy accruing to certain specific areas of this country.
With certain public will, and political will, I might add, we can change that sentiment and perception felt by the various regions of the country. The Government has chosen repeatedly and consistently to refuse that type of suggestion. I am dismayed.
When I entered Parliament I thought we were here to try to develop good public policy, to address the fundamentals of that particular sector. I thought we were here to try to improve the lot of all Canadians, and not just Pfizer of New York City whose profits in the first quarter of this year were in excess of $600 million.


Mr. Dick:: How about in Canada?
August 21, 1987


David Charles Dingwall: 1 find the conduct and the behaviour of government Members to be despicable in view of the facts. The facts are there for all of us to examine and to read.
1 would now like to return to the argument of the intellectual property right. Canada is the envy of the world when it comes to pharmaceuticals. I was down in Washington one month ago and I met with a Congressman by the name of Henry Waxman who heads up a subcommittee which looks into the pricing of pharmaceuticals in the United States. I met with Mr. Bill Haddad who was the chairman of the generic industry in the United States. They acclaimed Canada as having the greatest system. There are those in the United States who would like to adopt or at least examine more fully the prospect of adopting such a system in the United States.
I do not want to suggest to my good friend the Deputy Prime Minister that there is a pending law which is similar to the one in Canada-there is not. However, there is a movement, a serious movement to have put in place the type of law that we now have before us, inclusive of the amendments thereto. Consumer groups in the United States have acknowledged the tremendous piece of legislative work done back in 1969 which met the objectives of the Government of the day. Of all the Members of Parliament at that time, did the Conservative Party of the day vote against the Bill? No, it did not.


John V. Nunziata: Who was the Prime Minister?


David Charles Dingwall: I believe the Prime Minister at that time was the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, if my memory serves me well, one of the greats, as my hon. friend from New Brunswick across the way acknowledges. Perhaps he is the greatest the Hon. Member says. I would agree with that, he is the greatest. The Conservative Party did not vote against the Bill at that time. Surely, it must have examined and decided at that point in time that that piece of legislation would not contravene any international legislation. Members opposite would lead one to believe that the present legislation, with the amendments of the Liberal Party, would somehow be in contravention of international convention.
A gentleman by the name of Roy Davidson, who was educated at the Universities of Alberta and Toronto, and who for many years was a senior administrator of the bureau of competition policy, and who for some time was the senior economic advisor in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, said the following. I think his words are worth noting, particularly in view of what the Government has been saying. He stated: "Compulsory licensing provisions of the Patent Act are not in contravention of the International Patent Convention of 1904". So when we hear the present Minister, whose title was changed as of 20 minutes ago to the Minister of corporate affairs, say that Canada is not in sync with what is happening internationally, he is wrong.
Patent Act
I asked the Minister in committee where the documented evidence is that says that we are in contravention of international law. There is no evidence, none whatsoever. It is an argument put forward by a weak Government which is bent on serving its political masters, namely, the multinational corporate sector that exists in Canada and throughout the world, and not the Canadian consumers.
After I heard the present Minister of corporate affairs say in the House that we are in contravention of the Bill of Rights I went to my law books. You know, Mr. Speaker, perhaps as Canada's most distinguished legal body-and I think that ought to be underlined in Hansard-that with regard to that argument, the Federal Court has said that Canada is not contravening international conventions with its compulsory licensing, not the Patent Act or the Bill of Rights. Let us not have any more of these falsehoods. Let us not have any more of these inaccurate, grandiose, 30-second clips by the Minister of corporate affairs, because that is not true at all.
That is the first point I want to make with regard to intellectual property rights. Let there be no mistake about it, Canada is not in breach of the International Patent Convention of 1904. Nor is it in breach of the Bill of Rights. As I found out from legal counsel in committee after questioning them extensively, it is not in contravention of GATT, not one iota. There is good law on the books now. I know that my colleagues to the left, the real left, would want me to make this point on their behalf. It is a spurious, fake, false argument to try to perpetrate against the Canadian people with regard to the law with which we are now dealing.
I was in Washington and spoke with legal counsel for Mr. Waxman who chairs that subcommittee. I spoke with Republican staffers as well as to Senators and Congressman. I was struck by the high cost of prescription drugs in the United States. They are phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal.
The law put forward in 1969 by a Liberal administration, and supported by the New Democratic Party, and the Conservative Party, has been working reasonably well for Canadians. It struck me even more I listened to the consumer advocate groups in the United States ask why the Canadian Government is now changing its laws to something similar to those in the United States? Does the Government not realize that consumers in the United States are paying phenomenal drug costs? Is that what the Government wants to do in Canada? I wanted to give an answer which would have supported my Government. But I believe that the evidence available, which has been submitted to committee, allows each reasonable individual to come to the conclusion that we will pay higher drug prices in Canada as a result of the Conservatives pushing through this Bill amending the Patent Act regarding the pharmaceuticals.
Canadians do not want any part of that. When the Minister suggests that 85 per cent of Canadians are on drug plans, he

August 21, 1987
Patent Act
fails to mention that over 1 million Canadians do not have a drug plan. He fails to mention that it is the taxpayer who pays through the nose for the pharmacare program in his or her province.
1 went to law school with an individual who has developed a great legal mind; I will not mention his name. He is now working for the Canadian auto workers union-a great guy. When he appeared before committee and the Members were questioning him he became somewhat insulted with the statement made earlier, and reiterated on that day, that union people should not be worried about C-22, as it does not affect them. He brought an important point to the attention of all Members, and I had hoped-perhaps hoping is too much- that Members opposite would have conceded the point, that when a union is negotiating a package of fringe benefits, whether it is salary, pharmacare, medicare, or whatever, there is only a certain size of pie. If companies have to spend much more money for pharmacare programs, it means there will be less money for the other things that are important to the rank and file union members.
Let me remind all Members that it is union members, through their hard-working constant toil as average working Canadians, who make the biggest contribution to this society. To say to them that they have to pay more for their drugs because the Government wants to see multinational corporations get fatter in profit is, to say the least, a bit unfair.
Why did the government Members on that committee not challenge that witness? Because he was right, that is why they did not challenge him. Now the Government would lead us to believe that it will not affect any Canadian. Although 85 per cent of Canadians are on drug plans paid for by taxpayers' money, over 1 million Canadians do not have a drug plan. Who will pay for them? The rank and file union card-carrying member will have to give up more in terms of bargaining with their employer, if they wish to maintain their pharmacare program with that particular company. Perhaps the Minister of corporate affairs and corporate interests does not refuse, but maybe he does not wish to share that with Members of the House, or indeed the Canadian people.
When we discuss intellectual property rights, let us be cognizant of prices. The Tory Government of Alberta believes there will be higher prices. The Governments of Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and Ontario believe there will be higher prices. But the Minister states that they are wrong, they do not know anything. They are paying for a pharmaceutical program in their provinces. They come before our committee, and the second Chamber and give evidence. They say that drug prices will rise, but the Minister says, "No, you are wrong. I am right". The Minister of corporate affairs then turns around and says, "But just in case prices do go up, I am going to put $100 million in a sock over here. As the prices go up, you will receive a little compensation". That is pretty nifty. A constituent said to me, that is pretty sleazy.
The difference between the pharmaceutical business and when the Government was attempting to deindex the pensions of senior citizens is that then it was taking it directly. Canadians saw first hand what a grab bag this Government was, how tough it was, and how it was going to fight the President of the United States. It was going to take money from 70-year-old people. The Mulroney Government is real tough. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is real tough. But in regard to the the pharmaceutical business it decided to learn from its mistakes and be sleazier, by sucking it in from the provinces. Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, P.E.l, Alberta, and other provinces will have to pay. That is the tough Brian Mulroney, the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada. That is the tough Canadian Government acting on behalf of our interests. I say that it ought to be ashamed. It now understands why the bottom has fallen out of its popularity since 1984. Its on a roller coaster which is going down, down, down, and down.


Some Hon. Members:: Once more!


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear the seals on the opposite side flapping. It is good to hear them because they know that what I say is the truth.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, come on! How is your Leader doing?


An Hon. Member:: Down, down, down, and down.


David Charles Dingwall: Is that a question, Mr. Speaker?
You see, Mr. Speaker, that is the Tory agenda, to be tough, real tough, just like the Member opposite. I say to the Conservatives Members of Parliament and the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that they and their Government will pay the ultimate price when they have the intestinal fortitude to go to the people. I suggest that they should go to the people now. Let us have a vote to see what the people think of the actions and behaviour of the Conservative Party.
That would be the true test, but we know that they are trying to finesse this. They are trying to slide it through, to get it by. The Minister said, "Well, you know, we had 87 hours of debate. That has been very long". Why should it not be long, Mr. Speaker? If it is in the best interest of the Canadian people, why not debate the substance of the Bill thoroughly? That is what we are here for.
The Minister of corporate affairs-


Mr. Edwards:: Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


David Charles Dingwall: Corporate affairs. The Member did not hear that we passed an Order in Council changing the name of the Minister's portfolio. He is now the Minister of corporate affairs. The Minister has said that there is a big saving grace out there called the Prices Review Board that will protect all
August 21, 1987

Canadians. Well, there is another eight-letter, two-word phrase that one could use. That is absolute and utter nonsense.
The Minister has before him a legal opinion from the Department of Justice saying that it is unconstitutional, but he will not table it because he knows that this is what it says. 1 challenged the Minister in committee saying that it was unconstitutional. A distinguished legal authority submitted a paper saying it was unconstitutional.
Let us keep in mind that profitable multinational corporations operating in this country since 1969 with employment at about 29 per cent as opposed to 4 per cent in manufacturing will now be given a 10-year period of exclusivity and the monitoring of a Prices Review Board. The first time anyone takes an action against them the multinationals will get a writ from the court to prevent that review board from operating. It will be in the court for a month or two months or two or three years. That is what the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the Conservative Government are doing. Are they not wonderful in trying to protect consumer interest?
The other thing about this Prices Review Board, Mr. Speaker, which you would appreciate enormously as a legal scholar-


Mr. Kempling:: You're not a legal scholar.


David Charles Dingwall: I object to the Member not agreeing that the Speaker is a distinguished legal scholar. I object very strongly.


William James Kempling: You are not a legal scholar.


David Charles Dingwall: It should be noted very clearly that this board has no authority at all to act, none whatsoever. The only authority it has is to react after the fact. Once you get socked by the multinational corporations half a dozen times and report it to the Minister of corporate affairs someone may review what has happened.


John V. Nunziata: That is shameful.


David Charles Dingwall: Is that not a beautiful, carte blanche power to print money? It is just unbelievable. The board has no authority. It can take one drug off the market if God comes down and sits on the rock and says to the people, "Tomorrow it will be sunny". The Government and the Cabinet are not concerned about the Canadian consumer. This is a Bill written for the multinational corporations.


John V. Nunziata: Why?


David Charles Dingwall: In a few moments we will get to the question in a few moments of why they would write a Bill that way. Prices are going up and there is no mechanism to control them. The Government is doing away with the compulsory licensing system put in place in 1969. I must point out something that is probably more fundamentally disturbing and shocking about the Government. In July of 1984 the Right Hon. Prime Minister was walking down the aisle telling everyone that they were going to get rid of the regulatory bodies which unfairly
Patent Act
fetter Canadians. Today the Prime Minister, like the Minister of corporate affairs, has swallowed himself again. He is putting in place a regulatory board, the Prices Review Board, something he said he was going to do away with in July of 1984. 1 have never seen such hypocrisy. However, Canadians have come to expect hypocrisy from the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the Government.
The Prime Minister has swallowed himself again and again. The Government cannot be trusted. The Government attacks rather than supports the Canadian consumer. It hurts the Canadian consumer who will pay dearly as a result of this legislation. I wanted to bring those facts to the attention of Members of this House, some of whom are concerned with what is taking place in that particular sector of our economy.
There is much more to be said with regard to the structure of the law as it now affects Canadians under Bill C-22. When we began this debate, the Minister of corporate affairs indicated that we wanted to distribute economic benefit, research and development and jobs throughout the country. In the dying days of this week, the Minister no longer alluded to that. Somehow, there will be nothing for people in Brandon, Manitoba. There will be nothing in this Bill for people in Fort McMurray, Alberta. There will be very little if anything for the people of British Columbia. What about the people in Moncton, New Brunswick, or Corner Brook, Newfoundland? Nothing for them.


William James Kempling: How about Tuktoyaktuk?


David Charles Dingwall: Or the Yukon. So you see, Mr. Speaker, the argument that there would be a distribution of economic benefits throughout this country was falsely put.
That is not to suggest that the Government should be condemned for having a national policy which puts benefits in only one or two areas of the country. However, the Government should be condemned for promising during the election campaign and for repeatedly telling us in the House of Commons that that was one of the purposes of this particular Bill.
I am not confident that the benefits the Government says may go, and I underline the word "may", to Montreal or the Province of Quebec will ever materialize. There is no guarantee of those jobs. There is no guarantee that research and development will take place in the Province of Quebec.
We heard from witnesses who suggested different ways and means of achieving that particular objective. The Science Council of Canada said that the Minister supports the Bill wholeheartedly. That in itself is a bit misleading because the Science Council, when asked if it would support amendments to ensure research and development jobs, said that of course it did. That is its clear objective.
It is very clear that there are no guarantees whatsoever for research and development taking place and jobs being created

mention that six provincial Governments wanted the Upper House to make amendments to Bill C-22. Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba and Alberta want changes, but the Minister, and the Prime Minister who is allegedly concerned about reconciliation with the provinces, are refusing the request of those provinces.
Then we have the Consumers' Association of Canada. They have a major role to play in this process and they appeared before the committee with a very good written brief. They are not in favour of Bill C-22 at all. The Canadian Hospital Association is concerned with the health of Canadians and they, too, are against Bill C-22. The National Anti-Poverty Organization, a group whose major responsibility is to assist those people who live below the poverty line, is against Bill C-22. The Federal Superannuates Association, a national body, is against Bill C-22 for fear, as evidenced in committee, that pharmaceutical prices are going to rise. The National Pensioners & Senior Citizens Federation, Green Shield Prepaid Services, and the Canadian Labour Congress are opposed to the Bill. The Canadian Nurses Association is opposed.
As you see, a great number of Canadians do not share the enthusiasm of the Government when it says this legislation will protect consumers, prices will not rise, and we will have more research and development and jobs. In fact, the majority of Canadians disagree whole-heartedly with the Government. The Canadian Drug Manufacturers' Association and the Canada Council on Social Development are opposed to Bill C-22. Yet the Minister says everything is wonderful. He says the academic community is so enthused and enthralled by this Bill that they are supporting it. That is not true. We had a distinguished professor from Dalhousie University make a submission to the committee. Professor Antoft said he was not in support of Bill C-22. Yet the Minister would lead you to believe that this is not true.
I think we have to be a little bit more accurate. I am sure the Minister could find one or two individuals in these different groups who may be in favour of some aspects of the Bill. However, there are other groups of ordinary Canadians who are opposed to Bill C-22. Yet, for whatever reasons, the Government has chosen to ignore their sentiments. I find that pretty disheartening.
Members of Parliament do not have to speak for the banks because the banks have sophisticated lobbyists. We do not have to speak for the multinational corporations because they have sophisticated legal counsel to do that. We do not have to speak for some national organizations because their sole objective is to get across their point of view regarding government policy. However, we do have to speak out on behalf of those ordinary Canadians who do not have a lobbying organization to do it for them.
Members of the Royal Canadian Legion made a submission opposed to Bill C-22. I have received many resolutions from different branches of the Legion which say how unfair and improper it would be for the Government to proceed as it is
Patent Act
proceeding today with this Bill. They also fear the tremendous impact of drug prices. They do not see any guarantee for research and development and jobs for Canadians who wish to become involved in that sector of our economy.
We even received briefs from the United Church of Canada and many church organizations across the country. But I guess they are all wrong as well. Are they wrong because they are ordinary people? Is it because they belong to organizations that perhaps do not have the wealth or the number of lobbyists such as the PMAC organization in Canada?
I find it rather disturbing that Members of Parliament would choose to ignore the cry from thousands upon thousands of Canadians about this Bill while, on the other hand, they have acted with due haste to appease their counterparts in the United States by passing Bill C-22 prior to a free trade agreement.
Consumers wanted a Minister who would speak and act for them. Instead, they have a Minister of corporate affairs who chooses not to speak for them and chooses to act against them.
Other evidence has been made available. It is from an internationally acclaimed American whom we hoped to have come to the committee. However, due to procedural and secret motions by the Government, if you will, we were prevented from having him appear. I am talking of Ralph Nader.
Many people may ask why we would refer to an American and want to involve him in a debate on a Canadian subject. During our committee hearings we heard a very forceful presentation from PMAC, which is the group organized to service and lobby on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Association in Canada. The individual who made that presentation was an American citizen residing in Canada.
When we attempted to get others before the committee who may have come from the United States, we were told that we would not be able to do so. The Government did not want to hear from Bill Haddad or from Congressman Henry WaXman who heads the subcommittee on the high price of pharmaceuticals in the United States. Yet, at the same time, the Minister tells us that the procedure we will be using in Canada when Bill C-22 is adopted is more in line with what is taking place in the United States. It would only seem right and just that we would want to at least hear from individuals, consumers, senior citizens, consumer advocate groups and even multinational corporations in the United States if we were moving toward a system similar to that in the United States. However, we were not allowed to do so and only heard from one group, represented by an American citizen.
I want to quote Ralph Nader because I think what he said is significant. In an open letter to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), he said: "The Canadian Government is close to making a very serious mistake by choosing corporate wealth over the Canadian public's health".

August 21, 1987
Patent Act
This person has been concerned with issues affecting consumers. We have seen Mr. Nader's very able work and presentations concerning the automobile industry in this country. I suggest to those Members who do not wish to hear anything about consumer groups in the United States that he had a very major impact on increasing the safety of our automobiles in Canada.
He stated in his open letter to the Prime Minister and on national television that we had a pretty good system and that the Government was giving up large sums of money to the multinational corporations in return for a whim or promise that they will provide new jobs and research and development.
Canada looks quite stupid and naive in the eyes of many countries. We are on our knees to the United States, from a foreign policy perspective, in order to consummate a free trade agreement. While we are on our knees, we dip into our pockets and say, "Take it all" as it relates to pharmaceuticals and the high cost of prescription drugs. While we are giving the money away, the multinational corporations are getting much larger profits. Not only are they getting much larger profits, they are being given a ten-year period of exclusivity in return for a promise to do certain things in the next ten years.
Canadian foreign policy with respect to trade and trade irritants is a joke among many countries. It is not hard to understand why. It is one thing to negotiate, but the Government is giving up a system about which Bill Haddad of the United States generic industry said: "You are the envy of the western world".
1 do not distrust multinational corporations. It is a matter of accepting one's role as a legislator and one who is concerned about public policy. It is only fair, reasonable and objective. The Government of Canada should get off its knees, put its hands back in its pockets, and say to the United States: "There will be no changes to the Patent Act as you have requested, but we will change it to what we believe is in the best interests of the Canadian pharmaceutical industry".
I find the activities of the Government, our Prime Minister and those who have surrounded him in this process, to be very un-Canadian and completely unfair to Canadian interests. Ministers of the Crown come into this House and refer to the generic industry as scavengers. That is not only insulting but downright rude and ugly. Generic pharmaceutical companies employ people. They have deadlines to meet and debts to pay, and, yes, they have to pay a royalty, a fee, to the inventor of a particular product.
Profit is not a dirty word, but protecting consumers ought not to be a dirty word either. Guaranteeing research and development ought not to be a dirty word. But it seems, from the evidence produced by the Minister of corporate affairs and by the Prime Minister, that their one motive, their one principle of operation, is to assist multinational corporations in gaining larger and larger profits. We give away. We get
nothing in return. In the interim we sock it to the Canadian people through the backdoor of provincial Governments which have to pay higher drug costs.
I do not want to have a major confrontation with the United States. I do not think it is necessary. But as a sovereign nation, as a country, we have to be counted. We should not be tough on our senior citizens. What a joke this Government is. It wanted to deindex the pension of my grandmother and all grandmothers. It wanted to deindex people on fixed incomes. That takes a lot of intestinal fortitude. It failed because the Canadian people rose up in arms against the Government. But now the toughness of the Right Hon. Prime Minister is seen once more. He is saying to widows, to people on fixed income, to people whose particular job is not protected, that they will have to pay a higher price for drugs. He is saying to labour and to union people that they must pay higher premiums for the benefits they wish to receive from their collective agreements. Perhaps someone should have sat on the President's knee and whispered: "No, no, no", instead of: "Yes, yes, yes, Ronnie, Sir". It is terrible that Canadian parliamentarians have to say these things in this Chamber. But the issues are fundamental. They are substantive. They go to the core, in my view, of Canadian sovereignty and what this country is all about.
1 do not want Canada to start breaking international agreements. I do not want Canada to be out of sync with other nations. But the Minister of corporate affairs has refused to acknowledge, or display to the House, that there are countries throughout the world who have a different policy in relation to the pharmaceutical industry, such as Japan, for instance. One cannot walk into Japan as a multinational corporation and operate overnight. They have to co-venture with someone in that country. India has different patent laws than most countries. The period they give, I think, is six years to seven years of exclusivity. But Canada goes on its knees, money in hand, and says: "Here, take it all".


Mr. Daubney:: That is unbelievable.


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Member opposite says it is hard to believe. I know it is hard to believe.


David Bruce Daubney: Your misrepresentations are hard to believe.


David Charles Dingwall: But the Hon. Member is pretty tough. He, like his Leader, can sit in this great Chamber with its beautiful furniture and be very tough. But I will bet you, Mr. Speaker, that when he has to knock on doors he will say: "It really was not me in favour of that Bill. It was the Prime Minister. It was not me. I was there behind the curtain but I was there". It will be a different story then. So I tell every Member opposite not to try, as Members of the Government, to perpetrate in the next election-


John V. Nunziata: A fraud.
August 21, 1987


David Charles Dingwall: I would not say a "fraud". The fact is that they never stood up to be counted for Canadian interests. They are sitting on their hands doing nothing.


David Bruce Daubney: 1 am in favour of it. It is good for Canada.
Mr Dingwall: The Hon. Member from Ottawa does not want to accept the fact that, like the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada, they speak with a forked tongue. They say one thing when they are on the hustings and do another thing when they are in the boardrooms of this country.


John V. Nunziata: That is the Conservative way.


David Charles Dingwall: That is the Tory way. Aid and abet at any cost the multinational corporations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I would ask him to withdraw the remark he made about the Prime Minister.


David Charles Dingwall: Sure. It is withdrawn. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, generous soul that you are.
This situation created by Members opposite is very obvious. They want to sit in this Chamber and talk about helping consumers, as do many Hon. Members, but when it comes to the facts or to the point where legislation is on the table which could assist and help Canadian consumers, they hide behind the fear of a breach of the international convention, which has never happened. It is a fear that we are not in sync with what is taking place in the United States. I have never seen such belly-flappers. I have never seen such seals who would flap to the tune of the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I have never seen a Government that goes on its knees as much as this Government does. Every Member opposite will have to answer for this.
Canadians wanted a Government that would represent their best interests and not go abroad to embarrass Canada. This Government has embarrassed Canada and Canadians. I guess the proof is in Decima or Gallup whose poll results show undeniably that Members opposite are on a roller-coaster going down, down, down. Members opposite had an opportunity, and they still have it, to do what is right, to vote against Bill C-22. I for one would stand in my place to applaud them if they were to do that. They still have an opportunity to do what is right.


John V. Nunziata: But do they have the courage?


David Charles Dingwall: As my distinguished colleague asks: "Do they have the courage?"	Do	they	have	the courage to representCanadian interests?	Do	they	have	the courage to representtheir constituents?	Or	will	they	continue to accept thedirectives given to them by the	President of the United States?
Some of them probably cherish the idea that Canada might
Patent Act
become the fifty-first state of the United States. I do not. I think their behaviour is somewhat despicable.
Ralph Nader made some comments which the Minister has yet to address-


David Bruce Daubney: I thought we weren't supposed to listen to Americans. Be consistent!


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Member says: "Be consistent". He ought to be consistent. It was his Party, approved and affirmed by the Canadian Ambassador in Washington, who accepted pressure from multinational corporations to change the Canadian law and to make it in tune with the American law. All we have asked for on this side of the House is for some degree of discussion and dialogue with those individuals in the United States who are familiar with that legislation. That request has been refused. Why has it been refused? What are they afraid of? It is obvious what Members opposite are afraid of. It will be confirmed that we in Canada will pay higher drug prices, that our provincial Governments will have to pay more.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Charles Dingwall: Hon. Members opposite can shake their heads all they want. The fact of the matter is that a Tory Government in the Province of Nova Scotia has said that Nova Scotians will pay $25 million more as a result of Bill C-22. Those are the facts.
Some Hon. Members can be hoodwinked by the multinational corporations and by senior members of the Cabinet as to what this Bill does. The fact of the matter is that ordinary, average Canadians will have to pay the price in terms of higher drug prices in Canada. What will they get in return? They get a promise that there may be economic development and jobs. How many jobs will be created in Calgary; Fort McMurray; Brandon, Manitoba; Moncton, New Brunswick; Summerside, Prince Edward Island; Bathurst, New Brunswick? Not one. Members opposite have the unmitigated gall to suggest that we are only hearing one side of the argument. Yes, we are only hearing one side of the argument, and that is the multinational side.


Alan Redway: Sit down!


David Charles Dingwall: Perhaps the Hon. Member would like to participate in the debate?


Alan Redway: Sure I would. Another filibuster by the Hon. Member.


David Charles Dingwall: It is not a filibuster. The Hon. Member should know that the Minister of corporate affairs took a full hour to explain how his Government wants to enhance, aid and abet the multinational corporations. That is what he did. I think I should get reasonable time to stand in my place and to speak on behalf of consumers of the country who are not being protected or enhanced by the Government of the day. They are being raped by the Government of the day. Money is being

August 21, 1987
Nuclear Liability Act
taken out of their pockets as a result of the actions that this Government will put in place. That is what will happen, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps 1 could be helpful to my colleague who is speaking on Bill C-22 and invite him to turn the page. He is repeating what he started out to stay at the beginning of his speech. He may need to go on to the next page.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall) has the floor for the next three minutes for today.


David Charles Dingwall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would have thought that Members opposite would have wanted to stand in their places and say: "Yes. We have finally seen the light. We now agree that Bill C-22 ought to be defeated". I thought the Hon. Member from British Columbia would have done that. But knowing the brainwashing, the arm-twisting that has gone on, knowing that government consultants have been working day and night, knowing that PMAC has been around to all the various Members, particularly members of the committee, and knowing that the pressure that the Prime Minister has placed on caucus members, I can understand-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the Hon. Member aware that the only speech given in the House in the last 15 years which was longer than his was one given by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)? He was defeated in the election that followed his speech. We hope that the same thing will happen to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). I encourage him to continue.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank the Hon. Member for his observation. I suggest this to him. Perhaps he would avail me of the opportunity and we could have in my constituency, since he seems to be so concerned, a public forum and a debate with regard to the provisions of Bill C-22. Would the Hon. Member consent to that? I hope that he will.
In conclusion, this Government has abdicated its responsibilities to Canadian consumers. It has gone on its knees to the United States. It has refused to accept the fact that Canadian consumers are being hosed by multinational corporations as a result of Bill C-22.
I call it two o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PRIVATE BILLS   NUCLEAR LIABILITY ACT MEASURETO AMEND
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) moved: that Bill C-215, an Act to amend the Nuclear Liability Act (limitation period), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Bill C-215, an Act to amend the Nuclear Liability Act, deals specifically with Section 13 of the legislation that passed through this place in 1970, and was proclaimed in 1976. It is a reasonably easy Bill for Members of the House to understand, and it removes 21 words of the section which states:
and in no case shall any such action be brought after ten years from the date
the cause of action arose.
My Bill eliminates those words, which refer to the statutory limitation and which I think I will be able to demonstrate over the next 20 minutes are not in the interest of workers in the nuclear industry or of the Canadian public.
I began work on this Bill six years ago with the Canadian Environmental Law Association. Even though it took six years to reach the floor, I am pleased that it is finally here. I hope that members of the Liberal Party and whichever member of the Government speaks, will allow sufficient time for a vote to be taken on this, so it can go to committee and come back to the House to become law.
Currently there are 22 nuclear reactors operating or under construction in Canada in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick. Bill C-215 is designed for the protection of workers in the nuclear industry, and those who might be advertently or inadvertently exposed to radiation. It is also for the protection of the rights of those who could be exposed should there be an accident at some point in relation to one of our nuclear facilities, or the waste that is stored at various sites in the country.
The legal liability question is an enormous one facing the country. It is presently set at $75 million, which as anybody in the House will know is completely insufficient to deal with even a very small amount of litigation. The 10-year statute of limitation on actions from the date of the cause of action, precludes the overwhelming majority of workers who would be exposed to a long period of low body loadings of radiation, or those who may be exposed to higher doses at some point from taking any action. As we have learned from a variety of studies I will be referring to, most cancers related to the nuclear industry appear more than 10 years after the date of exposure.
Earlier this year the U.S. Congress took this issue very seriously. They voted almost unanimously to raise the liability in relation to U.S. reactors from $705 million U.S. to $7 billion U.S. A recent study commissioned by the U.S. Government and conducted by Sandia National Laboratories found
August 21, 1987

that the possible damage from a nuclear accident in most areas of the United States would likely run in the neighbourhood of $420 billion.
According to the Porter Royal Commission, the risk of a reactor accident in Canada is 100 times higher than the official industry estimates. The likelihood of a Candu accident in our country now runs to about one in every 500 years.
There has been growing concern and focus on this issue. There have been a number of lawsuits that I will be referring to later.
Earlier this year Dr. Harry Griffiths, Chief of Radiology at Toronto General Hospital, swore an affidavit before the Supreme Court of Ontario concluding that radiation from reactors can cause cancer as well as genetic mutation and birth defects.
The benefits of lifting the 10-year statutory limitation are for all Canadians, particularly in providing greater safety for the workers and those who could be exposed as a result of closer scrutiny both by inspectors and other agencies such as the insurance agency.
It would have been great, Mr. Speaker, if there had been no Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. But they have occurred, and it is time for Canada to start conducting the type of scrutiny that has long been required.
One of the documents that I will be referring to is the catalogue of medical effects from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although these studies are still incomplete, it is probably the most thorough medical study that has been done in the history of the nuclear age. It catalogues studies of intrauterine effects on children who were born with severe mental retardation, small head size, and so on, beginning at exposures as low as 50 rads. Growth retardation and cataracts have been tracked now for more than 40 years. Cancer and leukemia became noticeable and measurable by about 1950 in relation to those who were being tracked by medical experts. And by 1960, thyroid cancer started to be tracked. A number of other cancers have been tracked and catalogued during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It is quite clear from the long-term medical studies that have been done that many types of cancers related to radiation do not appear for 20, 30, or 40 years.
This experience led to an article in the August, 1985 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. It is a short quotation but it sums up the medical information from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It reads:
The experience of the atomic bomb survivors presents the most significant
possibility that the exact relation between radiation dose and cancer incidence
can be derived from human data.
A great deal of work has been done in this country recently in articles and other activities by David Poch, a lawyer who works for Energy Probe in Toronto. Mr. Poch made some important observations that were run in The Vancouver Sun on January 20, 1987, and I quote:
Nuclear Liability Act
Union Carbide, CP Rail, and other industrial giants involved in risky business face the sobering reality that if they harm a community or its inhabitants they're on the hook for the damage caused.
That is to be expected. Canadian law-quite sensibly-makes industries liable for their negligence.
But courtesy of our federal government, there is one glaring exception to the rule-the nuclear industry.
Members of this fraternity can lie, cheat, steal, fabricate safety documents and engineering specifications, and knowingly sell faulty products to unsuspecting utilities without facing any civil liability-
To compound the public's protection problems, Canadian insurance companies protect their solvency by excluding coverage for nuclear accidents in every homeowner insurance policy-
An inevitable side effect of the act-
That being the Nuclear Liability Act, Mr. Speaker,
-because it lets the risk makers off the hook-is to remove important incentives to accident prevention. Not only do GE and Westinghouse have less incentive to be careful, but the insurance industry is less likely to scrutinize nuclear companies or to suggest safety improvements, as it does in other sectors.
Mr. Poch has hit the nail on the head as to the problems that are created by having a lack of scrutiny in the industry. The liability limits and the statute of limitations place all of the risks on the communities at large, the workers at large, and the Canadian taxpayers.
The possibility of willful deception is something that has to be addressed. Every other industry in Canada must face the reality that if it damages property and injures or kills Canadians, it is on the hook for the damage caused.
Some excellent studies have been done in relation to various recent nuclear disasters. Of course, the most recent on this continent was the Three Mile Island. Work has been done by a person by the name of Molholt in the United States. There is an excellent quote here in relation to studies that were done by a limited number of people where attempts were made by the nuclear industry and certain state agencies to discredit, but they are now recognized as being accurate. I would like to quote again from an article by David Poch that was published in Harrowsmith. It says:
Molholt's work confirms a doubled infant mortality rate and a tripled neonatal hypothyroid rate in areas downwind. "We took 17 incidents of the metallic taste, burning skin and so on and plotted them against the wind rose-the chart of where the winds were blowing during the worst emissions," Molholt says. "Sixteen of the 17 cases correlated precisely to radiation releases from Three Mile Island. In the long run, it seems, people are the most reliable dosimeters."
Marjorie Aamodt says, "The state held our study a year, doubled our statistical base, did all the manipulating they could and still came up with a cancer rate of almost 2 1/2 times normal."
It is clear that in the United States, the U.S. Congress has at least recognized the need for greater liability coverage. In this country, we have failed to recognize the need for a massive extension of the period within which lawsuits can be brought against an agency responsible for an accident because of the long latency period of cancers. The liability level in the United States was at $75 million. It is now at $7 billion U.S. per reactor. That is certainly an interesting distinction among the

August 21, 1987
Nuclear Liability Act
responses of respective legislatures to the rights of our respective citizens.
Surely industry must be held responsible for the risks that they create for the workers and for the public. Present financial and time limitations are more than just inadequate, they are counter-productive. Risk assessments should be done, for example, by the insurance industry and by federally appointed and hired inspectors who have a much broader and more significant mandate.
The consequences of a nuclear accident are no longer conjecture. As a result of the Chernobyl accident there are 31 dead and medical estimates of 10,000 serious genetic abnormalities and so on.
On May 9 of this year a federal judge in the State of Utah ruled on the U.S. Government's negligence in relation to open air tests of weapons done from 1951 to 1962. The judge, Bruce Jenkins, said the following:
Employees of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), working in the 1950's at the Nevada test site, failed to warn the nearby populace adequately about the dangers of fallout exposure. They subsequently failed to monitor the fallout exposure adequately. They also failed to inform the populace adequately about "well-known and inexpensive methods" to minimize the damage once fallout exposure had occurred. "As a direct and proximate result of such negligent failures-(the government) unreasonably placed plaintiffs or their predecessors at risk of injury," the judge said. Only one of the ten cancer victims survived.
On April 27 of this year, precisely one year to the day after the Chernobyl accident, Energy Probe and 11 others filed an application in the Supreme Court of Ontario asking the court to strike down the Nuclear Liability Act for many of the reasons that 1 have put on the record today. I would like to quote the remarks of Norman Rubin on the day of the filing of that suit. He said:
We believe that by reducing or eliminating the nuclear industry's civil liability for accidents, this law removes an important incentive for the industry to reduce the risk of a Canadian Chernobyl. The industry keeps telling us 'It can't happen here,' but they insist on financial protection just in case. We want them to put their money where their mouth is.
Energy Probe alleges that the Nuclear Liability Act reduces security of the person and denies victims of a nuclear accident equality before the law. Joining with Energy Probe in the effort are George Martin from the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada, Dr. Douglas Alton, staff radiologist from Toronto, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Dr. Ursula Franklin, Dr. Harry Griffiths, Dr. John Hepburn, Dr. Dermot McLoughlin, Dr. Stan Segel, Dr. Hari Sharma, Dr. David Suzuki and Dr. Lynn Trainor, all of whom have backgrounds in one way or another with chemistry, physics, radiology or genetics. They join in challenging the propriety and appropriateness of the Nuclear Liability Act as it now stands.
The lawyer representing the case is Clayton Ruby, certainly one of Canada's most brilliant and best known barristers. His remarks are worth having on the record as well. I quote:
This law has created one set of rules for the nuclear industry and a different set for everyone else. It allows GE or Westinghouse to supply nuclear plants with defective parts without any financial liability whatsoever should those parts fail and cause an accident. Every other industry is forced to stand behind its products. But in the case of the nuclear industry, where an accident could kill thousands of people and cause billions in property damage, the public has been stripped of its right to its day in court.
In Mr. Ruby's view, this loss of fundamental justice is contrary to Canada's Constitution and should be struck down. Once that happens it is anyone's guess whether the industry will want to stay in operation.
Mr. Ruby continued:
The industry has always claimed the public was irrational to fear reactor accidents, and it may decide to show the world that there's nothing to fear by putting its own money on the line. Or, as 1 think more likely, the nuclear industry will conclude that a serious accident is too likely to bankrupt the industry, and turn its formidable skills to more productive uses.
Even as recently as yesterday we saw what kind of response the nuclear industry makes to concerns raised, even by its own watchdog agency. Earlier this year, in a document drafted by Atomic Energy of Canada, federal regulators made a number of recommendations which are now being pooh-poohed by the nuclear industry as being unnecessary.
However, allow me to point out the following recommendations that were made. The document shows that concerns about the safety of Candu reactors were raised by the Atomic Energy Control Board, the agency charged with watching over Canada's nuclear industry. The document, titled Current Safety and Licensing Issues and presented to a meeting earlier this year, recommended that the Canadian nuclear industry make 13 changes, including additional complex research into reactor behaviour, installation of extra safety equipment, making minor but significant changes to reactor designs, and changing some operating procedures.
For example, the federal regulators are proposing the installation of new equipment to prevent the build-up of hydrogen that they say could cause a fire at the Gentilly-2 reactor operated by Hydro-Quebec and the Point Lepreau reactor operated by New Brunswick Power Corporation.
However, the nuclear industry, through Roger Humphries, an official with Atomic Energy's Candu designed headquarters responds as follows:
If we're going to survive as a commercial entity, we have to be careful not to increase the cost of our product without increasing the safety.
When it comes to the issue of safety, if the regulatory body is making recommendations that it feels are necessary for the safety of the workers in the facility or for the communities nearby, then surely there is an incumbent responsibility on those in charge of the Candu reactor sites to ensure that those changes are promptly and properly implemented, not set aside.
The stall on this rather simple amendment to remove the statute of limitations of 10 years is ludicrous. The workers at those sites are provided with all kinds of protective equipment and the body dose loadings which they get are generally very low and over a very long period of time. The evidence with
August 21, 1987

regard to the latency period of cancers now demonstrates that the kinds of cancers which those workers might get would appear over a very long period of time. That existing clause precludes them from ever having a day in court or any right to financial compensation to assist them or their families in the future.
In terms of accidents it is very clear that that clause should be removed because it would be almost impossible for those exposed at the time of an accident to have their case properly heard before a court. In fact, I agree with the arguments of Mr. Ruby and Energy Probe that the Nuclear Liability Act is contrary to the intent of our Charter.
This matter has been dealt with in a variety of ways, perhaps most energetically by the Canadian Environmental Law Association. However, it has been allowed to lag seriously. 1 have a letter of September of 1981 from Marc Lalonde, the then Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who wrote to Ms. G. Patterson of the Canadian Environmental Law Association advising CELA that he, as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, supported the proposed change that I am introducing here today, but said the following:
Dear Ms. Patterson:
Thank you for your letter of July 22, 1981 on the subject of revisions to the Nuclear Liability Act. I can assure you that we have not been neglecting this subject and in fact have come to the conclusion that we agree with the intent of your proposed amendment.
However, our experience of operating with this Act for the past five years has shown up other areas where amendment is equally desirable. Discussions have been initiated by the AECB with other affected federal departments aimed at pulling together a complete package of these proposed amendments.
As for the time at which these would be introduced to the House of Commons it would be misleading to be very optimistic when I consider the history of the original Act and the extensive legislation program already ahead of us.
That was six years ago that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his Department agreed that the step about which we are talking today was necessary. If it was necessary six years ago, it is even more necessary today. I think the epidemiological evidence which I have put very briefly before the House, the studies of the effects of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the problems that this entire Act faces in being contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, do not leave too many arguments, I would hope, to be dispelled either by the Government or the Liberal Members who might speak.
[DOT] (M20)
I hope that during this hour, we will have an opportunity to vote and send this Bill to committee so that something good can be done for Canadians. I hope we will be able to take something out of a piece of legislation passed by this House in order to make the country safer for the workers and the public generally.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me to speak on Private Member's Bill C-215 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for
Nuclear Liability Act
Skeena (Mr. Fulton), an Act to amend the Nuclear Liability Act (limitation period).
Those in the House, in my constituency and in the media who know me will be astounded to realize that I have become an instant fresh-frozen expert on nuclear energy. However, that seems to be a lot better than becoming an instantly fresh-fried victim of a nuclear accident.
The survivors of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island know that. Those Canadians, including myself, who are almost frantic about nuclear energy or who have heard and read about its frightening powers, those of us living and of future generations, can well sympathize with the thrust of the Hon. Member's Bill.
As an example of this, the fear of radiation in any form scares the hell out of my own family. Only this past week, I convinced my wife that a microwave oven was safe. As a result, the cubic-foot monster will enter our home later this afternoon.
If my 15-year-old son Liam were standing in my place right now, I am sure he would urge the banning of the entire Atomic Energy Control Board and would shield himself from everyone who comes in contact with the Canadian nuclear industry. I hasten to add that that will not be necessary. 1 hope to assure my son and others that they should not over-react.
I can understand why Canadians might wish to over-react concerning the safety of nuclear energy, but we have come to know both the benefits and the risks of nuclear energy. The benefits of economical, reliable, convenient nuclear-generated electricity must be utilized in cognizance of the related risks, as we have been reminded by the Chernobyl incident. We as legislators must ensure that Canadians enjoy a very favourable risk-benefit balance by providing effective legislation to both ensure the safety and security of nuclear energy and to provide for emergency planning and liability compensation should that ever be required. That is always a concern and a worry.
The Atomic Energy Control Act constitutes and empowers the Atomic Energy Control Board to ensure that nuclear energy is exploited with careful and thorough consideration of the health, safety and security interests of all Canadians. In this respect, the record of the Atomic Energy Control Board and of the regulated Canadian nuclear industry is exemplary. In the unlikely event-and I would urge the Hon. Member for Skeena to listen to that word "unlikely"-that anything should occur in Canada, the Nuclear Liability Act provides the means of compensating Canadians and neighbouring Americans in the case of claims resulting from personal injury and property damage. As the Hon. Member will be aware, since its implementation in 1976, there has not been a single claim made under the Nuclear Liability Act.
The Nuclear Liability Act, as are similar Acts in other nuclear nations, is based on the concept of absolute liability of the nuclear plant operator. The operator is absolutely liable for damages no matter what the cause of the incident giving rise

August 21, 1987
Nuclear Liability Act
to the damages. Such an approach avoids long delays in the addressing of claims as may result from legal proceedings to determine responsibility and liability for the incident giving rise to the damages. This absolute liability extends up to a limit of $75 million for each designated nuclear installation and extends certain time limits with respect to the bringing of claims under the Act.
Such dollar and time limitations are necessary to define clearly the boundaries of the operator's absolute liability. Claims in excess of $75 million give rise to the establishment of a nuclear damage claims commission which addresses such claims and which may recommend their compensation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. How much more justice could there be for Canadians than that? The absolute liability of the operator and time limitations to that absolute liability were designated to create a liability structure which fairly and effectively serves the interests of both the potential claimant and the nuclear plant operator.
The Nuclear Liability Act provides for several time limitations on the bringing of actions. No person may bring an action for injury or property damage more than three years after the earliest date upon which the person had knowledge or ought reasonably to have had knowledge of the injury or damage. In the case of a claim for loss of life, it may not be brought more than three years after the death of the person. Where conclusive evidence of the death of the person is not available, the claim may not be brought more than three years after a court order is made presuming the person to be dead. However, in no case may a claim be made more than 10 years from the date the cause of action arose.
In summary, there is an absolute limit of 10 years from the time that the damage or injury occurred and a limit of three years from the time a person knew or ought to have known of the injury or damage for the initiation of a claim under the Act. It is the 10-year limitation from the time the damage or injury occurred which is the subject of the Bill we are debating this afternoon.
At issue is the proposition that a 10-year limitation period is not adequate for the manifestation and identification of longer-term radiation-induced injuries such as cancer. Indeed, it is generally accepted and medical experience confirms that a long period of time may elapse between a serious radiation exposure and the manifestation of a radiation-induced injury such as cancer. This period of time may be as long as 30 years or more and is quite likely to exceed the 10-year limitation period currently defined by Section 13 of the Nuclear Liability Act. Consequently, persons who may be injured by radiation exposure resulting from a nuclear incident may be excluded from the bringing of claims by the latency period of the radiation-induced injury such as cancer.
The Hon. Member's Bill proposes not that the 10-year limitation period be extended but rather that it be abolished completely. As such, the proposal overlooks the fact that there must be a fair and just balance struck between the interests of
the injured claimant and those of the absolutely liable nuclear plant operator. Although abolishing the 10-year limitation period would be very much to the advantage of potential claimants, it may significantly and unfairly extend the absolute liability of the nuclear plant operator and leave him in an open-ended situation against which he may not be able to indemnify himself.
In the interests of balance, fairness and justice to the potential claimant and the nuclear plant operator, I believe that the period of limitation should be finite and should be set at 30 years. In view of the current medical knowledge and experience in the field of radiation-induced injury, this would permit injured parties to lay claims in most cases. Should any potential claims be identified after the 30-year period, they would be expected to be very few in number and could be dealt with through the normal court process. Such a 30-year limitation period has already been adopted in several other nuclear liability jurisdictions including West Germany, Austria, Belgium and Denmark. In addition, the U.S. has already increased its absolute liability period from 10 to 20 years and this is expected to increase further in the future to the international norm of 30 years.
I believe we should defeat this motion. I believe a fair, balanced and effective approach would be to extend the current 10-year limitation period to 30 years. It would well serve the interests of both the potential claimant and the nuclear plant operator and would make our legislation consistent with the developing international norm.
Furthermore, and in conclusion, I believe such an amendment would be made as part of an over-all review of the Nuclear Liability Act currently being completed by the interdepartmental working group referred to earlier. Such an approach will ensure that the review and amendment of the Nuclear Liability Act is done in a comprehensive and consistent manner so that the effectiveness of this very important piece of legislation will be enhanced to the greatest possible degree.
I thank the Hon. Member for Skeena for his earlier comments and I thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak on behalf of the amendment suggested by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), and to support it completely.
I welcome the statement made by the government Member who said that the Government favours a 30-year liability period. If the Government is of that mind, then why not send this Bill to committee? If a modification has to be made, I am sure the Hon. Member for Skeena would at least consider it. Anything suggested by the Hon. Member for Hamilton- Wentworth (Mr. Scott) would be preferable to the situation that exists with the Nuclear Liability Act as it presently stands.
August 21, 1987

No one argues with the fact that we have not had a claim under this Act and we all consider ourselves fortunate. However, that is no reason for delaying the protection of Canadians in the future. After all, we have not had a nuclear war yet, but we still have billions of dollars being spent on deterrent forces.
We have to be careful that we do not become blase about the potential danger of a nuclear disaster originating at one of our nuclear stations. Our protection under this Act is woefully inadequate as it presently stands. As the Hon. Member for Skeena said, the maximum liability is $75 million. This is not enough by any stretch of the imagination to protect the safety of Canadians. No one will be able to be compensated adequately if they are injured in any way in a nuclear accident. Surely they are entitled to more protection than the Act presently gives them.
The Hon. Member's motion proposes:
-and in no case shall any such action be brought after ten years from the date the cause of action arose.
I want to speak to that from two points of view. First, the 10-year period is woefully inadequate, as the Hon. Member said. He acknowledged that the Government is considering extending it. In the U.K., for instance, there is a 30-year period. The U.S. has increased it to 20 years or three years from the time the injury became apparent, whichever occurs first. There is now legislation before Congress to remove the 20-year limitation and make it three years from the time the injury became apparent. That is a very significant point. As has been said here today, it may be years before an injury resulting from a nuclear accident becomes apparent. It could be as long as 30 to 40 years according to the testimony of experts in this field. I would say that it is compulsory that we consider this point today and send this Bill to committee.
What is our position in Canada? Not only do we have an inadequate period of time, 10 years, but it is 10 years from the date the cause of action arose. We know it could be 30 or 40 years after the accident before a problem showed itself. Obviously the way it is now is inadequate because people will not have the opportunity to make a claim after they become aware of the injury. Certainly the Government is studying this question, but how long do we have to wait? On May 12 I asked Mr. Robert Blackburn, Director of Planning and Administration Branch of the Atomic Energy Control Board about this and he said:
The Act provides a 10-year limitation period as Mr. MacLellan refers to. This is one of the issues currently being addressed ... It is a generally accepted fact that the latency period for radiation-induced cancer can be considerably longer than 10 years. It could be 30 years in some cases. The interdepartmental working group is very much aware of that. We are making use of the medical information. That is one of the key issues being reviewed and we hope to make a recommendation.
When 1 asked when we could expect such a recommendation he said:
Nuclear Liability Act
We expect to have a report which would include that recommendation before the Atomic Energy Control Board, the five-member board, at its next meeting on June 17.
We are now past that date by over two months and the matter remains unresolved. We cannot continue to have this stalling on this very important matter. We have to come to grips with it. This Bill must go to committee and 1 support the Hon. Member completely.
There are others who have said, "Well, we have limitation periods for all injuries". The statute of limitations says six years. That is for personal injuries which arise through the normal course of events, through unforeseen situations. Here we have a government-sponsored energy creating device which has been put in place in the interests of the Canadian people. This is not a hit or miss situation. This is an organized program. As such, the people of Canada have the right to be completely protected from any ill effects which may arise therefrom.
It is not sufficient, as the Hon. Member for Hamilton- Wentworth said, to say we need a definitive amount so the producers of nuclear power can be assured of a maximum amount for which they would be liable. All nuclear stations in this country are run by Governments. Governments have no right to put a price tag on the safety of Canadians. Governments have an obligation to protect Canadians as much as they possibly can. If something goes amiss, the health of Canadians is put at risk or in fact damaged, then Government has an obligation to compensate these people as much as it possibly can. It is not right to place a maximum of $75 million on that compensation.
We have talked recently about the defects of the Candu system as detected by the Atomic Energy Control Board. We have talked about the fact that AECL has been reluctant to make changes that would fix these defects. In this day and age it is incredible that we would be even having a dialogue about this. They say we have to make changes to correct the defects and we are saying we do not think these changes are necessary. This is all in the spirit of negotiation. It is in the spirit of risking the safety of Canadians, that is what it is. This seems to be the thrust right through the whole piece. The safety of Canadians is not important. Money is more important. Yet money will never compensate Canadians for a nuclear accident.
We have to be cognizant of the fact that such a situation can occur. Not only do Canadians deserve reasonable compensation but it is important that the Government recognize its obligation. Only through doing so with a reasonable liability period and a reasonable maximum liability will the Government take as seriously as it should its obligation to make the nuclear system in Canada as safe as it can possibly be.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) as well as that given by my colleague. The Hon. Member for

August 21, 1987
Nuclear Liability Act
Skeena quoted a letter by Mr. Ruby of Energy Probe, and quoted another letter in which it is alleged that the suppliers of material for nuclear reactors in Canada and, I assume, in the United States, are lying and deceitful, that the merchandise they are selling is faulty. 1 think those allegations, which were not made by the Member for Skeena, but which he read into the record, are most serious. If he believes that that information and those allegations are correct, then I, as a Member from British Columbia which has a well known stance on nuclear reactors, would urge him to bring that information to the attention of the Minister responsible and, indeed, to all his colleagues in the House. If such an allegation is correct, it means that we are playing with the lives of Canadians and we must either prove or put to rest those allegations once and for all.
The intent of the Bill is to expand the time frame of liability with respect to exposure to radiation. That is not an unusual request. The evidence introduced by the Member for Skeena would suggest that there is a very good read out on that disastrous occurrence at Hiroshima.
I suggest, however, that there is a difference between the radiation impact of that nuclear explosion and the events of Chernobyl or what might flow from a minor but nevertheless deadly leak at some other reactor.
When considering the time factor of 30 or 40 years, we must also consider a number of other factors, including the protective clothing that is worn today. For instance, in the field of radiology in the medical profession, no longer do we see those who use fluoroscopy not wearing protective gloves. The loss of the tips of fingers was not unusual. I had a professor in Toronto who had lost the tips of all his fingers from fluoroscopy.
The blush of blood vessels in the face is another example of what happened to physicians who were not fully aware of the hazards of radiation. The protective apparel worn by physicians and technicians in radiology today has yet to prove whether it is serving its full purpose.
On the other hand, how does one demonstrate that a CA of the lungs or CA of the prostate is due to radiation or due to an aging process, taking into account the age of the patient? We have to understand when that 30-year period will begin, in terms of the age of the patient.
I agree with my colleague that a 30-year limitation is a consideration we should study. I understand that the Government is in fact in the process of discussing that very matter.
Increasingly in Canada, we have come to know both the benefits and risks of nuclear energy. The benefits of economical, reliable, convenient, nuclear-generated electricity must be utilized in cognizance of the related risks. We have been reminded of that by the recent incident at Chernobyl. We as legislators must ensure that Canadians enjoy a very favourable risk-benefit balance by providing effective legislation to both ensure the safety and security of nuclear energy and to provide
for emergency planning and liability compensation should that ever be required.
British Columbia is blessed with an abundance of hydroelectric power and the capacity to generate hydro-electric power by virtue of our massive lakes, rivers, streams and mountains. I believe we are also blessed by the fact that almost unanimously, the people of British Columbia have rejected the nuclear power source.
Of course, that is not always possible in reality. Therefore, we have seen the need for a CANDU reactor in areas of Canada where no other option is available other than thermal generation through coal, which we know produces acid rain.
The Atomic Energy Control Act empowers the Atomic Energy Control Board to ensure that nuclear energy is exploited with careful and thorough consideration of the health, safety and security interests of all Canadians. It is in that respect that I am particularly concerned about the opening remarks of the Hon. Member for Skeena with respect to equipment, parts and parts replacement. In the unlikely event that a major nuclear accident should occur in Canada, the Nuclear Liability Act provides the means of compensating Canadians and neighbouring Americans in the case of claims resulting from personal injury and property damage. Since its implementation in 1976, there has not been a single claim made under the Nuclear Liability Act. One has to be concerned about the limit of $75 million when one considers the possible impact upon the United States. We saw the impact of a combination of bad judgment and ignorance which resulted in that terrible incident at Chernobyl. It displays the possibility that such an accident could have a spill-over effect to another country.
The Hon. Member's Bill proposes not that the 10-year limitation period be extended, but rather that it be abolished completely. As such, the proposal overlooks the fact that there must be a fair and just balance struck between the interests of the injured claimant and those of the absolutely liable nuclear plant operator. Although abolishing the 10-year limitation period would be very much to the advantage of potential claimants, it may significantly and unfairly extend the absolute liability of the nuclear plant operator and leave him in an open-ended situation against which he may not be able to indemnify himself. That is why I made reference to the age of the person when exposure might occur.
I recognize that the Hon. Member's suggestion is a possibility, but a balance must be struck. A possible fair, balanced and effective approach may be to extend the current 10-year limitation period to 30 years. This would well serve the interests of both the potential claimant and the nuclear plant operator and would make our Canadian nuclear liability legislation consistent with the developing international norm. Further, I believe that such an amendment should be made as part of the over-all review of the Nuclear Liability Act currently being completed by the interdepartmental working group, which was referred to earlier. It would be useful for the
August 21, 1987

House to examine carefully the results of that report. Such an approach will ensure that review and amendment of the Nuclear Liability Act is done in a comprehensive and consistent manner so that the effectiveness of this very important piece of legislation will be enhanced to the greatest possible degree.
I thank the Hon. Member for Skeena for drawing this matter to our attention. 1 am confident that the committee will handle this in the most appropriate way.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I welcome this opportunity to discuss Bill C-215, an Act to amend the Nuclear Liability Act. However, since in fact, several Members examined the Bill and have prepared their comments, I would like to ask your permission to yield to the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards), who also worked on this Bill. I will only comment, for the time being, that 1 do not think it would be appropriate to adopt this legislation, first of all because the impact may be significant within a period of more than ten and not more than thirty years. I do not think it is particularly urgent to adopt this Bill today. I know a committee of experts is now working on recommendations for the Government. I would now suggest that the Hon. Member for Edmonton South be allowed to present his own comments.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank my colleague from Levis (Mr. Fontaine) for his kindness.
I am very pleased to have this opportunity to debate the Bill of my honourable friend and so-called cousin. The Government acknowledges that a few of the existing provisions of the Nuclear Liability Act are of some concern to various parties. Many Members know that a federal Government interministerial task force is examining some aspects of the legislation. That being so, it would be premature to endorse Bill C-215 at this time.
The Nuclear Liability Act, adopted in 1970 and proclaimed in 1976, provides for funds to offer financial compensation to citizens for injury or damage resulting from an incident in a nuclear plant, a very unlikely occurrence.
The Act alters the normal burden of proof for a claimant by establishing that a duty is owed by the operator, thus eliminating the claimant's need to prove negligence to claim for damages. A claimant need prove only that the injury or damage was caused by the nuclear incident for which the operator is liable, thereby avoiding much unnecessary litigation.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, part of the intent of the Act is to ensure that funds are available to provide financial compensation to third parties for injuries or damages suffered as a result of a "nuclear incident". At the same time, the Act provides
Nuclear Liability Act
protection to the operators by limiting their related liability. It limits the total amount payable by the operator in respect of damages arising from a particular nuclear incident to $75 million. Larger amounts may be authorized by Parliament.

In addition, the Nuclear Liability Act protects persons other than operators. For instance, it protects the suppliers of fuel and parts used in nuclear reactors by restricting to the operator any liability due to a nuclear incident and by preventing the operator from taking legal action against these other people with respect to such liability.
When the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it would be in the public interest to provide special measures for compensation following a nuclear incident, Part II of the Act becomes operative and a Nuclear Damage Claims Commission is established. The commission is empowered to examine and settle claims resulting from a nuclear incident and which are transmitted by the Governor in Council.

The Atomic energy Control Board administers the Act. The board designates the nuclear installations that are subject to the Act, determines who is the operator of the nuclear installation by issuing a licence pursuant to the Atomic Energy Control Act, and determines the amount of basic insurance fixed with the approval of the Treasury Board.
At the time it was proclaimed in 1976, the suggestion was made that the Act be reviewed after five years to determine if any changes would be desirable in light of experience in its administration. In 1982, such a review was begun, even though there had not been a claim under the Act.
An interdepartmental working group, as we are aware, consisting of representatives from Justice, Finance, Treasury Board, insurance, Energy, Mines and Resources and the Atomic Energy Control Board first developed a broad-ranging series of questions concerning the Act and then formulated replies to the questions. These replies were not necessarily the final opinion of the working group. However, they were designed to stimulate public response. The resulting consultative document was issued for public comment, and a number of replies were received. None raised questions or issues not already considered by the working group.
As a result of the public input, the working group is currently reconsidering the original series of answers to its questions with a view to making recommendations to the President of the Atomic Energy Control Board later this year.
In its final report, it is likely that the working group will conclude that the Nuclear Liability Act is conceptionally sound and that its purpose and scope are generally still appropriate. However, a number of contentious questions will still have to be addressed, including whether the $75 million limit on the amount of prescribed insurance is still appropriate, and should the limitation period for claims be extended from 10 years to 30 years in order to include cases of delayed

August 21, 1987
Nuclear Liability Act
cancer, many of which will not appear for 10 years. Should the Act continue to cover normal emissions or should it be confined to nuclear accidents? Should self insurance be allowed under the Act? These are fundamental questions which 1 am sure my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena, is most interested to know the answers to.

In their final report the task force will probably conclude that the Nuclear Liability Act was properly drafted and that its purpose and scope generally remain relevant. However a number of contentious questions will have to be answered, for instance:
-Is the $75-million insurance coverage provided under the legislation still adequate?
-Should the 10-year time limit for filing claims be raised to 30 years to take into account latent cancer cases, many of which do not become discernible during the first ten years?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: I am sure that Hon. Members of the House will agree that since the matter of extending the current
limitation period for claims set out in the Nuclear Liability Act is already under examination, I say with great regret that it would seem inappropriate to support Bill C-215 at this point in time.
The Minister, I am told, awaits with interest the recommendations of the Atomic Energy Control Board. While it is acknowledged that subsequent recommendations by the board to the Government for amendments to the Act may present concerns to some parties, you can be assured, Mr. Speaker, that the interests and safety of the Canadian public will be of paramount importance throughout this entire process.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 3 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 3 p.m.

*
[Stage Direction]


Monday, August 24, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers